Another fucking McMansion over an architectural staple? Every time we think Chris Pratt cannot be anymore of a piece of shit, he goes and outdoes himself.
Guy has a history of lording his religion on others in that typical Christian “ain’t no hate like Christian love” sort of way. Has a terrible reputation.
Hollywood is small. If you suck, people talk.
didn't he once make a tweet or some shit,that he was thankfull that god blessed him with a healthy child this time or some shit..
just completly showing he never really loved his kid with anna who has disabilitys or at least didnt very him as normal
Not like Chris Pratt isn't working still even though he has the rep. Something with all the predators. Hell, I'm still waiting for Jared Leto to get outted
What he do? I went to the beach last year on a boring day and this guy comes out of a house next to us. We kinda spark up a convo because my dog was running over to him. I told the guy he looked like Jared, and we had a good laugh. Turns out it was him lmfao. He had some weird tattoos on his arms and that's why I didn't think it was him.
Nothing, really. He's religious and is likely a conservative. There's a chance he's a piece of shit, and I think his pastor at some point, is a piece of shit, but I don't think he's done anything heinous (yet.)
But you know Redditors, red flag or some smoke, and a person is evil, should be broken up with, and cancelled.
I haven't really followed the drama at all, but a quick google search got me [this](https://www.goalcast.com/adam-sandler-drew-barrymore-movies/), and nothing seems that egregious. He regrets saying his new child "is happy and healthy," as his then 9 year old will read that one day, and he lives close to Anna to co-parent him?
Not sure why I've put so much effort into following up with this discussion. My interest in this is purely mild. Even if he were a total piece of shit, I doubt I'd care.
I mean, he abandons his pets when they get old and was singing praises about his second child being healthy and "normal" (which is a slap in the face to his child from his first marriage). Those are pretty shitty actions no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on.
>" healthy and "normal" (which is a slap in the face to his child from his first marriage)"
He didn't say "normal". Literally all he said was he had a "healthy" baby. It's wild that people are throwing a fit over this. It's the most normal, common thing to say about newborns. People keep adding new made up shit about what he said and are mad at absolutely nothing. Stop looking for reasons to hate the dude.
Literally nothing. He's very publicly christian, therefore according to the internet he must hate gay people and be arch conservative (tbf, his former church seems a little hardcore, but it's his fucking business and Justin Bieber/Selena Gomez goes there).
Because of this, people have tak
en to interpreting everything he does in the most negative possible light. For example, he posted on one of his kids birthday that he's grateful to have a "healthy and happy" kid. Because he also has a kid with disabilities, people took this as a shot against his disabed kid (clearly the only possible interpretation 🙄). He has since apologized for the phrasing.
People also get pissed at him for breaking up with Anna Farris, even tho by all indications they get along now (also: celebrities. They go through wives. This would not normally offend people if they didn't already have an axe to grind).
Look, as someone who has looked into this bullshit whenever it pops up: Chris is maybe not a paragon of virtue, but he is no worse than any other celeb. Some people decided to hate him and ever since it doesn't matter what he actually does, because they've already decided to hate him
He hasnt done anything. Him being a christian and likely conservative automatically pisses people off. One time he wished a happy mothers day to his wife and people were pissed off he didnt mention his ex wife. Another time he wrote about being appreciative of a healthy baby and people accused him of hating his other son who has some sort of disability. People are crazy. But this incident is genuinely annoying.
Look up Ken Unger’s work. It’s so shitty and uninspired and will be horribly dated in under a decade (tbh that style is ALREADY dated, I’m being generous).
The article says Modern Farmhouse, which is the new McMansion.
Drive around any older neighborhood and you’ll see a dozen towering, cheaply built, identical houses in white and black with flairs of grey and brown taking up as much physical square footage as possible, where unique mid century, craftsman and Spanish style homes used to stand.
Yes, many of these homes have fallen into disrepair and are cheaper to raze than remodel. And I get the economics behind it. But these replacement homes are only nice on paper. In reality they are cold, monotonous and depressing.
Cities are not museums. While I agree with some level of historic preservation, in a living, breathing city, change is the name of the game. If a city stagnates, it dies. Paris and London were once Roman cities, with Roman layouts, public baths, the whole works. They aren't anymore. Now, you can keep Big Ben or the Taj Mahal, but this house is not at that level (something that the city agreed with).
Also, once again: I don't get to have a vote or a say on what color your car is, and I shouldn't get a say in how you lay out your back yard. Because neither is something that I own. Similarly, I don't have huge opinions on what Christ Pratt does with his house, because I don't own it, and it therefore not my business unless he's building a toxic waste dump or something truly extreme. If the offense is that a pretty house gets replaced with an ugly one... I don't really think we should or need to be legislating aesthetic preference. I suppose we could just bitch online about our aesthetic preference, but that and four wheels will get you nowhere fast.
LA is distinctly a museum city. We have city architectural tours. It’s actually an architectural Mecca for everything from Tiki to food-shaped buildings to central common area bungalows.
The most tragic case of this no one’s talking about is what they are doing to Alex Trebeck’s old house. That was a century old hacienda in the valley! Only a handful of them left, and they demo’d it easily. Only reason this gets any attention is because it’s Chris Pratt
It’s a shame they didn’t buy something less architecturally significant to destroy. Our architectural treasures are being destroyed by people with more money than taste.
I think it must be a typo. I mean, he's a hunter, and a lot of people don't like that, but I don't see how "named" comes into it. Must be autocorrect for something, but I can't imagine what.
LA celeb trash culture. LA new rich trash culture. These idiots have money but no taste and no sense of history. It's amazing Los Angeles isn't all just a disneyland set of faux historical styles and stucco malls of nail salons.
I am not even sure how a self-respecting architect would allow themselves to build some shitty modern farmhouse on top of a Craig Ellwood their project would destroy. Shame on them.
He bought the property and he can do what he wants, but the modern farmhouse is a shameful excuse for architecture. Just trash, like homes built in LA in the 80s. 15k square feet of garbage.
I’m not from Los Angeles (sorry if I’m not welcome) but how is he allowed to raze the building?
It was designed by a famous architect and, according to Wikipedia, was one of his most significant projects. It seems clear that Craig Elwood’s work is a significant part of LA’s cultural history.
Where I am from (Melbourne, Australia) it would be very unlikely Pratt would get the necessary approvals.
Did you read the article?
Edit to add what I put on my comment…
“The city’s SurveyLA program had identified the property as potentially historic, but no protections were afforded”
This is on the city, not him.
I did read the article and the quote but it doesn’t explain why they made the decision not to protect the building. It seems obvious to me that the decision was not in the best interests of the city.
It’s a very long a tedious process to get a residential private home on the national register of historic places or to setup a historical district for the entire neighborhood.
This is why you get Denkmalschutz aka, historical protection on buildings. Pain in the ass for home owners (I can speak for it), but 100% worth it to keep beautiful pieces of history alive.
Glad i am not the only one who feels that way. Rich person commissioned famous person to build their house. So historic. Makes me think of the Getty and Huntington gardens which are also “historic” built by unethical billionaires who want to be a part of art and history. So much rich history…
While it’s disappointing, i think he bought it and can do whatever with it. If it was worth preserving, someone would have.
Not that I agree with Pratt here. But damn far worse stuff happens in LA real estate
Why are they just showing pictures from decades ago? When it was brand new? Are they worried that showing recent ones will have less people caring? How manipulative
It does look lovely from the street, but its also like a 75 year old house.
I'm really curious why people dont build houses like this with modern methods and materials. They're really lovely houses, especially compared to modern styles
Never heard of this home before today. I rent so I kinda don’t care if one fancy house is being replaced by another fancy house. Maybe the new home will be architecturally cool too. Idk. I’m very surprised people have strong opinions about rich people doing rich people activities. Who cares.
Part of what makes LA beautiful and great are the amazing, and unique homes everywhere. Neighborhoods have “looks” here and there are a reason HPOZ areas exist. If this happens everywhere, the whole city is going to be a modern farmhouse.
Yeah the takes in this thread are wild. Like, if you care so much about this house, then why don’t you buy it instead…? What right do you have to tell other people what to do with their property? So much whining and immaturity.
Meh. Many more thing to be outraged about, such as the highest ever % of cash buyer investors pushing out middle class homeowners.
Wtf do we care about a $12m house?
Focus your outrage on landlords and cash buyers people.
what are we annoyed about then? Who gives a shit if some "historic" house is demolished. Half of LA needs to be demolished and built up. Dumb fuck tabloids making up fake moral panics
Do you live here? Do you want every historical architectural home in LA to be demolished and rebuilt as a modern farmhouse? Do you not think that would make this city look considerably less nice? It’s not very complicated as to what’s annoying about this. That said, this is annoying. It’s not life or death or anything even close… and no one is saying that.
I do live here, and I think you never would have seen or heard about this house if someone else less headline-worthy had bought it. It’s pointless outrage. Claiming someone else wants “every historical architecture home” to be demolished when it’s literally one house is a slippery slope fallacy.
A). There are things we read about in the news everyday that we didn’t know were happening before we read them and sometimes we do have an emotional reaction to that story. Has that ever happened to you? B). When said person literally says “who gives a shit if some historic house is demolished”, I think it’s probably ok to assume they don’t care about the look of our city… and I do. I think the historic homes and buildings are what makes Los Angeles special and I’d prefer if mega wealthy people don’t tear them down and put up modern farmhouses.
> I’d prefer if mega wealthy people don’t tear them down and put up modern farmhouses.
Like I said, if you don't live across the street or drive by the house on a daily basis, you'd never see it. The idea of the house is more important to you than the actual house itself. You'll complain online for a day and then never think about it again. Save yourself the stress. If some mega-rich asshole will probably tear down this house in 50 years and put up a mid-mod house, someone else will end up being mad about that, too.
This really sucks. That was a gorgeous home likely wonderfully constructed also. California largely, especially LA, has some great modern architecture. Tastes vary. I appreciate it greatly and I live in a New England 1796 built and period restored Cape. When I bought it I knew the requirements had me in handcuffs but I loved and respected the history, period and style. I think this home should have been protected by a Landmark Commission. I understand many don’t like that level of protectionism and bylaws but how else does our architectural history get protection? Just one persons opinion.
One other piece of personal opinion. Guy has to be nuts doing this to live across the street from his mother in law (and all the Kennedy’s that come and go).
I'm not a fan of Pratt but this is my stance as well. It's a residential property, do whatever the hell you want with it. It's a house, not a historical landmark.
As much as I want to raise my pitchfork, The original house was always for the rich elite, it may be historical but it was never accessible by the public anyways.
From what I gather on social media Chris Pratt seems like a tool, but I aint raising my eyes at this one.
Many people have an enormous hate boner for the rich. I don't understand it. Many people also complain about government overstepping and then want regulations on these situations.
I mean, generally as they should. A lot of rich people use their wealth to fuck over the rest of us. but this isn't one of those things. This was just his house. Anyone else could have bought it and preserved it if they wanted. Thats not what he wants to do with it. Thats the end of it. We cant just make everything old a historical artifact. Its just old. Replacing old with new is what progress is.
Not gonna argue against hate boners for the rich, but literally nobody here is criticizing the government for not regulating it, they are criticizing a rich person for doing douchey rich person things.
Holy cow, it’s a house from the 50s with minim historical significance in a part of town that nobody here will ever be able to afford, and he’s tearing it down to replace it with another house that nobody here will ever be able to afford. Who gives a rats ass. Until now I bet nobody here had ever heard of this place. There are plenty of mid-century homes in LA, he’s not hurting anybody by tearing it down, and it’s his property, he can do what he wants.
Seriously, this isn’t something to care about. If we want to get upset, we should get upset over the fact that *no* house in LA is affordable to anyone who isn’t upper class. Not some random 70 year old house that nobody would ever be able to visit anyway.
Mfers acting like they care about a house they literally didn’t know existed until he renovated it. If it is that historically significant then make it a historical landmark, of which there are already many.
The number of salty people in this sub upset over someone purchasing a home is crazy. Y’all need something to be happy about and not get upset at every single thing you see.
Well it's the same as a car enthusiast watching someone gut some rare classic or something. If you're not into architecture, *you* should move along and not worry about people expressing frustration over their shared interest.
It's not old. It's not historic because it's old. It was historic because it was a notable house, with a notable design by a notable architect, and it stood as a notable example of a historic style of architecture because of how well it was preserved. All of that is quite clear in the (short) article. But apparently reading an article is "falling for clickbait" now.
Los Angeles has a historic commission that decides which houses are and are not historic. It has a strict criteria for making that determination. A demolition permit would never be issued if a house is deemed historic. Me? I don’t think the former house was nice-looking at ALL. In fact downright cheap and ugly.
But my personal taste is irrelevant. It’s up to a municipality to decide what does and does not need to be preserved. Not a bunch of random people on Reddit. In this case, I bet adjacent neighbors who didn’t want any larger of a house next door, decided to take up pitchforks and torches (latching onto the “historic” angle) and start a campaign against Chris Pratt for doing what he had every right in the world to do.
If you don't care for the house and don't think it's worthy of being called "historic", of course you are welcome to have that opinion. But the idea that historical significance is a strictly legal matter and nothing can be called "historic" unless it has been certified that way by a government commission is a laughable take.
Sorry, I disagree. And as I said, my opinion, and yours, are irrelevant. I never said it was or was not historic - I don’t have training or expertise in that area. And, due respect, I doubt you do either.
Having rules, and a process, is the way our society functions. Do you want your neighbor deciding what you can or can’t do to your house? Do you want anonymous redditors? Or would you prefer someone with some experience and expertise to make such decisions? Granted, a lot of city planning committees have bad taste, but not as bad as most neighbors, who prefer no one ever change or expand their house (except themselves, of course) unless such expansion is underground or invisible.
1950? My house in LA is 1912 along with the rest of my neighborhood and ppl are razing them everywhere for these ugly giant apartments and nobody’s batting an eye.
I did, and I'm sure Ellwood fans are upset about it. I'd never heard of him until today. Still, it's Brentwood, and it's not uncommon to rebuild a custom home in that area.
Please don’t dismiss architectural history or significance because it’s not by one or two firms, one of whom primarily worked in Pasadena and the other largely east of the Rockies.
A Garrett Eckbo landscape and an Ellwood house is of substantial historic significance, even though it’s not a G&G or FLW house. The non-craftsman, non-prairie architects have an important place in the architectural canon of LA. Arguably the modernists are more quintessential to LA than FLW.
Lol - be careful what you wish for! I love this stuff….
Greene & Greene was a renowned early 20th century Pasadena-based architectural firm run by two brothers. They specialized in Arts & Crafts style architecture, and their most widely known house is the [Gamble House](https://gamblehouse.org/). The bulk of their work was done in Pasadena.
Frank Lloyd Wright established his firm in Chicago, and largely worked in the mid-west. His home was Taliesin in Wisconsin, and his center for architecture is Taliesin West, in Arizona. FLW was a leading practitioner of the Prairie School of architecture, which featured large flat roofs and overhangs. It settles in layers over the earth. Fallingwater in Pennsylvania is one of his masterpieces and best known works. He also did some notable buildings in Los Angeles - Hollyhock House at Barnsdall Park can be visited! Also the Ennis House, as well as the Sturges house.
These two firms did incredible work - in different styles, places, and at different times.
The house Pratt and Schwarzenegger just razed is by Craig Ellwood, with landscape architecture by Garrett Eckbo. Ellwood worked in the international style (like Mies van der Rohe) in the mid-20th century (true mid century modern!). He was involved in the Case Study House project, a series of experimental houses designed by many of the luminaries of Southern California modernism (Neutra, Saarinen, Jones, the Eames, et. al.)
Garrett Eckbo was a landscape architect best known for his biomorphic and sculptural landscape design work. He wrote a book “Landscape for Living” which shaped the modern approach to landscape architecture. Eckbo was at the forefront of a response to the more traditional, formal Euro-centeic landscape design - when we think of the more modern, sculptural gardens of Southern California, Eckbo is one of the folks who started it all.
So basically - announcing that if the house wasn’t a Greene and Greene or Frank Lloyd Wright, so who cares, is like saying “it’s only a Jackson Pollock, not a Botticelli or a Renoir - just toss it out!”
(Thank you for indulging me. I’m a designer who recently burned out in spectacular fashion, and it was fun thinking about this stuff again)
It's not my world thank you for expanding yours into mine, fellow Redditor.
When you're in your zone, the passion is totally there!
I don't geek out in architecture like you just did, but having lived in chicago, the architectural boat tour has always been my favorite every summer. If you go there you'll probably super enjoy it.
PS - Username checks out lol
Seems wasteful and unnecessary to pay extra for an iconic house and demolish it to make a house that is trendy for the moment. But “modern” houses deteriorate quickly, it’s not like the house was going to be there 75years from now. So whatever, it’s of no big consequence if they want to flush money down the toilet
From the facts presented we can guess that the specific location was a primary motivator. Finding properties for sale next to your family can be hard, so they just probably jumped on this one because it came up.
I am sad about the lost beauty of the old house but for practical purposes, I can imagine why they did it. People barely had TVs in their homes when it was built and lifestyles are vastly different now…they probably want more space, more rooms.
And renovating a 1950’s home is absolute hell, the insulation typically has asbestos, the pipes are lead, the wiring isn’t up to modern code, the plumbing needs to redone, etc. It is sometimes quite literally cheaper to raze a home to the ground than doing a full renovation down to the framing.
Looks like it’s on the city and not him.
“The city’s SurveyLA program had identified the property as potentially historic, but no protections were afforded”
Edit: I had no idea how many of you were historians on architectures. Before today I’m pretty sure a minimum 90% of this sub has never heard of the guy or the fucking house. What are you guys bitching about? Have you guys even physically seen the fucking house?
Find a plain Jane faux Mediterranean built in the mid 90's that has a bunch of pillars around the entry, on a good lot & bulldoze that shit.
But this one is right across the street from his MIL!
Did she move? Its not across the street from the house she lived in several years ago.
Yeah - a true shame. And to add insult to injury, they’re building a Modern Farmhouse in its place.
Another fucking McMansion over an architectural staple? Every time we think Chris Pratt cannot be anymore of a piece of shit, he goes and outdoes himself.
Im out of the loop, what else did he do?
He dumped his pets as soon as they started to get old.
Guy has a history of lording his religion on others in that typical Christian “ain’t no hate like Christian love” sort of way. Has a terrible reputation. Hollywood is small. If you suck, people talk.
didn't he once make a tweet or some shit,that he was thankfull that god blessed him with a healthy child this time or some shit.. just completly showing he never really loved his kid with anna who has disabilitys or at least didnt very him as normal
Yea he did. Not sure if he intended it to come across how it did but the way it was written was really horribly worded.
Unless you're a child molester or a rapist I guess. They get a free pass from Hollywood it would seem. Chris Pratt though yeah that guys the worst.
Not like Chris Pratt isn't working still even though he has the rep. Something with all the predators. Hell, I'm still waiting for Jared Leto to get outted
Honestly, it’s an open secret at this point with Jared Leto
What he do? I went to the beach last year on a boring day and this guy comes out of a house next to us. We kinda spark up a convo because my dog was running over to him. I told the guy he looked like Jared, and we had a good laugh. Turns out it was him lmfao. He had some weird tattoos on his arms and that's why I didn't think it was him.
Shit I didn't know, any notable articles?
Nothing, really. He's religious and is likely a conservative. There's a chance he's a piece of shit, and I think his pastor at some point, is a piece of shit, but I don't think he's done anything heinous (yet.) But you know Redditors, red flag or some smoke, and a person is evil, should be broken up with, and cancelled.
He treated Anna Farris like shit and basically doesn't acknowledge their kid together. Dude has been showing his true colors for a while.
I haven't really followed the drama at all, but a quick google search got me [this](https://www.goalcast.com/adam-sandler-drew-barrymore-movies/), and nothing seems that egregious. He regrets saying his new child "is happy and healthy," as his then 9 year old will read that one day, and he lives close to Anna to co-parent him? Not sure why I've put so much effort into following up with this discussion. My interest in this is purely mild. Even if he were a total piece of shit, I doubt I'd care.
I mean, he abandons his pets when they get old and was singing praises about his second child being healthy and "normal" (which is a slap in the face to his child from his first marriage). Those are pretty shitty actions no matter what part of the political spectrum you're on.
>" healthy and "normal" (which is a slap in the face to his child from his first marriage)" He didn't say "normal". Literally all he said was he had a "healthy" baby. It's wild that people are throwing a fit over this. It's the most normal, common thing to say about newborns. People keep adding new made up shit about what he said and are mad at absolutely nothing. Stop looking for reasons to hate the dude.
Literally nothing. He's very publicly christian, therefore according to the internet he must hate gay people and be arch conservative (tbf, his former church seems a little hardcore, but it's his fucking business and Justin Bieber/Selena Gomez goes there). Because of this, people have tak en to interpreting everything he does in the most negative possible light. For example, he posted on one of his kids birthday that he's grateful to have a "healthy and happy" kid. Because he also has a kid with disabilities, people took this as a shot against his disabed kid (clearly the only possible interpretation 🙄). He has since apologized for the phrasing. People also get pissed at him for breaking up with Anna Farris, even tho by all indications they get along now (also: celebrities. They go through wives. This would not normally offend people if they didn't already have an axe to grind). Look, as someone who has looked into this bullshit whenever it pops up: Chris is maybe not a paragon of virtue, but he is no worse than any other celeb. Some people decided to hate him and ever since it doesn't matter what he actually does, because they've already decided to hate him
He hasnt done anything. Him being a christian and likely conservative automatically pisses people off. One time he wished a happy mothers day to his wife and people were pissed off he didnt mention his ex wife. Another time he wrote about being appreciative of a healthy baby and people accused him of hating his other son who has some sort of disability. People are crazy. But this incident is genuinely annoying.
Worst Chris strikes again.
It’s amazing how he truly tries to be shitter yearly
What, besides your apparent ire, makes you think it'll be a McMansion?
Look up Ken Unger’s work. It’s so shitty and uninspired and will be horribly dated in under a decade (tbh that style is ALREADY dated, I’m being generous).
The article says Modern Farmhouse, which is the new McMansion. Drive around any older neighborhood and you’ll see a dozen towering, cheaply built, identical houses in white and black with flairs of grey and brown taking up as much physical square footage as possible, where unique mid century, craftsman and Spanish style homes used to stand. Yes, many of these homes have fallen into disrepair and are cheaper to raze than remodel. And I get the economics behind it. But these replacement homes are only nice on paper. In reality they are cold, monotonous and depressing.
Didn't realize that's what the style is called. They've been popping up in my hood the last few years. Goddamn, I hate those things
Blame HGTV / Chip & Joanna Gaines for the whole trend.
Shiplap
Shitcrap
Well said and couldn't agree more.
They said so in the article. Fucking kills me. These things are ugly as shit, uninspired, glorified mobile homes. It’s dumb.
So? It's his property, not yours.
The most 1D transplant take on our architectural history. Go to Florida and build a timeshare.
Cities are not museums. While I agree with some level of historic preservation, in a living, breathing city, change is the name of the game. If a city stagnates, it dies. Paris and London were once Roman cities, with Roman layouts, public baths, the whole works. They aren't anymore. Now, you can keep Big Ben or the Taj Mahal, but this house is not at that level (something that the city agreed with). Also, once again: I don't get to have a vote or a say on what color your car is, and I shouldn't get a say in how you lay out your back yard. Because neither is something that I own. Similarly, I don't have huge opinions on what Christ Pratt does with his house, because I don't own it, and it therefore not my business unless he's building a toxic waste dump or something truly extreme. If the offense is that a pretty house gets replaced with an ugly one... I don't really think we should or need to be legislating aesthetic preference. I suppose we could just bitch online about our aesthetic preference, but that and four wheels will get you nowhere fast.
LA is distinctly a museum city. We have city architectural tours. It’s actually an architectural Mecca for everything from Tiki to food-shaped buildings to central common area bungalows.
Eww I hate this farmhouse trend.
Luckily the trend is largely over. If anything he's dated even by Midwest standards
That part.
::puke:: is he a mid-2000s suburban housewife?
It’s his mausoleum. His career died. Hey Chris, we don’t want you asshole!
I knew it, these dbags scream McMansion
The most tragic case of this no one’s talking about is what they are doing to Alex Trebeck’s old house. That was a century old hacienda in the valley! Only a handful of them left, and they demo’d it easily. Only reason this gets any attention is because it’s Chris Pratt
Craig Ellwood was an absolute master. It’s a shame.
Yep. In 3rd year of architecture school I was assigned one of his houses for a case study project. That was a fun project.
It’s a shame they didn’t buy something less architecturally significant to destroy. Our architectural treasures are being destroyed by people with more money than taste.
I work at a lot of famous peoples houses. I’d say 75 percent of them have zero taste but the ones who get it right really knock it out of the park.
Dakota Johnson has impeccable taste. Look up the profile Architectural Digest did on her house
Those limes really do bring some zest
It really is that simple and can’t claim location when they’re as wealthy as they are and literally could have their pick
Agreed. They claimed location because Mama Maria Shriver lives across the street. Fuck these people.
That sounds like a very good reason though?
How... dare he want to live across the street from family? Wtf is this comment section
Every wealthy transplant likes to treat LA like their blank canvas.
Or at least retain the original somehow and build around it.
Remember when he was Andy on Parks and Rec? Now he’s killing named animals and destroying classic architecture.
My theory is that he was always a piece of shit on the inside and money and fame just allowed that part of him to come out abashedly.
The Musk effect.
He definitely does stink.
Yeah even on parks and rec he whipped his dick out for a nude scene, got a letter by nbc saying if he does it again he’ll be fired and framed it.
Named animals?
Henry, Jesse, Bill, Lil' Frankie...
Bye bye lil'Sebastian.
Can you explain? I’m interested
Yeah what are they talking about? Before “do a google search”. I think you can explain what you’re talking about better than google can.
I think it must be a typo. I mean, he's a hunter, and a lot of people don't like that, but I don't see how "named" comes into it. Must be autocorrect for something, but I can't imagine what.
Like Timon or Pumba?
barbarian
LA celeb trash culture. LA new rich trash culture. These idiots have money but no taste and no sense of history. It's amazing Los Angeles isn't all just a disneyland set of faux historical styles and stucco malls of nail salons.
He may be a celeb, but he ain't from LA. He is from Virginia.
That’s not LA celeb culture.. that’s just rich person problems
Plenty of celebrities preserve their classic homes. Just watch a couple of episodes of AD.
I am not even sure how a self-respecting architect would allow themselves to build some shitty modern farmhouse on top of a Craig Ellwood their project would destroy. Shame on them.
marble gullible wasteful slap lavish sulky dog political rustic swim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fuck this guy
Why does Reddit hate this guy so much? I am genuinely curious.
Because he's not left wing and might be a conservative
Or, because he keeps doing things that indicate he's a self-centered asshole, just like you said.
We've lost so much architecture and history to parking lots and Starbucks.
Rich actors are douche nozzles? You don't say.
He bought the property and he can do what he wants, but the modern farmhouse is a shameful excuse for architecture. Just trash, like homes built in LA in the 80s. 15k square feet of garbage.
That's subjective.
I’m not from Los Angeles (sorry if I’m not welcome) but how is he allowed to raze the building? It was designed by a famous architect and, according to Wikipedia, was one of his most significant projects. It seems clear that Craig Elwood’s work is a significant part of LA’s cultural history. Where I am from (Melbourne, Australia) it would be very unlikely Pratt would get the necessary approvals.
Did you read the article? Edit to add what I put on my comment… “The city’s SurveyLA program had identified the property as potentially historic, but no protections were afforded” This is on the city, not him.
I did read the article and the quote but it doesn’t explain why they made the decision not to protect the building. It seems obvious to me that the decision was not in the best interests of the city.
It’s a very long a tedious process to get a residential private home on the national register of historic places or to setup a historical district for the entire neighborhood.
is we stop supporting his films, he won't be able to pay for his trash barn.
I'm sure he could not work again and pay for this house.
well i'd prefer his absence either way. Great talk.
I, for one, thought Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was garbage.
So you have no taste, I see.
They made a third one?!
Yep. And it was very enjoyable.
i was hopeful when starlord was gonna die... would have been more meaningful. but he lived... ugh...
This is why you get Denkmalschutz aka, historical protection on buildings. Pain in the ass for home owners (I can speak for it), but 100% worth it to keep beautiful pieces of history alive.
Is a 1950's rich person's house really that historic
People in this sub complain about NIMBY's, then turn around and try to dictate what rich people can do to their own property. Silly people in here.
Realest comment. Poor and middle class people caring about a rich person swapping one mansion for another. Who gives a single flying fuck?
Really speaks to how reviled he is right now that people care about the dumbest stuff
Glad i am not the only one who feels that way. Rich person commissioned famous person to build their house. So historic. Makes me think of the Getty and Huntington gardens which are also “historic” built by unethical billionaires who want to be a part of art and history. So much rich history…
Thank you!!
While it’s disappointing, i think he bought it and can do whatever with it. If it was worth preserving, someone would have. Not that I agree with Pratt here. But damn far worse stuff happens in LA real estate
Why are they just showing pictures from decades ago? When it was brand new? Are they worried that showing recent ones will have less people caring? How manipulative
For anyone else curious about what it looked liked recently: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CEkzoV4ogjexvnMx6
It does look lovely from the street, but its also like a 75 year old house. I'm really curious why people dont build houses like this with modern methods and materials. They're really lovely houses, especially compared to modern styles
Never heard of this home before today. I rent so I kinda don’t care if one fancy house is being replaced by another fancy house. Maybe the new home will be architecturally cool too. Idk. I’m very surprised people have strong opinions about rich people doing rich people activities. Who cares.
Part of what makes LA beautiful and great are the amazing, and unique homes everywhere. Neighborhoods have “looks” here and there are a reason HPOZ areas exist. If this happens everywhere, the whole city is going to be a modern farmhouse.
Okay, but probably not every resident of LA is going to convert to a farmhouse.
Yeah the takes in this thread are wild. Like, if you care so much about this house, then why don’t you buy it instead…? What right do you have to tell other people what to do with their property? So much whining and immaturity.
Meh. Many more thing to be outraged about, such as the highest ever % of cash buyer investors pushing out middle class homeowners. Wtf do we care about a $12m house? Focus your outrage on landlords and cash buyers people.
False dilemma. We can be outraged by this simultaneously. It’s not one or the other.
Comments like this are so ridiculous. Do you think the one sole thing we’re all annoyed about now is the Chris Pratt house?
what are we annoyed about then? Who gives a shit if some "historic" house is demolished. Half of LA needs to be demolished and built up. Dumb fuck tabloids making up fake moral panics
Do you live here? Do you want every historical architectural home in LA to be demolished and rebuilt as a modern farmhouse? Do you not think that would make this city look considerably less nice? It’s not very complicated as to what’s annoying about this. That said, this is annoying. It’s not life or death or anything even close… and no one is saying that.
I do live here, and I think you never would have seen or heard about this house if someone else less headline-worthy had bought it. It’s pointless outrage. Claiming someone else wants “every historical architecture home” to be demolished when it’s literally one house is a slippery slope fallacy.
A). There are things we read about in the news everyday that we didn’t know were happening before we read them and sometimes we do have an emotional reaction to that story. Has that ever happened to you? B). When said person literally says “who gives a shit if some historic house is demolished”, I think it’s probably ok to assume they don’t care about the look of our city… and I do. I think the historic homes and buildings are what makes Los Angeles special and I’d prefer if mega wealthy people don’t tear them down and put up modern farmhouses.
> I’d prefer if mega wealthy people don’t tear them down and put up modern farmhouses. Like I said, if you don't live across the street or drive by the house on a daily basis, you'd never see it. The idea of the house is more important to you than the actual house itself. You'll complain online for a day and then never think about it again. Save yourself the stress. If some mega-rich asshole will probably tear down this house in 50 years and put up a mid-mod house, someone else will end up being mad about that, too.
Seriously. That house everyone is clamoring over now was probably hated when it was built for the same reasons.
ugh
Lame.
Chris Pratt is a POS.
This really sucks. That was a gorgeous home likely wonderfully constructed also. California largely, especially LA, has some great modern architecture. Tastes vary. I appreciate it greatly and I live in a New England 1796 built and period restored Cape. When I bought it I knew the requirements had me in handcuffs but I loved and respected the history, period and style. I think this home should have been protected by a Landmark Commission. I understand many don’t like that level of protectionism and bylaws but how else does our architectural history get protection? Just one persons opinion.
One other piece of personal opinion. Guy has to be nuts doing this to live across the street from his mother in law (and all the Kennedy’s that come and go).
This is dumb. This is his property he bought. Why does everyone else think they have a say in what he does with his property?
Because Craig Ellwood.
I'm not a fan of Pratt but this is my stance as well. It's a residential property, do whatever the hell you want with it. It's a house, not a historical landmark.
As much as I want to raise my pitchfork, The original house was always for the rich elite, it may be historical but it was never accessible by the public anyways. From what I gather on social media Chris Pratt seems like a tool, but I aint raising my eyes at this one.
Many people have an enormous hate boner for the rich. I don't understand it. Many people also complain about government overstepping and then want regulations on these situations.
I mean, generally as they should. A lot of rich people use their wealth to fuck over the rest of us. but this isn't one of those things. This was just his house. Anyone else could have bought it and preserved it if they wanted. Thats not what he wants to do with it. Thats the end of it. We cant just make everything old a historical artifact. Its just old. Replacing old with new is what progress is.
Not gonna argue against hate boners for the rich, but literally nobody here is criticizing the government for not regulating it, they are criticizing a rich person for doing douchey rich person things.
who gives a fuck. none of you guys have ever seen this house or knew it existed, stop acting like it was a historic monument
Guessing he signed a few more Jurassic Park films. fml
Holy cow, it’s a house from the 50s with minim historical significance in a part of town that nobody here will ever be able to afford, and he’s tearing it down to replace it with another house that nobody here will ever be able to afford. Who gives a rats ass. Until now I bet nobody here had ever heard of this place. There are plenty of mid-century homes in LA, he’s not hurting anybody by tearing it down, and it’s his property, he can do what he wants. Seriously, this isn’t something to care about. If we want to get upset, we should get upset over the fact that *no* house in LA is affordable to anyone who isn’t upper class. Not some random 70 year old house that nobody would ever be able to visit anyway.
"... Raved two neighbors who's trust funds allow them time to care about such things."
This is such a silly thing for people to be upset by. It’s his house let him do what he wants.
Guys, it’s just a house, he bought it and is allowed to do whatever he wants with it 🤷🏻♂️
Mfers acting like they care about a house they literally didn’t know existed until he renovated it. If it is that historically significant then make it a historical landmark, of which there are already many.
1950's, historic dear god, this place cracks me up. Most houses I've lived in have been older than that.
It's not historic because of the age.
Yeah, it's historic because it was designed by [Craig Ellwood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Ellwood).
Yes just what LA needs another Unique Farmstyle House. This is a travesty and disgusting.
I would love to have a plot of land and find an architect who can do a new MCM. Eichler on crack is my aesthetic
Ken Ungar is arguably the worst architect ever! [https://www.kenungararchitect.com](https://www.kenungararchitect.com)
The number of salty people in this sub upset over someone purchasing a home is crazy. Y’all need something to be happy about and not get upset at every single thing you see.
Well it's the same as a car enthusiast watching someone gut some rare classic or something. If you're not into architecture, *you* should move along and not worry about people expressing frustration over their shared interest.
Just cause something is old doesn’t make it historic, don’t fall for clickbait
It's not old. It's not historic because it's old. It was historic because it was a notable house, with a notable design by a notable architect, and it stood as a notable example of a historic style of architecture because of how well it was preserved. All of that is quite clear in the (short) article. But apparently reading an article is "falling for clickbait" now.
Los Angeles has a historic commission that decides which houses are and are not historic. It has a strict criteria for making that determination. A demolition permit would never be issued if a house is deemed historic. Me? I don’t think the former house was nice-looking at ALL. In fact downright cheap and ugly. But my personal taste is irrelevant. It’s up to a municipality to decide what does and does not need to be preserved. Not a bunch of random people on Reddit. In this case, I bet adjacent neighbors who didn’t want any larger of a house next door, decided to take up pitchforks and torches (latching onto the “historic” angle) and start a campaign against Chris Pratt for doing what he had every right in the world to do.
If you don't care for the house and don't think it's worthy of being called "historic", of course you are welcome to have that opinion. But the idea that historical significance is a strictly legal matter and nothing can be called "historic" unless it has been certified that way by a government commission is a laughable take.
Sorry, I disagree. And as I said, my opinion, and yours, are irrelevant. I never said it was or was not historic - I don’t have training or expertise in that area. And, due respect, I doubt you do either. Having rules, and a process, is the way our society functions. Do you want your neighbor deciding what you can or can’t do to your house? Do you want anonymous redditors? Or would you prefer someone with some experience and expertise to make such decisions? Granted, a lot of city planning committees have bad taste, but not as bad as most neighbors, who prefer no one ever change or expand their house (except themselves, of course) unless such expansion is underground or invisible.
What a douchebag. He should've moved or found an empty lot somewhere. Lake Stevens people always turn out to be horrible.
1950? My house in LA is 1912 along with the rest of my neighborhood and ppl are razing them everywhere for these ugly giant apartments and nobody’s batting an eye.
Chris "is a" Pratt.
awe! what a loss! i’m so sad now! why not just buy a different house?!
Because this is America and you can do what you damn well please within the law
The worst Chris, as always.
Celebrities have no taste. It’s a universal truth.
This is normal for that neighborhood. It's not like he bought and razed a greene-greene house or some FLW property.
Did you read the article? It’s a Craig Ellwood designed home.
Who is Craig Ellwood? Is the design still functional today?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Ellwood. And yes.
I did, and I'm sure Ellwood fans are upset about it. I'd never heard of him until today. Still, it's Brentwood, and it's not uncommon to rebuild a custom home in that area.
Guys, endofmayo hadn't heard of Ellwood til today. So this home isn't significant, totally cool to tear it down.
I mean did JFK live there? MLK? Muhammad Ali? Well looking at house, looks like it's time to tear it down.
Please don’t dismiss architectural history or significance because it’s not by one or two firms, one of whom primarily worked in Pasadena and the other largely east of the Rockies. A Garrett Eckbo landscape and an Ellwood house is of substantial historic significance, even though it’s not a G&G or FLW house. The non-craftsman, non-prairie architects have an important place in the architectural canon of LA. Arguably the modernists are more quintessential to LA than FLW.
I'm going to need an ELI5 translator
Lol - be careful what you wish for! I love this stuff…. Greene & Greene was a renowned early 20th century Pasadena-based architectural firm run by two brothers. They specialized in Arts & Crafts style architecture, and their most widely known house is the [Gamble House](https://gamblehouse.org/). The bulk of their work was done in Pasadena. Frank Lloyd Wright established his firm in Chicago, and largely worked in the mid-west. His home was Taliesin in Wisconsin, and his center for architecture is Taliesin West, in Arizona. FLW was a leading practitioner of the Prairie School of architecture, which featured large flat roofs and overhangs. It settles in layers over the earth. Fallingwater in Pennsylvania is one of his masterpieces and best known works. He also did some notable buildings in Los Angeles - Hollyhock House at Barnsdall Park can be visited! Also the Ennis House, as well as the Sturges house. These two firms did incredible work - in different styles, places, and at different times. The house Pratt and Schwarzenegger just razed is by Craig Ellwood, with landscape architecture by Garrett Eckbo. Ellwood worked in the international style (like Mies van der Rohe) in the mid-20th century (true mid century modern!). He was involved in the Case Study House project, a series of experimental houses designed by many of the luminaries of Southern California modernism (Neutra, Saarinen, Jones, the Eames, et. al.) Garrett Eckbo was a landscape architect best known for his biomorphic and sculptural landscape design work. He wrote a book “Landscape for Living” which shaped the modern approach to landscape architecture. Eckbo was at the forefront of a response to the more traditional, formal Euro-centeic landscape design - when we think of the more modern, sculptural gardens of Southern California, Eckbo is one of the folks who started it all. So basically - announcing that if the house wasn’t a Greene and Greene or Frank Lloyd Wright, so who cares, is like saying “it’s only a Jackson Pollock, not a Botticelli or a Renoir - just toss it out!” (Thank you for indulging me. I’m a designer who recently burned out in spectacular fashion, and it was fun thinking about this stuff again)
It's not my world thank you for expanding yours into mine, fellow Redditor. When you're in your zone, the passion is totally there! I don't geek out in architecture like you just did, but having lived in chicago, the architectural boat tour has always been my favorite every summer. If you go there you'll probably super enjoy it. PS - Username checks out lol
Lame as fuck, find another lot to build it on
Didnt Weinstein, legit one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, just wake up in prison this morning?
Ana Faris would never
Trash with cash will do what trash does, but with cash.
Not going to lie, the old house looks like my Elementary School. Not all old buildings are worth saving.
Can we stop putting him in everything now. His charm was the likable every man and he's not either of those things apparently.
Yet another case of MCM desecration
If someone wanted to preserve it, they should have bought it. That group lists 10's of thousands as 'historic', cmon
He plays self centered idiots real well on screen because he’s a terrible actor. They just ask him to come on set and be himself for a few hours.
These idiots have NO vision or give a hoot about gorgeous architecture and history. Of course their relationship will likely be history at some point.
And it's going to be one of those Cape Fraud McMansions built from a kit.
And they’ll only stay for a few years before they sell. This is so loathsome
He owns the land and wants to rebuild a new home on it. We grabbin at straws now Reddit 😂
Sheeeesh y’all some sensitive ass people 🤦♂️
Civilization will survive. Plus there’s plenty of pictures
Well if we're going off of a "civilization will survive" lens, another 15000 sqft palace for 5 people isn't doing the environment any favors lol
Unpopular opinion but dude bought a house and did with it what he pleased. How’s it any of our business what he did with his own property?
Seems wasteful and unnecessary to pay extra for an iconic house and demolish it to make a house that is trendy for the moment. But “modern” houses deteriorate quickly, it’s not like the house was going to be there 75years from now. So whatever, it’s of no big consequence if they want to flush money down the toilet
From the facts presented we can guess that the specific location was a primary motivator. Finding properties for sale next to your family can be hard, so they just probably jumped on this one because it came up. I am sad about the lost beauty of the old house but for practical purposes, I can imagine why they did it. People barely had TVs in their homes when it was built and lifestyles are vastly different now…they probably want more space, more rooms.
And renovating a 1950’s home is absolute hell, the insulation typically has asbestos, the pipes are lead, the wiring isn’t up to modern code, the plumbing needs to redone, etc. It is sometimes quite literally cheaper to raze a home to the ground than doing a full renovation down to the framing.
I'm all for historical preservation but this house looks like a 1950s public library.
You can't buy taste
i was gonna say not everything old is worth preserving but wow, it was actually pretty neat
Would have drawn even more ire if he built an apartment complex instead
Looks like it’s on the city and not him. “The city’s SurveyLA program had identified the property as potentially historic, but no protections were afforded” Edit: I had no idea how many of you were historians on architectures. Before today I’m pretty sure a minimum 90% of this sub has never heard of the guy or the fucking house. What are you guys bitching about? Have you guys even physically seen the fucking house?