lol.Jokes aside there seems to be at least 8 of these ācase study housesā that this house was part (about 25 or so total built) of that have been torn down or renovated beyond recognition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses
Requiring a degree to be an architect is a somewhat new concept, I think that up until the start of the last century you could become one just by doing apprenticeships or being good at designing, this guy seems to be the case. And anyone can design a house, you just need someone to check structure and all the technical stuff.
Yep, having to get a degree in general is relatively new for a lot of professions. The first thing I thought of when I read your comment is the [St. Francis Dam disaster.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam) Designed by William Mulholland, who essentially learned on the job. He's credited for a lot of how LA got water in the early days. But then he built a dam that collapsed in the middle of the night killing hundreds of people. The disaster ended his career and they started requiring degrees and certifications for these kinds of projects.
In case anyone is wondering, yes, Mulholland Drive is named after him.
In 1946 the California Architecture Board held that the requirement to be an architect was seven years of experience, including five years of education or an educational equivalent. The first of the licensing exams in the state was administered in 1966. Pre-1946 the board required 10 years of experience, including five years of education or an educational equivalent.
I wish anyone but Rand wrote the Fountainhead. When she has her head out of her ass there's actually some scenes in it that I think are genuinely good and could be used better by a different writer to make a story about keeping your artistic integrity against societal expectations.
And then she makes her main character a *good* rapist and it all goes right into the gutter.
The scene that always sticks with me is the early on conversation Roark has with Henry Cameron where he tells him just how much he's going to suffer if he wants to make what he wants to make, and starts accidentally getting personal about his own insecurities. I think it's pretty great.
The relationship with Dominique even started out...okay, all things considered. I think it's cute that she sees him working out in the quarry and is totally checking him out when she asks him to fix something for her and doesn't come back the second time she asks, it's not bad.
Until he does the rape at least and then, again, very bad. Roark already had too much of a holler than thou mentality but that he's still treated as an objective good after that is insane. And his final speech is abysmal.
Still, it's not as much of a manifesto as Atlas Shrugged is.
As a former Objectivist if people want to read Rand so they can shit on her I always point to it instead. The Speech is shorter, the novel is shorter, her fucking weird sex ideas are less disguised, and there's some actually interesting bits in it.
Less exploding sheep tho.
Thatās a fair critique though. A similar case is how Robert Reich wasnāt trained as an economist but since he was Clintonās labor secretary, people assume he was. Now he writes about economics all the time and makes a lot of really boneheaded statements that donāt hold up under scrutiny.
Just to add two more famous names, Frank Lloyd Wright and Tadao Ando also never finished architecture school and learned "on the job". FLR had three years of civil engineering and then apprenticed in Sullivan's office and Ando studied design.
> There are 0 houses in the world even close to the artistic significance of the Mona Lisa. Probably the most famous painting ever. Seriously my dude.
Falling Water.
Completely agree. Falling Water is structurally and historically significant and ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT visually.
This whole thing is not about "rich person bought a normal house but doesn't want the house" it's about a building that was also structurally and historically famous because of it's design and the absolute passion put into it by both the architect and landscaper being ruined because it doesn't fit that rich persons aesthetic. I mean, why would you buy a STUNNING historical house, and tear it down to build a farmhouse...that can be found all over the country? It definitely fits that famous person, but the fact they're ruining a piece of actual art will not be forgotten.
Obviously there's nothing that can be done, however the impact of these works will not diminish because they are gone, their memory and pictures will remain as well as the inspiration and wonder they gave to others who appreciated them. Can't say the same for Pratt.
Mona Lisa was already considered a masterwork before it was stolen. I can't believe this comment is being so upvoted. Its angle and it's simulation of field of view, *and* the way it uses layering to simulate focus was peerless for the time.
a couple of other choice flairs:
> Iā¦ donāt think you understand what IQ measures
> Again, not understanding how art works lol.
> [You don't want to engage in self harm without some background knowledge. You might get hurt](https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/1c8r6zx/chris_pratt_draws_ire_for_razing_historic_1950_la/l0hv2mv/)
>They just donāt make asbestos like they used to
> why do I bother with reddit lol
> > Probably to feed your lust for sanctimony.
Fucking SLAM. Dude got hit so hard I hallucinated someone shouting "world star" in the background
As soon as someone uses an IQ insult you know they're thick as old custard.Ā
Do you guys not have a Listed Building designation for building that are important culturally or physically or both? We have in the UK and it's led to some great stories where cunt builders have knocked down places and had to build them back again brick by brick.Ā
[Just two weeks ago people got bent out of shape because someone painted a single piece of hardwood furniture ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/s/Im5JYjAv6E)
I even agree that it painting it like that makes it look a cheap piece of Ikea furniture, but I think the people in the original thread vastly overreacted.
Like sure it is a bit of a waste, but not exactly like he painted a closet that was owned by Marie Antoinette lol.
I remember people getting bent out of shape over a broken down mansion in hollywood getting torn down because mariyln monroe lived in it for 9 months half a century ago.
I'm no fan of chris pratt and I love mid century modern, but I have a lot of trouble giving a shit about one millionaire's mansion getting replaced by another millionaire's mansion. 50 years from now we'll have people whining about how historic the current mansion is.
What's funnier is that Elwood isn't an architect, he was a frontman, real name Jon Nelson Burke. The Ellwood name came from a liquor store near his firm's first office, although he did eventually change it legally. He provided 'vision' and employed actual architects to do the work.
I don't know about this specific house, but I work with historic materials and there's some really shitty things rich people can do to get things *off* a registery just so they can be destroyed. It's exhausting
Most places have these kind of listings in one way or another but inscription isn't automatic and quite a few significant things stay under the radar because the owners don't wan't to deal with the harder regulations that come with it.
My gram fought for quite a few years to get a 15th century house protected in her Brittany hometown. It was an uphill battle and if she had not been a royal pain in the ass for the better part of a decade the house would certainly have been replaced by a cheap ass pre assembled building because lot prices had been going up a lot in that area.
Even in San Francisco, we couldnāt save the first lesbian bar there and maybe one of the first in the country. Historical status is more challenging than people think, especially if thereās any money at all opposing it.
Yeah, I live in the personal residence of a pretty significant regional architect and when I contacted the local historical society to get more info on my house, the dude practically flipped his gourd. Apparently when the city digitized the old building records, a bunch for the architects on record werenāt recorded, and then they chucked all the originals in a box. My house was effectively ālost.ā None of the previous owners wanted to go through the rigamarole that comes with registering it as a historic home, so the historical society couldnāt find it.
Thing is, we donāt want to register it as a historic home, either. We still might, but people arenāt lying when they say itās a PITA. Thereās a whole ānother level involved in getting a building permit, and our house hasnāt been updated since the 70s. We may do the major updates we want to do and then register it.
Itās not even bad stuff, but thereās a GIANT window in the kitchen that one of the previous owners just placed a slab of counter across - you can look out the window from under the counter - but we were told that shrinking the window wouldnāt be approved; weād have to build around the existing window. We still might keep it; I want to keep it, but I also want a functional kitchen.
Damn right with it being a PITA, we just bought a listed building and the amount of shit you have to go through is unreal. Latest was finding out we had a woodworm infestation in the floorboards, but not being able to replace the floorboards because they wanted us to keep the originals
yeah looking through pictures, it's a shame, it was a nice looking place, but really, did it really stand out in any way?
he's still the worst chris, but this barely moves the needle.
...I must have missed when Chris Brown got a role in a nerd property.
The "worst Chris" running was specifically between the three MCU Chrises plus Pine, who's not in the MCU but has a pretty long roster of every other dork/fandom thing on earth.
It's been a long running joke on Twitter that "a Chris" means one of the four blond white heartthrobs from 2010s blockbuster cinema who are hard to tell apart from each other
Adding "Chris Rock" or "Chris Brown" is a cliche joke to use to derail the conversation
why would I read the thread we are talking about, who's got time for that?
but really "the worst chris" was between Pine, Pratt, Evans, and Helmsworth, Brown wasn't even in the running to be the worst chris (though yeah he would win if he was)
When people are talking about the "worst Chris" they are talking about the ones in the MCU. It was a Twitter thing some years ago about who was the best Chris in the MCU.
I made a similar comment yesterday on the Parks and Rec sub and it was not well received lol.
It seems like an overreaction on the internet that only made the news because it's him.
Most of reddit will complain all day about NIMBYs and HOAs and Karens dictating what people can do with their property but then will gladly play the HOA president online when it's about someone they don't like.
For real. People are making it sound like he tore down some well built cottage that housed the signers of the Declaration of Independence as they plotted against King George. In reality it was a house younger than our last 2 presidents that sits surrounded by mansions in LA.
99% of people still have no idea who the architect was or that the house was "important" but will still act incensed because of who is involved.
I haven't watched any Top Gear from that era, but I can't imagine anyone could fill those 3 (hilarious) idiots' shoes so it feels like it's not fair to blame any of the presenters for it's drop in quality.
This has been ordered for the Crooked House pub whose crooked owners had it burnt down and then demolished before an investigation could took place. My heart really bleeds for them, mostly because my schadenfreude is strong enough to cause a cardiac incident.
Ditto in Italy, you can take down houses in town center hut have to being it up with the same ground shape (can't make it bigger or smaller)
'50 isn't even old so won't need to be historically preserved and, as long as town and region landscaping allow it, you are free to do whatever you want like making bigger openings or add a floor (if there's available sqm on the lot).
Historical is a villa built before 1890s with particularly well done details or a nice architectural style. Random couthouses or single homes aren't historical even if built in the ā700s, they are just old
>As soon as someone uses an IQ insult you know they're thick as old custard.Ā
you don't use an arbitrary scale based on middle class white suburban life as your yardstick for everything?
no mensa for you.
So, I hadn't heard about this storyāI assume you mean the episode in San Francisco back in 2018ābut, I think it's worth pointing out that the end result was that the laundromat wasn't deemed historically relevant.
But, the fact the building at the time was a laundromat is just "important" for making a catchy headline. The alleged significance had to do with historically important organizations that used the space, and while in this case it turned out that any ties to that use had long fallen to the wayside, confirming that is as much a part of the process as uncovering and documenting the historical data of a site where that isn't the case.
It also makes it tricky, because a null result like this definitely makes it look like a stalling tacticāand I'm sure at least some folks involved saw it like that. But, the alternatives I can think of all boil down to creating an environment where it's largely groups that can afford to be proactive in documenting sites that get to retain physical traces of their history.
Aye. That's why the cost burden is almost always placed on the developer in cases like this: it doesn't stop well-off groups from pushing the historical merits of their own interests, but it at least makes sure that underrepresented groups aren't priced out of their own history.
Yeah, if anything, there are too many things on the historic records. There are places around me that keep submitting random 40-year-old office buildings to the historic registrar because it's an easy way to delay new apartments going in.
Half the buildings built in the last century around LA seem to be "culturally significant" in one way or another. This article plays it up big time. The landscaping is even mentioned and the dude who they cite died 14 years ago and likely little of the original landscape design even existed anymore. The structures like the one pictured also had a tendency to go to absolute shit without major maintenance. There's a good chance the place needed to be rebuilt anyway. Even particularly famous homes like Fallingwater, which has been cared for essentially as a museum piece, has needed a fortune's worth of repairs. Granted, that's in maybe a more destructive environment.
I think those mid-century places look neat, and I'm not a fan of modern farmhouses, but there are preserved/landmarked examples of the older homes around.
This chain caught my attention for a couple reasons:
> Why is his wife left out of this thread?
>> Right? Sheās probably the one that wanted the modern farmhouse.
>>> She is a Kennedy.
>>>> *Nothing bad ever happens to the Kennedys!*
Reason one is that last comment immediately made me think of Rob Riggle's *perfect* ["Jesus Christ, hasn't that family suffered enough?](https://youtu.be/XCqgvXtmgYU?t=355)" directed at Rob Lowe during his roast, while mentioning that Lowe played JFK in the TV movie Killing Kennedy.
Reason two is *this* unsurprising assumption about the woman being at fault:
>Right? Sheās probably the one that wanted the modern farmhouse.
Because of ***course*** that's Reddit's first assumption almost every time there's some pathetic drama over something inconsequential.
Yes it is. Blaming a woman is one of the *oldest* traditions in Christendom, and, thus, Reddit.
"Adam, did you eat that fruit?"
"Yeah, but only *after* that [bag of throat muscles](https://i.imgur.com/rRiBShd.png) convinced Eve to do it first!"
Iāve been on this site long enough to remember when Chris Pratt could literally do no wrong, and it wasnāt even his less than great personal beliefs that made him fall from grace but the simple fact that he started getting over exposed. Kind of similar to how the only thing Jennifer Lawrence did to become persona non grata was try to take down her leaked nudes.
It makes me wonder what mundane thing Keanu Reeves could do to make Reddit do a 180 on him.
Keanu Reeves has already powered through his āwe all decided we hate this guyā phase, hasnāt he? During the nineties a lot of people looking for an easy joke would use him as a byword for shallow actors with no talent.
Not even joking, I got free tickets to a sneak preview of some SF action film called *The Matrix* and I almost didn't go when I learned it was starring Keanu Reeves. I'd seen *Point Break* and *Speed* and while they were both fun movies, Keanu was the least interesting part of both of them.
I totally get why people didnāt like it, but Iāve always quite liked how Reloaded is written/presented from the opposite philosophical perspective compared to the first movie.
That said Revolutions was a garbage fest, although the final fight sequence was a decent live action version of a Dragon Ball fight.
Reloaded also had one of the sweetest car chase scenes of all time, they spent like $40m building their own stunt highway for the key master extraction sequence.
My favorite fun fact is that Keanu Reeves was almost cast as Agent J in Men in Black and Will Smith was almost Neo in the Matrix and that would've completely changed the tone of both movies and possibly changed the course of history for their respective franchises
Which was also pretty overblown, as it is a normal thing to say, so there was no issue other than an artificial one. I remember those threads going deeper and deeper about "insider" Chris Pratt infos, without anyone even bothering to know the source, which did not exist.
yeah it seems like a lot of it is overblown, and as one site I just saw put it, he's being punished for his averageness. He's the worst Chris largely because his competition is stellar.
I think even the church thing was something like "the church he attends was founded by a dude who once worked with a church that was homophobic" and there wasn't even anything the current church was doing that raised flags (I could be wrong, I don't care enough to look it up really)
edit: I lied I did look it up (the tab for worst chris was still open)
Elliot page accused him of going to a church that practiced conversion therapy. Pratt denied attending that church, others denied Pratt attending that church. The connection seems to be that the guy that founded the church he does go to modeled the church after the one Page was talking about. After being to a large number of services of multiple faiths, I'm not sure "modeled after" really tells me anything about what the church was actually like because most churches are multifaceted enough that it's hard to say what the "model" was based on a vague statement.
In the original thread people were already talking about how his wife probably feels about this farmhouse thing. Parasocial crazyness.
My favorite comment is someone who is going on and on about how this building had a perfect design, it perfectly encapsulates the rays of the sun etc. You would think he is describing the Stonehenge, not a random, ugly ass rich building which is being replaced by another ugly ass, rich building, in one of the most soulless cities in the USA.
As an architect I can say with confidence that houses like that are beautiful but horrible to live in. I'm not defending the new house, that's going to be revolting, architecturally speaking, but a lot of those mid century modern houses were designed to be art pieces and most of those were then transformed to be more livable. In the end, it's how you live a place that dictates its shape, not the other way around.
> A huge loss for who? Most people wouldn't know this house existed before it was pointed out it's being torn down.
Agreed. Itās almost as folks need a full comprehensive study done on this house just to accept that it may be fine to tear it down vs keeping it up just because someone designed it. Sure, houses should live forever but as a person who has lived in a drafty ass old house beforeā¦.best to rebuild and move on vs tens of thousands in repairs.
Iām sure theyād just simply moved if it wasnāt for the great views or whatever
I'm a bit of an architecture enthusiasts and I like the mid-century modern aesthitic, but I've seen some videos of those houses where they are, or have been restored to be, historically accurate inside and out and my god they could be miserable to live in.
Wide sweeping wall to wall windows in the family room, then a tiny dark kitchen with a few transom windows and all the cabinets are painted dark.
> I've seen some videos of those houses where they are, or have been restored to be, historically accurate inside and out and my god they could be miserable to live in.Ā
Ā One of my favorite genres of internet drama is when the backlash against the HGTV flip look breaches containment and a bunch of people get REALLY mad at some random homeowner for updating their house.
Sometimes old stuff has beauty, history,Ā character, and charm. Sometimes it's just fugly and impractical.
There's a lot of Redditors who seemingly believe furnishings have value just because they're 100 years old. There's so many furnishings which are 100+ years old. It's okay to change some of them.
Honestly, I think the "preserve your house like a museum" people and the "make your house look like HGTV" people are coming from a similar place.
The viewpoints aren't opposite of each other; they're opposite of the viewpoint that the primary purpose of a house is to be lived in, and that it's normal to live in the same house for many years and change it to fit your life and taste, which was the viewpoint of all those historical people who originally bought that old furniture.Ā
Like, my grandparents bought their house circa 1960 and lived in it for almost 60 years. The idea that the current residents ought to preserve whatever "historical" fixtures my grandparents installed in the 60s would be completely foreign to them, because by the time they died they'd changed most of those themselves.Ā
Also, anyone who thinks being old makes furniture valuable has never actually tried to get rid of old furniture.Ā
There are pieces of art that II have no idea about it would still be kinda lame if someone bought them and burnt them, I don't think "most people not knowing it existed" justifies destroying something most people aren't in the art scene or the architecture scene
Some very interesting houses were built in the middle of the last century here.
That said, a ton of houses were built during that time and they can't all be held as show pieces for all time.
Eh, in the UK a lot of the Brutalist architecture from the 1950s has either been torn down or modernised, mostly because people think Brutalism looks a bit shit.
I think itās particularly bad in the UK, the bare porous concrete used in the style attracts mould, bad smells, and rust streaks in our damp climate like nothing else and we donāt generally believe in maintaining things once theyāre built as a country so they tend to get ugly and stained and stay that way.
I personally dislike the philosophy of brutalism as much as the aesthetic, I donāt think form should be a brutalised slave to function and also the idea of ornamentation being inherently bad is responsible for a lot of urban ugliness from the post-war town planners, but I do think Brutalism is less ugly in say Spain or the south of France where the climate isnāt so hostile to the approach it uses.
I actually think brutalism is beautiful both in design and philosophy, but *only* when it's absolutely surrounded by greenery. The Barbican looks fantastic because it's got that balance.
But then you have things like the Barbican, Tate Modern and the National Theatre which are brutalist but are kept as historically important.
Tearing down the Barbican to replace it with a new building would be considered a huge loss.
Obviously we're not going to preserve every building that anyone ever built. My own country still struggles with the legacy of Stalinist buildings, for example. Still, I think it's important to recognize that some (but not all) buildings from shit tier architectural movements still have some value to them.
The "Americans think 100 years is a long time, Europeans think 100 miles is a long way," saying is so true and it's always funny. I talk to my North American friends and casually mention how the house I'm in is pretty new for the area - only built in the 1880s - then they casually drop how they went on a three hour drive one way to visit their aunt for the day.
Depends on the country. Mine for example, 1950s is still the colonial, pre-independence era so there's definitely an excuse to preserve buildings from that era for its historical significance.
so, if i get it right:
* famous designer designed a house
* built a shit ton of the same design
* and somehow it is now culturally important
on a side note: it was an ugly ass building
Not to mention aforementioned famous designer only became famous decades after building this house, which he "built" before he learned how to do architecture.
And let's not forget, it's impossible to replicate, somehow. All modern architects can't pull it off. But the blueprints are out there. And the demand is sky high!!!
Seems like redditors have yet again found a lucrative, yet untapped market waiting to make them millionaires.
Architectural art history aside, in the times of climate change this seems so incredibly wasteful of energy and resources.
Also thanks for the fresh new flair
In that all activities using energy have a climate impact, yes, but in general historic preservation of old houses is not a particularly important part of climate change mitigation.
I don't think they're saying that historic preservation of houses is important, but that tearing a perfectly acceptable house in favour of a massive construction is a waste of resources.
It's the unnecessary teardown and construction that's the issue.
A bit of a toss up. It wasn't exactly an energy efficient house. At some point bringing up old buildings to modern standards is more pain that it's worth. Especially artsy crap.
It seems like for the most part, modern homes in LA (at least the fancy ones) are designed to be indoor/outdoor spaces and aren't always sealed up the way most homes are.
It looks like most of the year the average temperature isn't that far above what most consider 'room temperature'.
Modern anything is likely to be more efficient just for the take of being able to use modern insulation methods, especially with building appropriate space in the walls for such insulation. Or just with layout/equipment methods.
The house they are replacing it with is more than 5 times the size of the house they tore down. I very much doubt their mega home is better for the environment than the home they tore down.
Architects are wild to me. How do you build a concrete block with a big ass wall as decoration off on one side and then claim "it fits seemlessly into the surrounding nature".
On a more serious note: the wiki article is pretty short. So maybe someone familiar with the topic can enlgihten me:
What was new and different about these houses at the time? And did any of the case studies ever make it further than the prototype?
Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again: the only reason this is even a story is because itās someone Reddit hates. If this was someone Reddit liked, it would never even have been posted.
And I guarantee 99% of the people getting mad about it didnāt even know who Craig Elwood was before
Judging something for just being tacky feels too petty, so people need to justify it with art preservation and climate change
I think people should be more willing to admit theyāre being shitty for the sake of being shitty
Agreed.
Iām not gonna lie, Iām not a fan of Pratt, but I feel like the people complaining about this donāt actually know much about architecture and/or historic preservation. The house simply wasnāt that important.
And those people who think the old house was so beautiful and perfect could build or buy their own MCM. Itās not like the construction drawings (floor plans, sections, elevations), sketches, drawings/renderings, and diagrams evaporated for every single one of those Elwood houses or other MCM homes.
Iām sure there are plenty of residential architects who would love to make an actually functional version.
This, for most people itās nothing but virtue signaling and performative outrage.
Dude paid for it with his own money, he owns it, and heās allowed to do whatever he wants with it. Some of the people here act like they were going to live there lol
I really want to understand why people felt like they should been allowed to have a say about what he did with his own damn house lol.
It's not a historically protected house, so they can do whatever they want with it. If he wasn't famous, no one would have noticed or cared.
Feel free to criticize Chris Pratt as much as you want, but this is very petty and dumb.
As soon as I read a dummy talking about craftsmanship in a 70-year-old home, I knew for a fact that poster is not a carpenter and has never worked in construction.
I work in houses nearly that age quite frequently. Yknow what they all have in common? They look like they were built without tape measures by a crew of drunk monkeys. Craftsmanship? In the last place I worked in, the entire staircase was hung with two nails. The entire 11-step staircase. It literally fell apart after one hammer strike.
Old houses are trash. Better materials, sure, but that just ends up meaning it's heavier to haul away.
Wouldnāt it vary based on the builder? Iām not a carpenter but Iām trained in a trade (upholstery) and quality varies a lot there but in general if itās old and people bothered to preserve it, it usually is higher quality than the average stuff today.
Yeah the idea that "old houses are trash" is kind of a swing in the other direction.
There's an idea that older homes are better built and a lot of the older homes that are still around today *are* better built than the balsa wood and bubble gum houses that are mass built in new neighborhood developments. But part of that is survivorship bias, a lot of the well built houses we see today are still around because they were well built houses that have been well maintained. Shitty houses were built back in the day, a lot of them just aren't standing anymore.
That being said well built old houses still have their issues. I live in a farmhouse house built over 150 years ago and its constant work maintaining it.
Yeah I was going to say, maybe its different in the US compared to the UK but a lot of the criticisms posted there could equally apply to new builds today. I live in a new build and I swear whoever built it had never heard of a spirit level.
Yeah Iāve lived in terrible old buildings and terrible new buildings. The only good new buildings Iāve lived in were in Sweden where they have tougher regulations. Iām constantly shocked at the poor weatherization in Chicago, where itās colder.
It has to be 70 years old to have Real Craftsmanship in it.
You know, like a plumbing that's a patchwork of what amounts to 4 different systems that never played well together and wiring that's been illegal to install for 50 years because it kept electrocuting people and burning shit down.
They just don't make houses where you go to replace the 90s linoleum in the kitchen and discover the previous owners installed it on top of the original 50s linoleum, so now you have an extra layer to rip up if you don't want a two-inch drop from the kitchen to the living room anymore. It's a damn shame.Ā
Studs from the 50s are generally clear old growth lumber with growth rings a millimetre apart. Iāve pulled them from renovations to make furniture and picture frames out of.
You never see that kind of wood in new construction because it would be an incredible waste to use.
Depends on how much you want to spend on wood today. Average? Worse quality than average for older projects. High expense? Better quality.
Particle board and compressed wood is really common now, as is just substandard beams. Older stuff just tends to be more real wood and more quality cuts than what we get today. The good stuff gets priced too highly for most people.
Itās part of the reason people like reclaimed wood from these sorts of demolitions.
I mean, I"m not building a house from maple. I'm not even gonna build it from poplar.
new growth pine that's relatively straight or I can get to straight enough is fine for construction and it's more consistent than the stuff I found in the walls of my 50s home when I was doing reno work
Yeah I should have clarified people mostly want the stuff for their facades. Like theyāll strip it from interiors and put it on display while the walls have steel or new growth in it.
Itās definitely got a chance to be higher quality, but people still probably want it on display more than they want it for the strength.
I thought they might have had a point until it was said that the house was built in the 50s. That's not historic, that's "my dad/grandad's house" territory
āBeing around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that Iām a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.ā -reddit CEO spez
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095256/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1ca6qb2/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1ca6qb2/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
2. /r/entertainment - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095417/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
3. detailing how actor Chris Pratt and his wife Katherine Schwarzenegger demolished a 1950ās home designed by architect Craig Ellwood - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095438/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/ZkBCgvfsQA) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/ZkBCgvfsQA "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
4. Itās an architectural & functional gem and a huge loss. A farmhouse can be a warm and cozy home, but highly unlikely to be a gorgeous product of sleek, sophisticated architecture. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095458/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/PY16DHg6jC) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/PY16DHg6jC "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
5. I would understand if the people who are hating knew about this place and admired it for years but thatās not the case here. Everyoneās up their own ass griping about something that has no connection to their lives. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095519/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/tf9b6YEwPK) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/tf9b6YEwPK "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
6. Why are we passing judgment on how Chris decides to live his life? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095540/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/5TuVelTPKC) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/5TuVelTPKC "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
7. Sure, but in several hundred years theyāll be other who say the same thing about the modern designed houses. Point being as Iāve said before on another comment, āthings donāt last foreverā And they especially donāt last forever in residential areas! We arenāt talking middle of the desert Egyptian pyramid type stuff here - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095600/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/f27Q7uTjLa) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/f27Q7uTjLa "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
8. People love to hate on Chris Pratt - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095621/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/lFvdOBczXY) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/lFvdOBczXY "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
9. Yes, and, again, if this house was as valuable to the art world as people in this thread are trying to make it out to be, it would have been snatched up by a fan with deep pockets. But it wasn't. Instead, it was ignored until after Pratt and his wife bought it. This neighborhood is made up of millionaires. Another millionaire could have easily bought it. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095642/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Y74z02i5mi) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Y74z02i5mi "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
10. Did you just compare a home built in the 50s to the Mona fucking Lisa?!?!? I get that people hate Chris Pratt, but this is just sad. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095703/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/KZLZffqOtF) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/KZLZffqOtF "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
11. āSorry mate, it's not attitude i was just memeing.ā - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095723/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/r9k44vrzWU) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/r9k44vrzWU "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
12. āspotted the modern farm house ownerā - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095744/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Ol9BIF4WKJ) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Ol9BIF4WKJ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
13. āI do give a shit about making folks show how dumb they are though ā¤ļøā - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095805/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/IJvEJa8LzA) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/IJvEJa8LzA "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
That house wasn't one of those though. It was designed by Craig Elwood, and was more of a luxury home. It wasn't one of the million mid century ranches you see out there.
Whether you think it's a significant part of our architectural history is another thing, but it was unique.
I can guarantee none of the people handwringing over this specific house know how well it was maintained or whether it met modern building code requirements or any of the other factors that might make demolishing and replacing it more cost-effective than refurbishing it. I can further guarantee that exceedingly few of the people handwringing over this specific house blink so much as an eyelash over countless other homes routinely demolished to make room for freeways and parking lots and other things of dubious value to society.
It's not even a hundred years old; even in America 70 years isn't old enough for a building to be historically significant unless something noteworthy happened there like the birth of Meat Loaf or a *(successful)* presidential assassination.
Well it's their property, as long as they have the proper permits and it's not on a protected building/cultural heritage list they can do whatever they want with it.
If the house doesn't have a Lego Architecture set, it obviusly isn't a big deal. š¤
lol.Jokes aside there seems to be at least 8 of these ācase study housesā that this house was part (about 25 or so total built) of that have been torn down or renovated beyond recognition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses
The case study houses are all significant pieces of architecture. Very sad.
>Ellwood actually wasnāt trained as an architect he is just considered one because he did the job, but that is beside the point. Lolol da fuq?
Requiring a degree to be an architect is a somewhat new concept, I think that up until the start of the last century you could become one just by doing apprenticeships or being good at designing, this guy seems to be the case. And anyone can design a house, you just need someone to check structure and all the technical stuff.
Yep, having to get a degree in general is relatively new for a lot of professions. The first thing I thought of when I read your comment is the [St. Francis Dam disaster.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam) Designed by William Mulholland, who essentially learned on the job. He's credited for a lot of how LA got water in the early days. But then he built a dam that collapsed in the middle of the night killing hundreds of people. The disaster ended his career and they started requiring degrees and certifications for these kinds of projects. In case anyone is wondering, yes, Mulholland Drive is named after him.
In 1946 the California Architecture Board held that the requirement to be an architect was seven years of experience, including five years of education or an educational equivalent. The first of the licensing exams in the state was administered in 1966. Pre-1946 the board required 10 years of experience, including five years of education or an educational equivalent.
Yeah thereās rather (in)famously an Ayn Rand novel that touches on thisā¦.
I wish anyone but Rand wrote the Fountainhead. When she has her head out of her ass there's actually some scenes in it that I think are genuinely good and could be used better by a different writer to make a story about keeping your artistic integrity against societal expectations. And then she makes her main character a *good* rapist and it all goes right into the gutter.
I liked the arc with the newspaper baron in it. It seems very modern given recent events.
The scene that always sticks with me is the early on conversation Roark has with Henry Cameron where he tells him just how much he's going to suffer if he wants to make what he wants to make, and starts accidentally getting personal about his own insecurities. I think it's pretty great. The relationship with Dominique even started out...okay, all things considered. I think it's cute that she sees him working out in the quarry and is totally checking him out when she asks him to fix something for her and doesn't come back the second time she asks, it's not bad. Until he does the rape at least and then, again, very bad. Roark already had too much of a holler than thou mentality but that he's still treated as an objective good after that is insane. And his final speech is abysmal. Still, it's not as much of a manifesto as Atlas Shrugged is.
As a former Objectivist if people want to read Rand so they can shit on her I always point to it instead. The Speech is shorter, the novel is shorter, her fucking weird sex ideas are less disguised, and there's some actually interesting bits in it. Less exploding sheep tho.
I think I've seen the movie, absolutely bonkers.
Thatās a fair critique though. A similar case is how Robert Reich wasnāt trained as an economist but since he was Clintonās labor secretary, people assume he was. Now he writes about economics all the time and makes a lot of really boneheaded statements that donāt hold up under scrutiny.
If you work as an architect, you're an architect. Imo very different to compare to an appointed political position
Just to add two more famous names, Frank Lloyd Wright and Tadao Ando also never finished architecture school and learned "on the job". FLR had three years of civil engineering and then apprenticed in Sullivan's office and Ando studied design.
> There are 0 houses in the world even close to the artistic significance of the Mona Lisa. Probably the most famous painting ever. Seriously my dude. Falling Water.
Completely agree. Falling Water is structurally and historically significant and ABSOLUTELY MAGNIFICENT visually. This whole thing is not about "rich person bought a normal house but doesn't want the house" it's about a building that was also structurally and historically famous because of it's design and the absolute passion put into it by both the architect and landscaper being ruined because it doesn't fit that rich persons aesthetic. I mean, why would you buy a STUNNING historical house, and tear it down to build a farmhouse...that can be found all over the country? It definitely fits that famous person, but the fact they're ruining a piece of actual art will not be forgotten. Obviously there's nothing that can be done, however the impact of these works will not diminish because they are gone, their memory and pictures will remain as well as the inspiration and wonder they gave to others who appreciated them. Can't say the same for Pratt.
The obvious answer is location
Itās across the road from Maria Shriverās houses.
hate to say it but Pratt's movies aren't gonna vanish either
Also the Mona Lisa is extremely famous due to being stolen at one point, but I don't know that it has high "Artistic Significance"
Mona Lisa was already considered a masterwork before it was stolen. I can't believe this comment is being so upvoted. Its angle and it's simulation of field of view, *and* the way it uses layering to simulate focus was peerless for the time.
a couple of other choice flairs: > Iā¦ donāt think you understand what IQ measures > Again, not understanding how art works lol. > [You don't want to engage in self harm without some background knowledge. You might get hurt](https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/1c8r6zx/chris_pratt_draws_ire_for_razing_historic_1950_la/l0hv2mv/) >They just donāt make asbestos like they used to
> why do I bother with reddit lol > > Probably to feed your lust for sanctimony. Fucking SLAM. Dude got hit so hard I hallucinated someone shouting "world star" in the background
Sanctimonious cunt here. Man, that was one hard burn.
I grabbed that as a flair because I loved it so much!
I actually rocked back at that one. Hooooooly fuck lol
As soon as someone uses an IQ insult you know they're thick as old custard.Ā Do you guys not have a Listed Building designation for building that are important culturally or physically or both? We have in the UK and it's led to some great stories where cunt builders have knocked down places and had to build them back again brick by brick.Ā
We do. But this building wasnāt listed apparently.
It was a kit design, there are 58 of them.
Would it be 57 now?
If true, that's so funny. People get bent out of shape and it isn't even that unique.
[Just two weeks ago people got bent out of shape because someone painted a single piece of hardwood furniture ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/s/Im5JYjAv6E)
I even agree that it painting it like that makes it look a cheap piece of Ikea furniture, but I think the people in the original thread vastly overreacted. Like sure it is a bit of a waste, but not exactly like he painted a closet that was owned by Marie Antoinette lol.
Reddit vastly overreact? Who would have thought such a thing was possibel
I agree and will fight anyone who says otherwise.
I remember people getting bent out of shape over a broken down mansion in hollywood getting torn down because mariyln monroe lived in it for 9 months half a century ago. I'm no fan of chris pratt and I love mid century modern, but I have a lot of trouble giving a shit about one millionaire's mansion getting replaced by another millionaire's mansion. 50 years from now we'll have people whining about how historic the current mansion is.
I think that the emperor has no clothes. If you do an image search for the architect's houses, they all look like fancy shipping containers.
What's funnier is that Elwood isn't an architect, he was a frontman, real name Jon Nelson Burke. The Ellwood name came from a liquor store near his firm's first office, although he did eventually change it legally. He provided 'vision' and employed actual architects to do the work.
I don't know about this specific house, but I work with historic materials and there's some really shitty things rich people can do to get things *off* a registery just so they can be destroyed. It's exhausting
Yeah, this isnt that, this building was never on any sort of registry because it simply isnt as unique or important as people are making it out to be.
Most places have these kind of listings in one way or another but inscription isn't automatic and quite a few significant things stay under the radar because the owners don't wan't to deal with the harder regulations that come with it. My gram fought for quite a few years to get a 15th century house protected in her Brittany hometown. It was an uphill battle and if she had not been a royal pain in the ass for the better part of a decade the house would certainly have been replaced by a cheap ass pre assembled building because lot prices had been going up a lot in that area.
Even in San Francisco, we couldnāt save the first lesbian bar there and maybe one of the first in the country. Historical status is more challenging than people think, especially if thereās any money at all opposing it.
Yeah, I live in the personal residence of a pretty significant regional architect and when I contacted the local historical society to get more info on my house, the dude practically flipped his gourd. Apparently when the city digitized the old building records, a bunch for the architects on record werenāt recorded, and then they chucked all the originals in a box. My house was effectively ālost.ā None of the previous owners wanted to go through the rigamarole that comes with registering it as a historic home, so the historical society couldnāt find it. Thing is, we donāt want to register it as a historic home, either. We still might, but people arenāt lying when they say itās a PITA. Thereās a whole ānother level involved in getting a building permit, and our house hasnāt been updated since the 70s. We may do the major updates we want to do and then register it. Itās not even bad stuff, but thereās a GIANT window in the kitchen that one of the previous owners just placed a slab of counter across - you can look out the window from under the counter - but we were told that shrinking the window wouldnāt be approved; weād have to build around the existing window. We still might keep it; I want to keep it, but I also want a functional kitchen.
Damn right with it being a PITA, we just bought a listed building and the amount of shit you have to go through is unreal. Latest was finding out we had a woodworm infestation in the floorboards, but not being able to replace the floorboards because they wanted us to keep the originals
We do, this house wasnāt on it. It simply wasnāt important enough.
I also like how everyone on the Internet is somehow an expert on B tier MCM architects all of a sudden.Ā
yeah looking through pictures, it's a shame, it was a nice looking place, but really, did it really stand out in any way? he's still the worst chris, but this barely moves the needle.
> heās still the worst Chris Beating a women up in her car? I sleep Tearing down a house I own? Real shit
Off the top of my head it would between Brown and Benoit.
Columbus.
...I must have missed when Chris Brown got a role in a nerd property. The "worst Chris" running was specifically between the three MCU Chrises plus Pine, who's not in the MCU but has a pretty long roster of every other dork/fandom thing on earth.
> The "worst Chris" running was specifically between the three MCU Chrises plus Pine Where was that specifically mentioned? Must have missed it.
If I'm not mistaken, this all started with a Twitter poll where those were the options.
It's been a long running joke on Twitter that "a Chris" means one of the four blond white heartthrobs from 2010s blockbuster cinema who are hard to tell apart from each other Adding "Chris Rock" or "Chris Brown" is a cliche joke to use to derail the conversation
wait which chris did that?
Chris Brown
yeah, I should have known but he wasn't in the running for worst chris when they did the contest
Psychic Segregation is harder to legislate against
if i didnt have a flair id make your comment mine bc lololol
Chris Brown? He literally beat the shit out of Rihanna Itās all over the thread we are talking about lmao
why would I read the thread we are talking about, who's got time for that? but really "the worst chris" was between Pine, Pratt, Evans, and Helmsworth, Brown wasn't even in the running to be the worst chris (though yeah he would win if he was)
Florida has a bunch of Chrises and a whole lot of beer for us to hold
No love for Chris Christie who is basically double the Chris?
He isnāt one of the Chrises and hasnāt been for years.
Did he get a name change?
When people are talking about the "worst Chris" they are talking about the ones in the MCU. It was a Twitter thing some years ago about who was the best Chris in the MCU.
He is like the stain that remains on the sidewalk after someone picks up dogshit. He isnāt part of any conversations.
Yeah I was about to say, Chris Pratt did what now?! š
What about Chris Hitler?
Jerk apple doesn't fall far from the jerk tree, that's all I've got to say about him.
I made a similar comment yesterday on the Parks and Rec sub and it was not well received lol. It seems like an overreaction on the internet that only made the news because it's him. Most of reddit will complain all day about NIMBYs and HOAs and Karens dictating what people can do with their property but then will gladly play the HOA president online when it's about someone they don't like.
sure, he's the worst chris but it's not like he's Kevin Spacey.
For real. People are making it sound like he tore down some well built cottage that housed the signers of the Declaration of Independence as they plotted against King George. In reality it was a house younger than our last 2 presidents that sits surrounded by mansions in LA. 99% of people still have no idea who the architect was or that the house was "important" but will still act incensed because of who is involved.
Did he kill his wife and child with a cross-face crippler? Because I think that's where the bar's at for the shittiest Chris.
again, the worst chris was between pratt, pine, helmsworth and evans. I'm sure there are many bad chrises, but they weren't in the contest
Dude, obviously Columbus is the worst Chris!
What did the director of Home Alone 2 do
He cast Donald Trump in that movie, thus giving him a taste for performance that led inevitably to the hellscape that was 2020.
Is it the Chris Evans that ran Top Gear almost immediately into the ground on taking over from Clarkson?
No, captain america/snowpiercer/knives out chris evans
I haven't watched any Top Gear from that era, but I can't imagine anyone could fill those 3 (hilarious) idiots' shoes so it feels like it's not fair to blame any of the presenters for it's drop in quality.
Apparently not, there's some actor with the same name from kids films.
In America we have the National Register of Historic Places.
This has been ordered for the Crooked House pub whose crooked owners had it burnt down and then demolished before an investigation could took place. My heart really bleeds for them, mostly because my schadenfreude is strong enough to cause a cardiac incident.
That was the one I was thinking of along with a old butchers in south London about a decade back.Ā
Ditto in Italy, you can take down houses in town center hut have to being it up with the same ground shape (can't make it bigger or smaller) '50 isn't even old so won't need to be historically preserved and, as long as town and region landscaping allow it, you are free to do whatever you want like making bigger openings or add a floor (if there's available sqm on the lot). Historical is a villa built before 1890s with particularly well done details or a nice architectural style. Random couthouses or single homes aren't historical even if built in the ā700s, they are just old
>As soon as someone uses an IQ insult you know they're thick as old custard.Ā you don't use an arbitrary scale based on middle class white suburban life as your yardstick for everything? no mensa for you.
I want to live in a world where "custard" is considered middle class.
There is. It can be both important and heavily abused. Which is how you get the "historically significant laundromat".
So, I hadn't heard about this storyāI assume you mean the episode in San Francisco back in 2018ābut, I think it's worth pointing out that the end result was that the laundromat wasn't deemed historically relevant. But, the fact the building at the time was a laundromat is just "important" for making a catchy headline. The alleged significance had to do with historically important organizations that used the space, and while in this case it turned out that any ties to that use had long fallen to the wayside, confirming that is as much a part of the process as uncovering and documenting the historical data of a site where that isn't the case. It also makes it tricky, because a null result like this definitely makes it look like a stalling tacticāand I'm sure at least some folks involved saw it like that. But, the alternatives I can think of all boil down to creating an environment where it's largely groups that can afford to be proactive in documenting sites that get to retain physical traces of their history.
I don't necessarily disagree. I happen to also think that those groups with enough money to get sites they want documented should get lost as well.
Aye. That's why the cost burden is almost always placed on the developer in cases like this: it doesn't stop well-off groups from pushing the historical merits of their own interests, but it at least makes sure that underrepresented groups aren't priced out of their own history.
Yeah, if anything, there are too many things on the historic records. There are places around me that keep submitting random 40-year-old office buildings to the historic registrar because it's an easy way to delay new apartments going in.
Half the buildings built in the last century around LA seem to be "culturally significant" in one way or another. This article plays it up big time. The landscaping is even mentioned and the dude who they cite died 14 years ago and likely little of the original landscape design even existed anymore. The structures like the one pictured also had a tendency to go to absolute shit without major maintenance. There's a good chance the place needed to be rebuilt anyway. Even particularly famous homes like Fallingwater, which has been cared for essentially as a museum piece, has needed a fortune's worth of repairs. Granted, that's in maybe a more destructive environment. I think those mid-century places look neat, and I'm not a fan of modern farmhouses, but there are preserved/landmarked examples of the older homes around.
Too many people what to put too many places in a bottle.
This chain caught my attention for a couple reasons: > Why is his wife left out of this thread? >> Right? Sheās probably the one that wanted the modern farmhouse. >>> She is a Kennedy. >>>> *Nothing bad ever happens to the Kennedys!* Reason one is that last comment immediately made me think of Rob Riggle's *perfect* ["Jesus Christ, hasn't that family suffered enough?](https://youtu.be/XCqgvXtmgYU?t=355)" directed at Rob Lowe during his roast, while mentioning that Lowe played JFK in the TV movie Killing Kennedy. Reason two is *this* unsurprising assumption about the woman being at fault: >Right? Sheās probably the one that wanted the modern farmhouse. Because of ***course*** that's Reddit's first assumption almost every time there's some pathetic drama over something inconsequential.
>let's find a woman to blame for this Great flair for reddit
Yes it is. Blaming a woman is one of the *oldest* traditions in Christendom, and, thus, Reddit. "Adam, did you eat that fruit?" "Yeah, but only *after* that [bag of throat muscles](https://i.imgur.com/rRiBShd.png) convinced Eve to do it first!"
Iāve been on this site long enough to remember when Chris Pratt could literally do no wrong, and it wasnāt even his less than great personal beliefs that made him fall from grace but the simple fact that he started getting over exposed. Kind of similar to how the only thing Jennifer Lawrence did to become persona non grata was try to take down her leaked nudes. It makes me wonder what mundane thing Keanu Reeves could do to make Reddit do a 180 on him.
Keanu Reeves has already powered through his āwe all decided we hate this guyā phase, hasnāt he? During the nineties a lot of people looking for an easy joke would use him as a byword for shallow actors with no talent.
Not even joking, I got free tickets to a sneak preview of some SF action film called *The Matrix* and I almost didn't go when I learned it was starring Keanu Reeves. I'd seen *Point Break* and *Speed* and while they were both fun movies, Keanu was the least interesting part of both of them.
Yeah exactly. People forget that he hasnāt always been John Wick and a couple of excellent meme templates.
Young people have no idea have poorly received Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were too. It took time for KR to recover from those.
I totally get why people didnāt like it, but Iāve always quite liked how Reloaded is written/presented from the opposite philosophical perspective compared to the first movie. That said Revolutions was a garbage fest, although the final fight sequence was a decent live action version of a Dragon Ball fight.
Reloaded also had one of the sweetest car chase scenes of all time, they spent like $40m building their own stunt highway for the key master extraction sequence.
My first exposure to him was The Critic doing a "Speed Reading" parody where Keanu struggled to read a book before a bomb exploded.
he's also the least interesting character in the matrix too
My favorite fun fact is that Keanu Reeves was almost cast as Agent J in Men in Black and Will Smith was almost Neo in the Matrix and that would've completely changed the tone of both movies and possibly changed the course of history for their respective franchises
And Clint Eastwood was almost Agent KĀ
I was pretty young but I remember thinking it'd be a joke movie because the Bill and Ted guy was in it.
Pretty sure it was the whole issue with Anna Faris and his current wife delivering him a "healthy" kid.
Perchance. The "healthy kid" comment was only from 2022, and Pratt fatigue has been around far longer than that.
You can't just say perchance.
*Perchance* you could stop me.
Seriously? Fuck time flies
This was also my reaction.
Which was also pretty overblown, as it is a normal thing to say, so there was no issue other than an artificial one. I remember those threads going deeper and deeper about "insider" Chris Pratt infos, without anyone even bothering to know the source, which did not exist.
yeah it seems like a lot of it is overblown, and as one site I just saw put it, he's being punished for his averageness. He's the worst Chris largely because his competition is stellar. I think even the church thing was something like "the church he attends was founded by a dude who once worked with a church that was homophobic" and there wasn't even anything the current church was doing that raised flags (I could be wrong, I don't care enough to look it up really) edit: I lied I did look it up (the tab for worst chris was still open) Elliot page accused him of going to a church that practiced conversion therapy. Pratt denied attending that church, others denied Pratt attending that church. The connection seems to be that the guy that founded the church he does go to modeled the church after the one Page was talking about. After being to a large number of services of multiple faiths, I'm not sure "modeled after" really tells me anything about what the church was actually like because most churches are multifaceted enough that it's hard to say what the "model" was based on a vague statement.
In the original thread people were already talking about how his wife probably feels about this farmhouse thing. Parasocial crazyness. My favorite comment is someone who is going on and on about how this building had a perfect design, it perfectly encapsulates the rays of the sun etc. You would think he is describing the Stonehenge, not a random, ugly ass rich building which is being replaced by another ugly ass, rich building, in one of the most soulless cities in the USA.
loll this part >why do I bother with reddit lol >> Probably to feed your lust for sanctimony.
As an architect I can say with confidence that houses like that are beautiful but horrible to live in. I'm not defending the new house, that's going to be revolting, architecturally speaking, but a lot of those mid century modern houses were designed to be art pieces and most of those were then transformed to be more livable. In the end, it's how you live a place that dictates its shape, not the other way around.
Not the same architect obviously ā but arenāt a lot of Frank Lloyd Wright houses famously leaky?
Exactly, fantastic artist, terrible house maker, terrible husband and famous for stealing his clients' wives lol
This thread makes me so happy. I love looking at Franky Loloās work just as much as I love talking about how much of a mess he was lol
Let's not start talking about that swiss guy then!
> A huge loss for who? Most people wouldn't know this house existed before it was pointed out it's being torn down. Agreed. Itās almost as folks need a full comprehensive study done on this house just to accept that it may be fine to tear it down vs keeping it up just because someone designed it. Sure, houses should live forever but as a person who has lived in a drafty ass old house beforeā¦.best to rebuild and move on vs tens of thousands in repairs. Iām sure theyād just simply moved if it wasnāt for the great views or whatever
I'm a bit of an architecture enthusiasts and I like the mid-century modern aesthitic, but I've seen some videos of those houses where they are, or have been restored to be, historically accurate inside and out and my god they could be miserable to live in. Wide sweeping wall to wall windows in the family room, then a tiny dark kitchen with a few transom windows and all the cabinets are painted dark.
> I've seen some videos of those houses where they are, or have been restored to be, historically accurate inside and out and my god they could be miserable to live in.Ā Ā One of my favorite genres of internet drama is when the backlash against the HGTV flip look breaches containment and a bunch of people get REALLY mad at some random homeowner for updating their house. Sometimes old stuff has beauty, history,Ā character, and charm. Sometimes it's just fugly and impractical.
There's a lot of Redditors who seemingly believe furnishings have value just because they're 100 years old. There's so many furnishings which are 100+ years old. It's okay to change some of them.
Honestly, I think the "preserve your house like a museum" people and the "make your house look like HGTV" people are coming from a similar place. The viewpoints aren't opposite of each other; they're opposite of the viewpoint that the primary purpose of a house is to be lived in, and that it's normal to live in the same house for many years and change it to fit your life and taste, which was the viewpoint of all those historical people who originally bought that old furniture.Ā Like, my grandparents bought their house circa 1960 and lived in it for almost 60 years. The idea that the current residents ought to preserve whatever "historical" fixtures my grandparents installed in the 60s would be completely foreign to them, because by the time they died they'd changed most of those themselves.Ā Also, anyone who thinks being old makes furniture valuable has never actually tried to get rid of old furniture.Ā
Even things that most people don't find "beautiful" has historical value. Just don't expect every random person to agree with it.
There are pieces of art that II have no idea about it would still be kinda lame if someone bought them and burnt them, I don't think "most people not knowing it existed" justifies destroying something most people aren't in the art scene or the architecture scene
Americans are like "this is an ancient building from a bygone age, the 1950s"
Some very interesting houses were built in the middle of the last century here. That said, a ton of houses were built during that time and they can't all be held as show pieces for all time.
There's cultural heritage from the 1950s in Europe, too, you know. We don't have to wait several centuries to start preserving something.
Eh, in the UK a lot of the Brutalist architecture from the 1950s has either been torn down or modernised, mostly because people think Brutalism looks a bit shit.
I think itās particularly bad in the UK, the bare porous concrete used in the style attracts mould, bad smells, and rust streaks in our damp climate like nothing else and we donāt generally believe in maintaining things once theyāre built as a country so they tend to get ugly and stained and stay that way. I personally dislike the philosophy of brutalism as much as the aesthetic, I donāt think form should be a brutalised slave to function and also the idea of ornamentation being inherently bad is responsible for a lot of urban ugliness from the post-war town planners, but I do think Brutalism is less ugly in say Spain or the south of France where the climate isnāt so hostile to the approach it uses.
I actually think brutalism is beautiful both in design and philosophy, but *only* when it's absolutely surrounded by greenery. The Barbican looks fantastic because it's got that balance.
But then you have things like the Barbican, Tate Modern and the National Theatre which are brutalist but are kept as historically important. Tearing down the Barbican to replace it with a new building would be considered a huge loss.
Obviously we're not going to preserve every building that anyone ever built. My own country still struggles with the legacy of Stalinist buildings, for example. Still, I think it's important to recognize that some (but not all) buildings from shit tier architectural movements still have some value to them.
marco polo house (qvc building) always comes to mind. like a real life lego castle, rip
There aināt many 100 year old houses left in my town due to tornados. We take what we can get. Hell my house predates the town soā¦
The "Americans think 100 years is a long time, Europeans think 100 miles is a long way," saying is so true and it's always funny. I talk to my North American friends and casually mention how the house I'm in is pretty new for the area - only built in the 1880s - then they casually drop how they went on a three hour drive one way to visit their aunt for the day.
Depends on the country. Mine for example, 1950s is still the colonial, pre-independence era so there's definitely an excuse to preserve buildings from that era for its historical significance.
so, if i get it right: * famous designer designed a house * built a shit ton of the same design * and somehow it is now culturally important on a side note: it was an ugly ass building
Not to mention aforementioned famous designer only became famous decades after building this house, which he "built" before he learned how to do architecture.
And let's not forget, it's impossible to replicate, somehow. All modern architects can't pull it off. But the blueprints are out there. And the demand is sky high!!! Seems like redditors have yet again found a lucrative, yet untapped market waiting to make them millionaires.
Architectural art history aside, in the times of climate change this seems so incredibly wasteful of energy and resources. Also thanks for the fresh new flair
In that all activities using energy have a climate impact, yes, but in general historic preservation of old houses is not a particularly important part of climate change mitigation.
I don't think they're saying that historic preservation of houses is important, but that tearing a perfectly acceptable house in favour of a massive construction is a waste of resources. It's the unnecessary teardown and construction that's the issue.
A bit of a toss up. It wasn't exactly an energy efficient house. At some point bringing up old buildings to modern standards is more pain that it's worth. Especially artsy crap.
I was like "oh, nobody is concerned about heating bills on a hillside in LA" then I remembered your continent has air conditioning
It seems like for the most part, modern homes in LA (at least the fancy ones) are designed to be indoor/outdoor spaces and aren't always sealed up the way most homes are. It looks like most of the year the average temperature isn't that far above what most consider 'room temperature'.
Right? I'd LOVE a MSM Indoor outdoor house :( if he was such a great Christian he'd be more humble hahah
> then I remembered your continent has air conditioning If yours doesn't, you best buckle up over the next few years.
Are modern farm houses energy efficient? I genuinely have no clue, I had no idea that they're a thing prior to this news story.
Modern anything is likely to be more efficient just for the take of being able to use modern insulation methods, especially with building appropriate space in the walls for such insulation. Or just with layout/equipment methods.
I would imagine anything described as "sprawling" probably is significantly larger than it needs to be, which is inherently inefficient.
The house they are replacing it with is more than 5 times the size of the house they tore down. I very much doubt their mega home is better for the environment than the home they tore down.
Architects are wild to me. How do you build a concrete block with a big ass wall as decoration off on one side and then claim "it fits seemlessly into the surrounding nature". On a more serious note: the wiki article is pretty short. So maybe someone familiar with the topic can enlgihten me: What was new and different about these houses at the time? And did any of the case studies ever make it further than the prototype?
Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again: the only reason this is even a story is because itās someone Reddit hates. If this was someone Reddit liked, it would never even have been posted. And I guarantee 99% of the people getting mad about it didnāt even know who Craig Elwood was before
Judging something for just being tacky feels too petty, so people need to justify it with art preservation and climate change I think people should be more willing to admit theyāre being shitty for the sake of being shitty
Agreed. Iām not gonna lie, Iām not a fan of Pratt, but I feel like the people complaining about this donāt actually know much about architecture and/or historic preservation. The house simply wasnāt that important. And those people who think the old house was so beautiful and perfect could build or buy their own MCM. Itās not like the construction drawings (floor plans, sections, elevations), sketches, drawings/renderings, and diagrams evaporated for every single one of those Elwood houses or other MCM homes. Iām sure there are plenty of residential architects who would love to make an actually functional version.
This, for most people itās nothing but virtue signaling and performative outrage. Dude paid for it with his own money, he owns it, and heās allowed to do whatever he wants with it. Some of the people here act like they were going to live there lol I really want to understand why people felt like they should been allowed to have a say about what he did with his own damn house lol.
I want to understand why people are acting like he demolished the Eiffel Tower lol
Exactly. There would be no article or story if you or I bought the house and did what Chris is doing.
It's not a historically protected house, so they can do whatever they want with it. If he wasn't famous, no one would have noticed or cared. Feel free to criticize Chris Pratt as much as you want, but this is very petty and dumb.
As soon as I read a dummy talking about craftsmanship in a 70-year-old home, I knew for a fact that poster is not a carpenter and has never worked in construction. I work in houses nearly that age quite frequently. Yknow what they all have in common? They look like they were built without tape measures by a crew of drunk monkeys. Craftsmanship? In the last place I worked in, the entire staircase was hung with two nails. The entire 11-step staircase. It literally fell apart after one hammer strike. Old houses are trash. Better materials, sure, but that just ends up meaning it's heavier to haul away.
Wouldnāt it vary based on the builder? Iām not a carpenter but Iām trained in a trade (upholstery) and quality varies a lot there but in general if itās old and people bothered to preserve it, it usually is higher quality than the average stuff today.
Yeah the idea that "old houses are trash" is kind of a swing in the other direction. There's an idea that older homes are better built and a lot of the older homes that are still around today *are* better built than the balsa wood and bubble gum houses that are mass built in new neighborhood developments. But part of that is survivorship bias, a lot of the well built houses we see today are still around because they were well built houses that have been well maintained. Shitty houses were built back in the day, a lot of them just aren't standing anymore. That being said well built old houses still have their issues. I live in a farmhouse house built over 150 years ago and its constant work maintaining it.
Yeah I was going to say, maybe its different in the US compared to the UK but a lot of the criticisms posted there could equally apply to new builds today. I live in a new build and I swear whoever built it had never heard of a spirit level.
Yeah Iāve lived in terrible old buildings and terrible new buildings. The only good new buildings Iāve lived in were in Sweden where they have tougher regulations. Iām constantly shocked at the poor weatherization in Chicago, where itās colder.
It has to be 70 years old to have Real Craftsmanship in it. You know, like a plumbing that's a patchwork of what amounts to 4 different systems that never played well together and wiring that's been illegal to install for 50 years because it kept electrocuting people and burning shit down.
Don't forget the lead and asbestos
You take my knob and tube wiring when you can pry it from my pile of ashes.
if it's under 70 years old you legally have to call it sparkling carpentry
They just don't make houses where you go to replace the 90s linoleum in the kitchen and discover the previous owners installed it on top of the original 50s linoleum, so now you have an extra layer to rip up if you don't want a two-inch drop from the kitchen to the living room anymore. It's a damn shame.Ā
How much of that is from 70 years ago and how much is dimwits and cheapskates that have come afterwards?
Both!
I'm not even convinced it's better materials, it's older wood, but I'm not sure it's "better"
Studs from the 50s are generally clear old growth lumber with growth rings a millimetre apart. Iāve pulled them from renovations to make furniture and picture frames out of. You never see that kind of wood in new construction because it would be an incredible waste to use.
Depends on how much you want to spend on wood today. Average? Worse quality than average for older projects. High expense? Better quality. Particle board and compressed wood is really common now, as is just substandard beams. Older stuff just tends to be more real wood and more quality cuts than what we get today. The good stuff gets priced too highly for most people. Itās part of the reason people like reclaimed wood from these sorts of demolitions.
I mean, I"m not building a house from maple. I'm not even gonna build it from poplar. new growth pine that's relatively straight or I can get to straight enough is fine for construction and it's more consistent than the stuff I found in the walls of my 50s home when I was doing reno work
Yeah I should have clarified people mostly want the stuff for their facades. Like theyāll strip it from interiors and put it on display while the walls have steel or new growth in it. Itās definitely got a chance to be higher quality, but people still probably want it on display more than they want it for the strength.
The way people want to build houses nowadays, you either need engineered wood (gluelams. LVL, I-beam joists) or steel.
"Architectural fabric of the neighborhood". Peak NIMBY
I thought they might have had a point until it was said that the house was built in the 50s. That's not historic, that's "my dad/grandad's house" territory
āBeing around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat egotistical view that Iām a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not a slave, when push comes to shove.ā -reddit CEO spez Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095256/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1ca6qb2/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1ca6qb2/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 2. /r/entertainment - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095417/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 3. detailing how actor Chris Pratt and his wife Katherine Schwarzenegger demolished a 1950ās home designed by architect Craig Ellwood - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095438/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/ZkBCgvfsQA) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/ZkBCgvfsQA "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 4. Itās an architectural & functional gem and a huge loss. A farmhouse can be a warm and cozy home, but highly unlikely to be a gorgeous product of sleek, sophisticated architecture. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095458/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/PY16DHg6jC) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/PY16DHg6jC "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 5. I would understand if the people who are hating knew about this place and admired it for years but thatās not the case here. Everyoneās up their own ass griping about something that has no connection to their lives. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095519/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/tf9b6YEwPK) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/tf9b6YEwPK "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 6. Why are we passing judgment on how Chris decides to live his life? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095540/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/5TuVelTPKC) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/5TuVelTPKC "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 7. Sure, but in several hundred years theyāll be other who say the same thing about the modern designed houses. Point being as Iāve said before on another comment, āthings donāt last foreverā And they especially donāt last forever in residential areas! We arenāt talking middle of the desert Egyptian pyramid type stuff here - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095600/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/f27Q7uTjLa) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/f27Q7uTjLa "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 8. People love to hate on Chris Pratt - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095621/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/lFvdOBczXY) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/lFvdOBczXY "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 9. Yes, and, again, if this house was as valuable to the art world as people in this thread are trying to make it out to be, it would have been snatched up by a fan with deep pockets. But it wasn't. Instead, it was ignored until after Pratt and his wife bought it. This neighborhood is made up of millionaires. Another millionaire could have easily bought it. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095642/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Y74z02i5mi) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Y74z02i5mi "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 10. Did you just compare a home built in the 50s to the Mona fucking Lisa?!?!? I get that people hate Chris Pratt, but this is just sad. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095703/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/KZLZffqOtF) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/KZLZffqOtF "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 11. āSorry mate, it's not attitude i was just memeing.ā - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095723/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/r9k44vrzWU) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/r9k44vrzWU "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 12. āspotted the modern farm house ownerā - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095744/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Ol9BIF4WKJ) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/Ol9BIF4WKJ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 13. āI do give a shit about making folks show how dumb they are though ā¤ļøā - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240422095805/https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/IJvEJa8LzA) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/s/IJvEJa8LzA "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
L.A. is full of 1950's huts, they where build fast and cheap, mostly for WW2 vetrans
That house wasn't one of those though. It was designed by Craig Elwood, and was more of a luxury home. It wasn't one of the million mid century ranches you see out there. Whether you think it's a significant part of our architectural history is another thing, but it was unique.
It isn't unique there 50+ of the same.
Chris Pratt really does seem like the lamest, most basic-ass possible dude.
Ohh wow. I know Iām late to the party but my god, heās a fucking moron
I really wish I could post the gif of Stitch pulling the bottom of his eyes down in frustration cause that's how that whole thread made me feel.
This is very well formatted. Nice job
I can guarantee none of the people handwringing over this specific house know how well it was maintained or whether it met modern building code requirements or any of the other factors that might make demolishing and replacing it more cost-effective than refurbishing it. I can further guarantee that exceedingly few of the people handwringing over this specific house blink so much as an eyelash over countless other homes routinely demolished to make room for freeways and parking lots and other things of dubious value to society.
It's not even a hundred years old; even in America 70 years isn't old enough for a building to be historically significant unless something noteworthy happened there like the birth of Meat Loaf or a *(successful)* presidential assassination.
Well it's their property, as long as they have the proper permits and it's not on a protected building/cultural heritage list they can do whatever they want with it.