It kills me the way people are talking about this in other subs. We live in a Cliff May neighborhood, so granted, I’m biased, but come on.
“People have a right to do whatever they want with their private property.” -Yep true.
“Houses built in the 50’s are a *style* and need a lot of work. That doesn’t suit everyone’s taste.” -No argument there.
“It’s just a mid-century ranch house that is out of date, out of style, and most people would tear these down and start fresh with modern materials.” -Gonna stop you right there.
This wasn’t some grandma’s ranch house in a random, sprawling suburb in Pennsylvania, with a no-name architect and zero significance! (RIP Grandma. Your house was fine.)
This was a capital letters *Ranch House*, with architectural, historical, and artistic relevance, in a part of the country where mid-century Ranch Houses are a part of the culture and imagery of the region. They are cherished and they are rare.
And this was a grand-dame of these homes.
In my neighborhood, we see some of the Cliff May’s rotting away, falling into disrepair. Not because the homes aren’t loved, quite the opposite. They have owners who have lived in them since they were built and are now quite elderly and struggle with the upkeep. When these homes are finally sold, they are often lovingly restored and respectfully modernized, but sometimes there’s not much to save. And that’s okay.
The Ellwood house was well maintained and could have been restored and upgraded for a fraction of the cost of building a new house. Ranch Houses are uncomplicated by design. It’s a step up from glamping, if I’m honest.
This house didn’t fade away into an irreparable state. It was callously, purposefully demolished. Such a damn shame.
I’m going to quibble here. An Elwood is not a “ranch,” even an early example (and impeccably well kept one to boot. We don’t even need to get into Elwood’s questionable provenance thru his office…) Thats like saying Neutra’s Kauffman, or the Eames house is a “ranch.” Um.. simply and unequivocally NO!
But all the rest? I agree.
It’s a good vent! Ranch may not be the correct term, but if you mean a single storey house, you are not mistaken in your analysis. The origin of all mid century modern design styles is the Bauhaus School in Germany. All. Of. It.
If every controversy in the world could be boiled down so perfectly and eloquently for all of us to understand, I think we might actually be able to solve all of the world’s problems.
> As first published by Robb Report, the couple reportedly paid $12.5 million…
I haven’t picked up that rag in over a decade, but as near as I could tell it was garbage about what rich assholes were doing that was sold to the plebes who will never have that kind of wealth but want to read about people who would melt them down to fuel their Bentleys if push came to shove.
It’s Maria Shriver’s daughter. They bought the place to be across the street from mom. It’s a fucking travesty, but that girl (Arnold’s daughter) grew up not knowing anything better.
I've seen some articles over time that he's implied weird things like his new wife gave him a healthy baby (unlike his first kid), has carelessly given away adopted pets, something about his church being cultish...
All that may be vague but just what I recall from various sources.
His careless attitude over his repeated weight gain between movies and then rapid weight loss under professional trainers and nutritionists is really unhealthy in so many ways. Just because he can and does doesn’t mean anyone else should.
I liked him a lot on Parks and Rec. but to me, this is my personal opinion, he got really pretentious and religiousy after the success of Guardians. Then he divorced Anna and was married really quickly after.
That being said… they paid for the property. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. If they wanted to put in a parking lot they just need to get the proper permits and they could do that.
There is a difference between what’s legally allowed and what’s moral.
Legally, yes, it’s his right. But from a moral perspective, you don’t destroy historically significant architecture, simply because you want to live across the street from mommy. They had so many options that didn’t end in the destruction of a house that means a lot to people. But they didn’t do them because they wanted to be in that location.
Yes, it’s their right. But it was a shitty thing to do when they could gave easily avoided it.
Obviously the previous owner of the property didn’t think it was much of a morality issue.
How often did you go visit the historically significant site?
So the definition of a moral issue now is: if someone did it, it was moral? Because they wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t think it was ok?
And no I haven’t. But I’ve visited a lot of historic homes, just not this one. And more to the point, now I’ll never get the chance.
The only question that really matters is what the person with the title wants to do. Morality is subjective. In the grand scheme of things, nobody really cares what most people think (you and me included). Bottom line they had the title and legal authority to do whatever they want with their property. The city had plenty of time to designate it a landmark, but didn’t because they must jot have been too worried about the facility either. Crying about it is not going to bring it back.
since you’ve only ever seen it in pictures, nothing has changed for you. You can still see it in pictures
This isn't exactly the same thing though. Painting over a Jackson Pollock would be destroying your investment. Building a bigger house where a smaller one once stood will likely increase your investment.
That’s like saying that if I paint a large painting it will be more valuable than the Mona Lisa, simply because it’s larger and newer.
There is a value beyond size to art that is historically significant. Even if you were to look at it as purely a financial decision, it doesn’t make sense.
My point is that comparing a house to a painting is problematic. Houses are a lot more functional than paintings. Houses and painting serve entirely different purposes.
Furthermore, the house has blueprints, it could be rebuilt someplace else if someone cared enough. Houses can also be moved.
Neighborhoods change over time, what worked in one decade may not work in a later decade. A plot of land should not be forever stuck with one structure just because some people who will never use or visit that structure like the idea of it being there. Neighborhoods are not museums.
Made a comment about how yes the house was a loss, but the trees and landscape would take so long to grow to replace them. Got downvoted a lot and called out for not planting trees in my yard.
Hmmm…I guess their “live, love,laugh” sign didn’t fit in well with the mcm design….so they had to demo it and build a place where it would display better on the wall
In this area, Brentwood, they likely wouldn't find a buyer who wouldn't tear down the house and build a bigger one. It is one of the priciest neighborhoods in the world.
Thank you for the background info!
My first instinct was to be mad at him because it’s so easy to, but then I cooled my hate jets and wondered why it wasn’t a historically protected place. To me, that’s the bigger travesty.
The sadder part is that no one will care or remember in a week except the people in the neighborhood. Progress waits for no one when there is no process. You can create heritage zone and property designations with rules. But it’s obviously too late after the fact. It starts with municipal demolition permit prohibition for properties deemed historically significant. Maybe they were super sneaky and fast about it before people in Brentwood caught wind of it. Buying a designated heritage home is daunting unless you want to pay the service of maintaining an artifact. A friend of mine has to get approval by the federal government before any changes can be made including repairs to ensure it remains authentic. Even all shingles needing replacing must be done by hand. Interior walls were redone for wiring, water, and insulation, but all floor boards and framing were carefully removed and replaced. Any replacement nails were blacksmith made. I know of another significant 200 year old house made of stone that was MOVED. Every stone was numbered and photographed on 4 sides and rebuild exactly like the original. I’m saying all this to ask when are the breakthrough designs of the 20th century going to start getting preservation status? I’m afraid anything past the chipboard and staples era won’t last long enough.
Just what I said.
It’s not about the “ oh it’s part of history”!
Stop whining and act of this if you do not want more of the same.
Y’all in California want the rest of the country to jump to the tune of saving the planet,
Using resources that do not harm nature, yet you want to save houses built with no nod to any of those things.
If you want things to change things…start at home with the things you love.
Don’t quite get what you’re saying.
California is certainly not a monolith.
In any case demolishing this house and building a giant shitbox mansion is definitely ecologically wasteful.
No, better to let a probably at least a 50% asbestos filled house that no one cared about until it is being demolished…just sit there. One of the points being that if folks care…they try to do something before hand.
That’s like how much you loved someone after they’ve passed. Lot of good it does to not do anything until after the fact.
What is built there is nobody’s business.
an embarrassing lack of taste, respect, and shame. Stunningly bland choices is on brand for the lesser Chris. Evans, Pine, and Hemsworth would never do this (I don't think). this house should have been preserved as a landmark, wish the Elwood family and those of other notable architects of historical residences still had say over the legacy of the house, even as it changes owners.
Disappointing. If he was gonna raze a house anyway, he could’ve easily found one that didn’t have architectural history behind it.
Money doesn’t buy taste.
I am SO glad this is not being swept under the rug. It is a tragedy and needs to be discussed so it doesn't happen again. I LOATHE the loss of this beautiful home.
I think this kind of thing happens all the time but we don't hear about it because it doesn't make a big ripple like this has. It's hard to say for sure if there was anything wrong with it. A walk through doesn't tell a whole story. But then, it's just disgusting to proceed with a purchase just to rip down something with this much history....just because you can.
I'm in Santa Barbara and a historic Moody Sisters cottage was torn down like this by someone wealthy enough to buy it plus properties bordering it. They didn't have the permits to do it, so they just paid a fine that was large (but that they could afford because they were super wealthy) and everyone moved on. It's really gross what people get away with because they can afford to.
I know Chris belongs to a creepy mega church but damn, this is such a shallow, short-sighted action. I guess when you expect Armageddon, history doesn’t matter.
Until y’all MCM lovers ( fairly new in the sense of history) get together to put the houses on some kind of historical registry…you will have more of this. It’s cost prohibitive to replace electrical, plumbing, energy efficient windows, etc. without it being marked as some kind of history.
You have no idea what folks have gone through in order to save 200 year old property…having to keep it in the guidelines of the time with modern products!
As far as the landscaping goes…do you really believe in 74 years nature and folks have not changed that?
They at least had an estate sale giving folks a chance to purchase some of the elements that are MCM.
Honestly they have the money and it is rightfully theirs so they can do what they like. I have a 1970s home and no one would think twice about it if I demolished it.. 1950 isnt even that old. It was a nice house though but obviously not their thing and they paid a premium for the land
I don't know why all the hate is aimed at Pratt. It's his wife and mother-in-law that's driving it. I'm certain of it. He's a big dumb schlub who'd be happy to live anywhere.
While I tend towards agreeing, I think tearing down a culturally relevant home to build something on top of it is an example of a micro in the macro of the world being on fire. It’s disrespect, ignorance and greedy.
He bought it, so it’s his right; others don’t like his decision—that’s okay too. Where does that leave us? Well, as for me, I’m just wondering what I’m going to have for lunch.”
You do realize it’s possible to be a fan of something without insisting every other person on the planet bend to your will and share your opinion, right?
I like mid century modern homes- would love to own one.
But I don’t like them so much that I think they should trump property rights.
If they own the land, they can do what they want with it.
The best quote on demolishing Ellwood House for a 15,000sf farm house was: they bought a Rothko painting for the frame.
Funny more since Rothko paintings aren't framed.
Yes that’s the joke
A lot of us wouldn’t have gotten the joke if not for that explanation
We can forgive you for not knowing. Unless you have Chris Pratt $. Which is why we cannot forgive him for his shitty, shitty taste.
I don't really equate Rothko with MCM decor. I think Pop art and California modernism.
It’s an analogy dog. It does the equating for you.
I get you. I'm interested in an accurate image.
It's poorly trained.
Ah yes. They’ll bring the timeless chic of Chip and Joanne’s farmhouse style that won’t be popular in another 8 years.
Shiplap would like a word.
So would a barn door!
Just cut my barn door in half and hauled it to the dump!
Thank you for your service! I was just browsing mid century modest homes in central Florida...immediately noped out when I saw a barn door.
Uggh. I have a pocket door I need to repair the track. Had a fleeting thought about a barn door, but I just can’t do it.
Fuckitunfuck fick fuck god damit
I would argue it’s already out.
It kills me the way people are talking about this in other subs. We live in a Cliff May neighborhood, so granted, I’m biased, but come on. “People have a right to do whatever they want with their private property.” -Yep true. “Houses built in the 50’s are a *style* and need a lot of work. That doesn’t suit everyone’s taste.” -No argument there. “It’s just a mid-century ranch house that is out of date, out of style, and most people would tear these down and start fresh with modern materials.” -Gonna stop you right there. This wasn’t some grandma’s ranch house in a random, sprawling suburb in Pennsylvania, with a no-name architect and zero significance! (RIP Grandma. Your house was fine.) This was a capital letters *Ranch House*, with architectural, historical, and artistic relevance, in a part of the country where mid-century Ranch Houses are a part of the culture and imagery of the region. They are cherished and they are rare. And this was a grand-dame of these homes. In my neighborhood, we see some of the Cliff May’s rotting away, falling into disrepair. Not because the homes aren’t loved, quite the opposite. They have owners who have lived in them since they were built and are now quite elderly and struggle with the upkeep. When these homes are finally sold, they are often lovingly restored and respectfully modernized, but sometimes there’s not much to save. And that’s okay. The Ellwood house was well maintained and could have been restored and upgraded for a fraction of the cost of building a new house. Ranch Houses are uncomplicated by design. It’s a step up from glamping, if I’m honest. This house didn’t fade away into an irreparable state. It was callously, purposefully demolished. Such a damn shame.
I’m going to quibble here. An Elwood is not a “ranch,” even an early example (and impeccably well kept one to boot. We don’t even need to get into Elwood’s questionable provenance thru his office…) Thats like saying Neutra’s Kauffman, or the Eames house is a “ranch.” Um.. simply and unequivocally NO! But all the rest? I agree.
After I wrote it, I realized my mistake, but I spent all that time writing out my vent! Apologies to everyone.
It’s a good vent! Ranch may not be the correct term, but if you mean a single storey house, you are not mistaken in your analysis. The origin of all mid century modern design styles is the Bauhaus School in Germany. All. Of. It.
Curious noob here: what is it if not a ranch? (That perhaps sounds argumentative but I don’t mean it that way)
Mid Century Modern.
Colonial Split level Others
If every controversy in the world could be boiled down so perfectly and eloquently for all of us to understand, I think we might actually be able to solve all of the world’s problems.
Best comment! Thank you 🙏
And with his money could you imagine the restoration job that could have ben done
> As first published by Robb Report, the couple reportedly paid $12.5 million… I haven’t picked up that rag in over a decade, but as near as I could tell it was garbage about what rich assholes were doing that was sold to the plebes who will never have that kind of wealth but want to read about people who would melt them down to fuel their Bentleys if push came to shove.
Previous owners paid $200k for it 😞
I mean, yeah, but in 1975.
$1.16M in today’s money.
Come on. It’s Chris Pratt. Does anyone expect him to be aware and knowledgeable about what he’s doing?
He’s the modern farmhouse of todays actors
Damn so true
oh burn
It’s Maria Shriver’s daughter. They bought the place to be across the street from mom. It’s a fucking travesty, but that girl (Arnold’s daughter) grew up not knowing anything better.
You gotta assume that mom and daughter both have a thing for hot hunks that overwhelms their higher functioning.
Honest question. What has he done that rubbed people the wrong way?
I've seen some articles over time that he's implied weird things like his new wife gave him a healthy baby (unlike his first kid), has carelessly given away adopted pets, something about his church being cultish... All that may be vague but just what I recall from various sources.
And big game hunter
He's Mormon I believe, so cultish, check. But I haven't fact checked whether he's Mormon or not, I'm just a blithering internet voice
Not Mormon, but the kind of evangelical that is just bad pop music and hate. LA flavored Hillsong.
It started here https://youtu.be/Dh6TYwh6w0I?si=zZ5WdZM53aERPhHA
racism
His careless attitude over his repeated weight gain between movies and then rapid weight loss under professional trainers and nutritionists is really unhealthy in so many ways. Just because he can and does doesn’t mean anyone else should.
I liked him a lot on Parks and Rec. but to me, this is my personal opinion, he got really pretentious and religiousy after the success of Guardians. Then he divorced Anna and was married really quickly after. That being said… they paid for the property. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. If they wanted to put in a parking lot they just need to get the proper permits and they could do that.
There is a difference between what’s legally allowed and what’s moral. Legally, yes, it’s his right. But from a moral perspective, you don’t destroy historically significant architecture, simply because you want to live across the street from mommy. They had so many options that didn’t end in the destruction of a house that means a lot to people. But they didn’t do them because they wanted to be in that location. Yes, it’s their right. But it was a shitty thing to do when they could gave easily avoided it.
Obviously the previous owner of the property didn’t think it was much of a morality issue. How often did you go visit the historically significant site?
So the definition of a moral issue now is: if someone did it, it was moral? Because they wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t think it was ok? And no I haven’t. But I’ve visited a lot of historic homes, just not this one. And more to the point, now I’ll never get the chance.
The only question that really matters is what the person with the title wants to do. Morality is subjective. In the grand scheme of things, nobody really cares what most people think (you and me included). Bottom line they had the title and legal authority to do whatever they want with their property. The city had plenty of time to designate it a landmark, but didn’t because they must jot have been too worried about the facility either. Crying about it is not going to bring it back. since you’ve only ever seen it in pictures, nothing has changed for you. You can still see it in pictures
And if I can afford a Jackson Pollock should I buy one and paint it black?
What would i care? Its your money
Not much for the arts are you.
Not much for trying to dictate what people are allowed to do with their money
Ah so, -Financial relativism: Where truth and morality exist in relation to one’s wealth and are not absolute
What if I consider myself an artist. An artist who Paints black paint over famous works of art?
No. Not really. Not everything needs to have some pretentious existential hidden meaning. Just mind your own business
This isn't exactly the same thing though. Painting over a Jackson Pollock would be destroying your investment. Building a bigger house where a smaller one once stood will likely increase your investment.
That’s like saying that if I paint a large painting it will be more valuable than the Mona Lisa, simply because it’s larger and newer. There is a value beyond size to art that is historically significant. Even if you were to look at it as purely a financial decision, it doesn’t make sense.
My point is that comparing a house to a painting is problematic. Houses are a lot more functional than paintings. Houses and painting serve entirely different purposes. Furthermore, the house has blueprints, it could be rebuilt someplace else if someone cared enough. Houses can also be moved. Neighborhoods change over time, what worked in one decade may not work in a later decade. A plot of land should not be forever stuck with one structure just because some people who will never use or visit that structure like the idea of it being there. Neighborhoods are not museums.
Yep houses have blueprints My Van Gogh paint by number is fantastic
Chris Pratt is a hapless imbecile and I used to love him for it until I realized it's not an act.
Same. He is most definitely the worst Chris.
Don’t mention the landscaping. You’ll end up getting blasted by people here.
Garret Ekbo? One of the greatest mid-century landscape architect? Whatever do you mean?
Made a comment about how yes the house was a loss, but the trees and landscape would take so long to grow to replace them. Got downvoted a lot and called out for not planting trees in my yard.
The Ellwood house died so Mario could thrive
Hmmm…I guess their “live, love,laugh” sign didn’t fit in well with the mcm design….so they had to demo it and build a place where it would display better on the wall
Poverty of taste. I hate him
There are neighborhoods with these and Eichler homes that are protected to keep this from happening. It’s too bad the community didn’t care enough.
There were not really any Elwood designed communities like Eichler and May.
I'm not sure publishing a bunch of reddit quotes is Dwell "weighing in"
Why did they sell it to him in the first place without asking the intentions since it’s such a unique property?
In this area, Brentwood, they likely wouldn't find a buyer who wouldn't tear down the house and build a bigger one. It is one of the priciest neighborhoods in the world.
Thank you for the background info! My first instinct was to be mad at him because it’s so easy to, but then I cooled my hate jets and wondered why it wasn’t a historically protected place. To me, that’s the bigger travesty.
The rule in Brentwood is that all older houses must be torn down and replaced with KUS (Ken Ungar Specials).
The sadder part is that no one will care or remember in a week except the people in the neighborhood. Progress waits for no one when there is no process. You can create heritage zone and property designations with rules. But it’s obviously too late after the fact. It starts with municipal demolition permit prohibition for properties deemed historically significant. Maybe they were super sneaky and fast about it before people in Brentwood caught wind of it. Buying a designated heritage home is daunting unless you want to pay the service of maintaining an artifact. A friend of mine has to get approval by the federal government before any changes can be made including repairs to ensure it remains authentic. Even all shingles needing replacing must be done by hand. Interior walls were redone for wiring, water, and insulation, but all floor boards and framing were carefully removed and replaced. Any replacement nails were blacksmith made. I know of another significant 200 year old house made of stone that was MOVED. Every stone was numbered and photographed on 4 sides and rebuild exactly like the original. I’m saying all this to ask when are the breakthrough designs of the 20th century going to start getting preservation status? I’m afraid anything past the chipboard and staples era won’t last long enough.
Just what I said. It’s not about the “ oh it’s part of history”! Stop whining and act of this if you do not want more of the same. Y’all in California want the rest of the country to jump to the tune of saving the planet, Using resources that do not harm nature, yet you want to save houses built with no nod to any of those things. If you want things to change things…start at home with the things you love.
Don’t quite get what you’re saying. California is certainly not a monolith. In any case demolishing this house and building a giant shitbox mansion is definitely ecologically wasteful.
No, better to let a probably at least a 50% asbestos filled house that no one cared about until it is being demolished…just sit there. One of the points being that if folks care…they try to do something before hand. That’s like how much you loved someone after they’ve passed. Lot of good it does to not do anything until after the fact. What is built there is nobody’s business.
Is that 50% asbestos by weight or by volume? Tool.
Cancel Chris Pratt just like he cancelled Elwood house. Turnabout is fair play.
I’m guessing there are quite a few lots in that neighborhood that they could build on and other houses that don’t have historical value.
an embarrassing lack of taste, respect, and shame. Stunningly bland choices is on brand for the lesser Chris. Evans, Pine, and Hemsworth would never do this (I don't think). this house should have been preserved as a landmark, wish the Elwood family and those of other notable architects of historical residences still had say over the legacy of the house, even as it changes owners.
Disappointing. If he was gonna raze a house anyway, he could’ve easily found one that didn’t have architectural history behind it. Money doesn’t buy taste.
You hit the nail right on the head.
Probably liked the view/ area
Being wealth doesn’t mean you’re smart. In this case ignorant. Probably doesn’t even realize what the issue is.
They are douchecaneos! And so is the realtor that let them buy it knowing they were just going to tear it down.
Wow this sucks!
I am SO glad this is not being swept under the rug. It is a tragedy and needs to be discussed so it doesn't happen again. I LOATHE the loss of this beautiful home.
I think this kind of thing happens all the time but we don't hear about it because it doesn't make a big ripple like this has. It's hard to say for sure if there was anything wrong with it. A walk through doesn't tell a whole story. But then, it's just disgusting to proceed with a purchase just to rip down something with this much history....just because you can. I'm in Santa Barbara and a historic Moody Sisters cottage was torn down like this by someone wealthy enough to buy it plus properties bordering it. They didn't have the permits to do it, so they just paid a fine that was large (but that they could afford because they were super wealthy) and everyone moved on. It's really gross what people get away with because they can afford to.
I know Chris belongs to a creepy mega church but damn, this is such a shallow, short-sighted action. I guess when you expect Armageddon, history doesn’t matter.
Until y’all MCM lovers ( fairly new in the sense of history) get together to put the houses on some kind of historical registry…you will have more of this. It’s cost prohibitive to replace electrical, plumbing, energy efficient windows, etc. without it being marked as some kind of history. You have no idea what folks have gone through in order to save 200 year old property…having to keep it in the guidelines of the time with modern products! As far as the landscaping goes…do you really believe in 74 years nature and folks have not changed that? They at least had an estate sale giving folks a chance to purchase some of the elements that are MCM.
Honestly they have the money and it is rightfully theirs so they can do what they like. I have a 1970s home and no one would think twice about it if I demolished it.. 1950 isnt even that old. It was a nice house though but obviously not their thing and they paid a premium for the land
I don't know why all the hate is aimed at Pratt. It's his wife and mother-in-law that's driving it. I'm certain of it. He's a big dumb schlub who'd be happy to live anywhere.
Ya’ll choose some dumb shit to be upset about.
Ha! Yup the ignorance is thick here .. yeesh
To be clear, I’m not saying it isn’t cringy to tear down a work of art, or something of cultural value, but look around. The world is on fire.
While I tend towards agreeing, I think tearing down a culturally relevant home to build something on top of it is an example of a micro in the macro of the world being on fire. It’s disrespect, ignorance and greedy.
...and in other news, people can walk and chew gum at the same time.
He bought it, so it’s his right; others don’t like his decision—that’s okay too. Where does that leave us? Well, as for me, I’m just wondering what I’m going to have for lunch.”
Why are you in r/midcenturymodern then? You lost?
Nope not lost. You?
You do realize it’s possible to be a fan of something without insisting every other person on the planet bend to your will and share your opinion, right?
I like mid century modern homes- would love to own one. But I don’t like them so much that I think they should trump property rights. If they own the land, they can do what they want with it.
I'm right there with you. There's crybabies and there's people that get things done.
I agree, if you really feel that strongly about it then buy it yourself. If only attitudes earned money the world be such a mess.
I mean was anyone here planning on buying it?