He was designing buildings back in the late 1800s. While there is obviously a good deal work required in maintaining buildings from that era, I don't think that Wright's work has required a disproportionate amount of attention.
The Imperial Hotel in Japan survived a massive 1923 Tokyo earthquake due to several design decisions made by Wright.
As long as you stay on top of it, the maintenance is totally reasonable. Putting a new roof on is identical to any other house. Ditto siding, ditto paint (minus having to worry about lead).
I recently replaced >20 original windows on one of them. They were just held in with trim. Honestly it was easier than taking out an 80s era aluminum window.
In many ways they’re better than modern construction. The lumber they used is miles ahead of anything on the market today. Lots of old growth redwood and cedar that give you some natural rot protection.
I know little about the maintenance challenges of Wright buildings, but generally speaking old wood houses are not crazy expensive to maintain. But my house is a pretty standard shape, and it doesn’t have a waterfall running underneath it.
Your supposition runs counter to what has been documented many times by many industry publications and general purpose newspapers.
I know about ten very good architects who work on very large projects around the world. Two of whom would deserve to be called "starchitects," if they were interested in self-promotion. Wright is well-known in the professional architecture world as someone whose buildings are great when the go up, but quickly reveal their flaws once lived in and used.
The Imperial Hotel in Japan survived a massive 1923 Tokyo earthquake due to several design decisions made by Wright
One building out of over a thousand. Oak Park, Illinois has no shortage of homes that have become well-publicized money pits because of Mr. Wright's choices.
Heck, his very famous Fallingwater house is considered one of his crowning achievements, but is also a spectacular failure. He built it over a waterfall, and didn't take humidity into consideration. He built it in Pennsylvania and didn't take winter into consideration. Defects in the concrete floor designs were noted even during construction. Nothing to do with age.
Compared to a Gehry building that's flawed before the first occupant even steps foot inside, that sounds pretty good :)
Promises 25 places on the map.
Okay, here’s one about the latest in a long tradition of remodelling:
https://www.oakpark.com/2022/02/16/how-do-you-remodel-wright...
Alludes to longstanding issues with adapting prarie-inspired visuals to the local climate.
newspapers.com is your resource for stuff that's not on The Google. Searching is much harder, though. You kinda need to know the dates things were published.
I'm the weirdo who actually reads our local newspapers, for what it's worth. Like I said, I actually live here.
The Johnson labs, for example, was designed to allow in lots of natural light through glass and glass block walls. Great for reading. Terrible if the people inside work with substances that react to light.
Again, great concept. Visually wonderful. But not well thought out.
They are still working there. It took a lot of post-construction work to make it usable and rainproof. And it's beautiful, which you certainly can't say about 99% of the corporate buildings in use nowadays.
Wright was always pushing boundaries in construction technology and ended up using a lot of techniques and materials that weren't quite ready for production.
I'd bet that almost every design of his could be made today with no long-term maintenance issues whatsoever.
Frank Lloyd Wright homes sell for much less than they you might think based on their looks, because they're maintenance nightmares. Lots of newspaper articles about this over the last 50 years.