According to Treehugger this is in the process of being destroyed. From Erickson's site:

The site for the house was a rock cliff dropping forty feet from the arrival level down a sheer cliff to a rock bench over the sea. The solution to this difficult site was the creation of a multi-storey house descending the slope in levels.

The formal idea of the piling up of hovering beams was the basis of the composition. These enclose the major living areas, which step down the embankment for four storeys from the carport to the bluff over the sea below. Each area opens onto a roof terrace over the living quarters below, so that there is maximum access to sunlight and view. Because of the ruggedness of the site, the outside living areas are confined almost entirely to the roof areas of the house itself.

A texture difference is achieved between the walls and box beams by using flat siding on the beams and a deep board and batten on the walls. The house is treated with a simple oil finish and the only other materials used in conjunction with the wood are used brick and a Welsh quarry tile.

Kind of a bummer but all of the debate over whether the owner can destroy it seems misplaced...I mean, he does own it right?


michaeld2lo said...

Your right, the discussion of whether he CAN destroy is silly. He does OWN it.. but the question is, why did he BUY it???!!!

Aaron said...

I agree with you my man. Why would you buy something like this and then destroy it? Maybe he is just trying to stir up a little controversy.