[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[David Froble]

Dirk Munk wrote:
> David Froble wrote:
>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>>>> The idea that ownership doesn't always mean that you have absolute
>>>>> control over a building is more common on this side of the big pond 
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> sure. When it is an old building you are more temporally in custody of
>>>>> the building. In 2112 you will be forgotten, but the building will
>>>>> still
>>>>> be there with some luck.
>>>>
>>>> "legallized" theft.  So, the car you own will one day be an antique and
>>>> of considerable value.  Does that mean you are only a "cusdtodian" and
>>>> others can tell you what you have to do to keep it around until that
>>>> time
>>>> arrives?  What about a book?  What about a piece of furniture?
>>>>
>>> Almost every country has laws that prohibit you from selling valuable
>>> objects like antiques, paintings etc. abroad if those objects are
>>> considered valuable for history and culture of that country.
>>>
>>> Last night I saw a beautiful program about vintage Rolls-Royce cars in
>>> India. Before the independence of India Rolls-Royce sold about 850
>>> cars to the Maharajahs. After India became a republic, many of those
>>> cars were not used any more, and foreign collectors bought them for
>>> little money. But then the government made it illegal to sell them
>>> abroad.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm .....
>>
>> Bill makes a very good and valid argument, and so you change the
>> subject.  The subject was real estate property.  Buildings.
> 
> I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have 
> absolute control over it.

And Bill, and I, do not agree with that claim.

> Then *he* asked if this also might apply to 
> other goods like a car, a book or furniture. So I explained to him that 
> indeed this also applies to other objects as well, and I used the 
> example of the vintage Rolls-Royce cars in India.
> 
> Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you 
> please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I 
> know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and 
> 1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern 
> standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental 
> accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these 
> houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours 
> of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change 
> those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your 
> property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any 
> colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects, 
> and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a 
> certain grandeur and that improves the value.

This is different, and I think that everyone has agreed that if you know 
the terms going into something, then you're obligated to adhere to what 
you agreed to do.

Most likely people buying such places are doing it to some extent 
because of the restoration to original, and wouldn't want any changes.