The Stanley Marcus Estate: Some thoughts on the proposed demolition

Stanley Marcus was responsible for building a department store that is now known internationally for both its quality and durability. At the same time, he help build a city along the same principals. The legacies of Dallas and Stanley Marcus are forever intertwined and an important part of this story is that of the house he built for his family at 10 Nonesuch Road in East Dallas. From every perspective, it is an important historic building; it's association with Stanley Marcus, the story of the failed relationship with Frank Lloyd Wright to execute the original design, the association with prominent and prolific Dallas architect Roscoe DeWitt  who designed the house that stands today, the International Style influences exhibited by the house and even the events and internationally known individuals who frequently visited there. With that background, this would be an important historic structure had it been built in any city in America. Now word comes that the current owners, people who bought the estate directly from Stanley Marcus 14 years ago, have begun the application process to demolish the building. Read for yourself at the Dallas Observer and the Dallas Morning News.

As with previous efforts to destroy historic buildings and sites, one of the first arguments presented is that of the owner's property rights to do what they want with their building. Sigh. My perspective after the jump.

Property rights. There is no doubt about the current owner's  rights to do what he has planned, it's just that those rights are irrelevant. The problem is that our rights are a safety net, not a standard of behavior. They are what we fall back on when qualities like reason, propriety or just being a good neighbor are ignored. We all have rights we have no business exercising.

Perhaps because all buildings are expensive, whether they are historic or not, and because they continue to serve an important utilitarian roll, it seems to be difficult for some to see why it is important to treat them as they would other recognized and important artistic works or cultural icons. We seem never to read of private collectors modifying famous paintings in their collection just to make them match the new furniture, or taking notes on the blank side of a letter penned by Abraham Lincoln, yet certainly they have the right to do so. I can remember seeing multiple scenes from movies and tv where someone plays with a baseball autographed by Babe Ruth. It's usually presented as comedy. That is exactly what is happening on Nonesuch Place, except it is not funny.

The letters sent between young Stanley Marcus and architect Frank Lloyd Wright are in the collection of the Dallas Museum of Art and are at times on exhibit. While Mr. Wright ultimately did not design Mr. Marcus' house, the current house is an integral part of that story, the story of Stanley Marcus and of Dallas' formative years.

That someone has the right to destroy that house does not change the fact that doing so is both callous and irresponsible.

Comments

[Norman Alston]

For any who may not have seen this, Mr. Lovvorn has had a change of heart.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081608dnmetmarcushouse.4c56b18f.html

I am very appreciative to him and his family for this selfless decision. However, I am very troubled by the large number of truly shameful comments I have read that mock his faith as a basis for his decision. Ultimately, he has shown far more class in this matter than have most of his critics. For me personally, I am going to be much more selective in my reading in the future.

[Jeff Siegel]

A well-thought, excellently written voice of reason. Nicely done. Whenever people start hollering property rights, I'm reminded of a small child who takes his baseball and goes home because he can't play shortstop. It's certainly his right to do so, but we also teach our children they aren't supposed to do stuff like that.