WHAT DO THEY THINK THIS IS? A REPUBLIC OR SOMETHING?..............
Out with the old, in with the new.
Well maybe someone that wanted it preserved should have purchased it. Funny how that works.
Anyways, in SoCal, it's the land that's valuable. I see this all the time in Coronado. People pay $5 million for a hundred year old home and immediately knock it down to build something new.
only problem i see here is that Chris Pratt is with a Schwarzenegger
A most appropriate thing to demolish!
“Featured in Progressive Architecture magazine”
Well, what are they complaining about?
Progressives have no problem tearing down historical items such as statues and monuments that represent American heritage and history.
Ugly crap house.
The whole gambit of “historic preservation” has to be removed from sole control by so-called experts. Having a property designated as a “historic landmark” by any government or government agency, for whatever reason, amounts to a taking of property.
If governments want to do that they need to put the matter up to a public vote, to (a) take the property by eminent domain and (b) agree to pay the owners the market value of the property, at the taxpayers expense. Without the voters approval “the experts” lose.
They would have probably had to bring up the house to code. And it wasn’t going to cost much less than a rebuild.
L.A. is very strict on builders, unless one can “somehow” get a variance....
Plenty of houses like that in L.A anyway. Good lesson for the brokenhearted “style” worshippers....entropy awaits them too.
Meh. I don’t care for “progressive” architecture, it wasn’t listed and there were no restrictions on what the owners could do with THEIR PROPERTY. If they didn’t like it, they were perfectly free to demolish it and build the house they want on that lot.
I find “modern” homes to be unimaginative and downright ugly. They should save only 1 per city as a warning to other architects.
the REAL zimmerman house is a frank Lloyd wright house in new england that IS on the national register of historic houses ...
Personally, I love walking in old neighborhoods with mid-Century modern homes....mostly in California towns. It brings a smile to my face of when I was a youngster and kids playing in the yard and street.
However, I do not like all the sitting furniture of that era as it really is mostly uncomfortable after a half hour.
BUT, I am old so these are going by the wayside as well !!!
The City could have made it a historic home, which would have reduced it value but kept it intact, and they chose not to do so.
Tear it down and build something interesting.
Did they OWN the home? If so, shove it.
Same thing happened in Miami Beach about 15 years ago. A husband and wife bought an old, dilapidated house that NO ONE had fixed for years and no one would buy...and they were going to either renovate or tear it down, I don’t recall...
Suddenly, the leftist looks cared about PRESERVING the property and filed all sorts of court actions to stop this couple from developing what was an ignored piece of land.
Absurd.
“Although SurveyLA identified it as potentially historic, it lacked formal protections, allowing the owners to legally demolish it.”
Pass the popcorn, please.
Theirs to do as they choose. Still, it always strikes me as weird that starting from scratch on empty land doesn’t make more sense. Then, there would be two houses at the end of the story. Demolition is underway with Rush’s house ...
https://www.newser.com/story/338133/cosmetics-heir-razes-limbaughs-former-home.html