Talk:House on the Rock

Is the Carousel really biggest?...

In the wiki itself it says the Columbia carousel in Great America amusement park. by looking at the pictures of both of them, the one in he House seems much smaller. Now I know there are many ways to measure biggests. Is it the biggest indoor carousel, is it the biggest single deck, biggest with hand carved horses. Some more research need to be done before making the statement it is largest. Seems like a marketing claim rather then a real fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It likely is in some way - the number of lights/animals (no-horses though), but actual air space Six Flags Great America looks larger, book of records had no info.Kidsheaven 05:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just there...

I bought the authorized biography of Alex Jordan, Jr., the guy who started the House on the Rock. I don't have it with me, or I'd edit the main page; maybe sometime this week.

Anyway, the story goes like this: Alex Jordan, Sr., lived in Madison working with brothers in the meat business (it is unclear if they were butchers or what). When Mr. Jordan married, his wife was from a relatively wealthy family that owned real estate, and they got the senior Jordan to start working in that.

One of the projects was called Villa Maria, and was a ladies' dormitory for some school. The two Alex Jordans decided to take the plans to Frank Lloyd Wright to get his opinion. Mr. Wright was not a people person, and allegedly he looked briefly at the plans, then gazed out a window and said, "I wouldn't hire you to draw me a cheese box," or something like that. Alex Jordan, Jr., particularly felt this snub, and decided to build something to rival what Wright did at nearby Taliesin.

Alex Jordan, Jr., was involved in some varied money-making schemes in his youth, but he always remembered a rock, called Deer Shelter Rock, in that part of Wisconsin. He used to picnic there, and eventually started building a house there. It was after construction started that he arranged a lease of the rock and land from the actual owners!

Alex Jordan, Sr., provided some money to his son for construction and land purchases. His real estate holdings were doing well, but he kept expecting his son to make the House a tourist item, and charge admission. This was resisted until the early 1960s; I believe in 1961, the first year admission was charged, they made $15,000. The next year they more than doubled that. This income was plowed back into the house construction, and later, to the various warehouses and displays of collections that Alex Jordan, Jr., got into.

It seems that the house itself was intended as a retreat, but not as an actual home. The references in the biography to time spent there was mostly related to parties. It seems Alex Jordan, Jr., spent most of his time living in Madison working on ideas, if he wasn't at the house. I get the impression from the biography that Alex didn't get into collecting until he had the financial resources from the tours of the house. I wonder what a forensic psychologist would make of the guy.

But the idea that Alex, Sr., was a student of Wright's isn't supporting by the authorized biography of Alex, Jr. Nor is the idea that the house was started by Alex, Sr.; it seems to be a mania of Alex, Jr., though Alex, Sr., did provide funds and was on the House's board of directors that formed after it opened to the public and charged admission. Finally, the idea that most of the stuff was built by Alex, Jr., is wrong; there's a section in the biography that says this was an idea dreamt up by Alex's friend Syd Boyrum, to help start a legend about the house. Alex, Jr., always had help from local workmen, but it wasn't a one-man show by any means. Like Walt Disney, he was the source of ideas and the inspiration, and he helped out, but others were involved early on. Jhugart 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Senior/Junior

There actually were two Alex Jordans, one senior and one junior, the older one a failed student of Wright who began the House on the Rock as his revenge against the architect but passed the project on to his son during the 1940s. —Tarnas 20:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Roadside Attraction?

There wasn't a road anywhere near Deer Shelter Rock when Jordan began construction in 1945. Tourists would hike in to see the house. When a road was eventually built to the attraction, it was for the purpose of providing access to the site. Alex Jordan, Jr. could not have "first marketed it as a roadside attraction" because House on the Rock was not, nor is it now, on the side of a road to another destination. --Frank Lloyd Wrong 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Built to mock Wright?

While I was at the House on the Rock someone told me that Alex Jordan was studying with Frank Lloyd Wright who at some point snubbed him, and so Jordan started building the house on the rock (the first "house" part) mostly to make fun of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I'd love to add this to the main page but I don't know the whole story and I don't want to get it up there wrong... anyone have any insight on this story? --Skweeds 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated the page with citations to the House’s website. AristosM (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Balousek's book

Well, to echo Jhugart's remarks, I was just there, but I bought the unauthorized biography through a used book dealer: Balousek, Marv (1990 Waubesa Press). House of Alex: A true story of architecture and art; greed, deception and mail. Oregon, Wisconsin. ISBN 1-878569-06-6. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

It is absolutely fascinating, but I want to handle it gingerly. I haven't looked up the original series in the Wisconsin State Journal (and don't expect to be able to), but I think we can take at face value Balousek's statements he was a reporter and that the book is based on three months of research which led to a four-part series published in the Wisconsin State Journal. If so, this material was published in a legitimate newspaper—actually the newspaper of record for the State of Wisconsin, I believe—which would probably count as a reputable source. On the other hand, the book is published by Waubesa Press, which is a subsidy imprint—i.e. the book is self-published. So, I'm making that clear in the reference, and I'm going to keep the material from the book together in a separate section of the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I now have the authorized biography as well, and for the most part they are reasonably consistent with each other. Moe's book was published a year after Balousek's, and I almost get the impression that the House on the Rock organization must have had to acknowledge the factuality of Balousek's book, but wanted to put a different spin on some of them.

I'm going to continue to tinkering with the article. My plan now is that, since Balousek and Moe are reasonably consistent, it's not necessary to isolated Balousek's material in its own section. It can be told coherently, with careful attention to the fair presentation of material that is factually similar but has a different "spin" in the two books, and with very careful attention to those mentioned only in one book (E.g. the blackmail incident described by Balousek).

Both books use Sid Boyum as a source, which is curious because both of them characterize him as a teller of tall tales, yet in numerous places they use him as a source without so much as an aside to the readers that the material may be unreliable. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I didn't think it was required to post a rationale for an obvious issue, but anyway here are several:

• Chronologically confusing
• Topically confusing with a mixture of biographical, structural, tourist, and collections details
• Subpar and a bit casual writing for areas that deserve better like the collections
• Undue weight to the authenticity issue without a prior treatment of the collections themselves

It's a decent article but at the very best I give it a B- for comprehensiveness; it covers one or two aspects of the topic in depth and others not at all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just there and the colleciton of muskets and old pistols looks antique, but I noticed that all the screws look like modern machine-made screws. It would seem that someone went to the trouble of makine antique-looking parts, but them screwed them all togetenr with modern screws. And in at least one I saw that the barrel was not cylindrical where it rode above the wooden stock. There was a gap there, the metal of the barrel being semicircular only. Also, all or the vast majority of the gun cases have the exact same hinges. AtomAnt (talk) August 2007 (UTC)

House on the Rock Books, DVD's

I was there and I noticed some of what is stated above and would not seem possible that to know the background of the displays. Some mention is made of reproduction, and also fixing/restoring items - with the information given, Alex does not as I have seen claim that all is restored to original condition. Many items are not in very good condition, it looks like an impossible job to maintain the collection. Only a few lights were seen burned out in what is listed as up to 20,000 bulbs on one display alone. Noticed bulbs 120 watts, on a dimmer, does that make them last longer? Must have a high electric bill.

Anyone know of the quality of the DVD's for sale, would be interesting to learn more, but no opportunity is offered to see any sample to get any idea of the quality of the DVDs and would be expensive to buy several.?

The books - one had many pictures, but not sure that there was enough of interest vs. the pictures I took, though person making the book had better lighting.?

Alex Jordan book, glanced through it, though not sure of it's value either?

Any opinion should I buy any when I get a chance to go back?

A non-museum, though a tour or such would be of interest and background of how the collection was obtained, real vs. reproductions of some interest. Noticed several electronic boards for musical devices or organs that are 1980's vintage that look poor condition or dusty, (know time frame as they have integrated circuit chips). Kidsheaven 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

arhitecture section?

shouldn't there be a section on the architecture/design of the building itsself? I couln't find much but I might have missed it. If I remember right, isn't there a giant cantilevered hall that sticks out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.109.120 (talk) 21:48, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

10,000 Maniacs video

Wasn't the 10,000 Maniacs video for "More Than This" filmed there? Would be interesting to see that noted in the entry. Tracymmo (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Tracy

I just returned

I just returned from my first visit and can only say wow! As time goes on this place will only get more interesting. The house is both a fantasy come true and a building inspector's nightmare. The construction could never be reproduced in today's regulated world. The house has a mood of isolation and calm that thumbs it's nose at the outside world. In contrast, the exhibits capture the excitement and wonder in the world over the past two centuries. They artifacts, real or not, will gain credibility as time goes on. This is not a theme park that will need restyling every year.

The tour left me inspired and amazed, yet in similar contrast, sad when I realized how unimaginative, conservative and homogenized the world has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.110.203 (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a whale

The huge floor-to-ceiling... thing... in the Heritage of the Sea exhibit is not a whale. The House on the Rock calls it a "sea creature." It is vaguely whale-like, but whales of that size do not have teeth. Although there is a mechanized octopus that plays "In An Octopus's Garden," it's not fighting with the sea creature; I don't think it's important to mention it as it is not a particularly important feature of the exhibit, which like all House on the Rock exhibits has such an overwhelming quantity of mind-boggling stuff that it's hard to pick and choose the boggliest of all.

(Incidentally I think it speaks volumes that the House on the Rock management chose to build a fanciful whale-like creature when they could just as easily have built an accurate whale replica.). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Sperm Whales? They have teeth, and that thing looks an awful lot like one, even if it is too big.Sumanuil (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Great place but not well maintained

I just got back from the House on the Rock and it was really cool. Unfortunately the current owners destroyed the house by making it more like a museum! they screwed railing and blockades into walls to keep people out of rooms and don't take very good care of the place. The museum part was really interesting with all the automated bands but there are almost zero signs to explain what they are and there's only about 5 emplyees throughout the whole place so don't try finding the info. There is also a lot of randomly placed items in places in the museums with themes, and I question the originality of almost everything. There is supposedly a 245 karat diamond along with a ton more "diamonds" and heirlooms of kings and queens behind half inch wobley plexiglass and not an employee or security guard in the whole section of the museum. The infinity room is in bad condition and when you walk out to the end it shakes with every step! But with some work would be AMAZING, same with the rest of the house and museum. I really enjoyed it though. We were there all day and got through all of it. The owners really should have just left it be and let it remain a piece of nature rather turn it into a huge tourist attraction with parking lots as far as the trees try to hide them. And I would really like to be able to walk around the rock to actually see the house but it's all a bunch of metal buildings houseing the museum and overgrown trees that cover the house. But it's something fun to do with the family and in the end can be enjoyed if you get around all the destroyed history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.133.74 (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion On Article Reorganization

I just finished up a major reorganization of the structure of the article and was wondering if there were any thought on the new layout. Here is a list of what was done:

• Re-quoted Jane Smiley
• Renamed "Overview" to "Layout and Attractions" and moved the picture in the header to this section.
• Ordered the sections as such: Background, Layout and Attractions, Authenticity of the collections, Timeline, In Other Media
• Added the Modern Architecture Infobox to the header.

Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We were at The House on the Rock today, coming away with mixed impressions of an eccentric recluse attempting a poorly constructed rendition of a Frank Lloyd Wright home. The house, while reminiscent of Wright's choice for a beautiful location to include panoramic views, has none of the style, attention to detail and solid construction one finds in his architecture. The masses of collections are poorly marked, if at all, and when marked are not necessarily validated. There is often little organizational flow to the exhibits and one tires of the darkness, the musty air and the very real feeling that the tour is never-ending. The site does not come close to other examples of ostentatious living such as The Hearst Castle or The Biltmore House, both of which - like this one - are expensive tours, but have substantial documentation as to the authenticity of their contents. The collections housed inside the museum sections of The House on the Rock give the impression they were bought in salvage sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunren56 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with House on the Rock Carousel

The House on the Rock Carousel page is a stub and can be easily merged into the main page with a redirect being sufficient. A separate article is not really needed. Dolotta (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House on the Rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526065236/http://www.westcotthouse.org/wright_in_japan.html to http://www.westcotthouse.org/wright_in_japan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Exterior?

It'd be nice if there was a photograph showing what the exterior or overhead of the place looks like. I didn't really find anything on Commons that illustrates that well. Opencooper (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)