I've never heard anybody talk about where Marilyn Monroe lived in my life. If the property was important for preservation why didn't the city already own it? Was there just supposed to be some general understanding that it wasn't allowed to be demolished? I would think it's just an empty shell at this point.
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
159 points (96.0% liked)
News
23404 readers
4535 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's pretty common to still allow private ownership of historic places, but with additional rules associated with them.
The silly part is if this mattered, why wasn't this already part of that? I suppose it's a social inertia of a kind, and this will likely resolve by getting it recognized as a historic building.
The silly part is that anyone considers a this a historic place. What happened in Marilyn Monroe's mansion that makes it worthy of keeping? She's historic, the house she happened to own is not.
If there is a bunch of people who care so much about the house that they would put in effort to stop the demolition then they should purchase it.
You say that as though a house that isn’t presently listed for sale can be forcibly purchased for such a thing, which just isn’t how it works unless it’s the government doing the forcing.
Besides which, they have to stop the demolition before they could even offer to purchase it, assuming the owners want to sell at all, so even if that does end up being a valid option, it’s going to take time.
So either way they need to stop the demolition to do what you suggest..? I’m confused as to how you expect that to work.
I'm a bit confused on your confusion. I just stated that if they want to keep the house then they should purchase it. If the current owners don't want to sell then too bad for them.
So your stance is “if the land owners want to fuck up a potential historical landmark for everyone else, they can, regardless of what society as a whole wants; private property is king, and rich people rule the rest of us.”?
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with that mindset. As does most of society, and the government, hence historical districting, which is mostly privately owned.
And that is where you are wrong. The government cannot agree with you because, by the US Constitution, the government cannot just seize land without offering equal value. So it cannot be made a historic monument, something the government would have to designate, unless the government owned the property, which they do not.
Also you have no right to speak on what most of society wants. The best you can do is speak on your world view. I could also argue that most people wouldn't care if it is demolished.
Finally, my stance is not what you stated. I don't know why you think you know everything. My stance is "If the want to preserve the property the do it right. Legally obtain ownership and go through the proper channels." Stop making assumptions.
None of them are very liquid right now, they have most of their savings invested in a box under their bed labeled “homework”
"The property, which features a guest house and swimming pool, was purchased in 2017 for $7.25m by Glory of the Snow LLC, then managed by a hedge fund executive, the Los Angeles Times reported. It was sold to the Glory of the Snow Trust for $8.35m earlier this year."
It should be illegal for LLCs or trust funds to purchase housing of any kind.
It should be illegal for LLCs or trust funds to purchase housing of any kind.
I completely agree that LLCs, REITs, and institutional investors shouldn't be able to buy single family homes (and maybe even duplexes), but I don't know about "housing of any kind."
Large, multi family units like apartment buildings serve a vital need in the affordable housing market. Private individuals who have the capital to purchase a multi million dollar apartment building aren't any more likely to be a conscientious landlord than a corporation. At that point, it all boils down to effective enforcement of tenant rights laws.
Right, but REITs are investment companies, not housing companies. They only bought the apartment building because they see it as a way to create infinite wealth for themselves, rather than, you know, be a service provider.
Maybe you're right. But I don't really bother to try and read too deep into the motivations of any kind of corporation. I assume they're all primarily motivated by profit. And my point is that individuals who have the capital to buy millions of dollars of real estate are functionally no different from a corporate investor, be it a REIT or a "housing company" motivated solely by "providing service." They're all going to do the bare minimum as required by the market to stay competitive and government regulation.
That might be a bit too much. LLCs aren’t always evil corporations. For example, I am an LLC and bought my house with the LLC for privacy reasons. I know other people who have done the same. Not always nefarious
Perhaps require that the owner of the LLC use the house as their primary dwelling?
Or just anyone. Person or LLC. That’s fair
I think she was a beautiful icon, but this is asinine. What could possibly be so special about this particular house? If demolition is even an option, the house itself is likely in bad shape and not livable, so it’s just taking up space.
What could possibly be so special about this particular house?
I have absolutely no idea. Presumably that's why there is a a motion to initiate consideration of the home for historic preservation. Seems reasonable. And not asinine, on the face of it.
If it was historical, someone could have landmarked it in the last 70 years.
It’s probably not historical in any way except for the owner.
It may very well not be. But a temporary stay of demolition pending a look isn’t asinine
There was not a single thing in that article which makes that house special. The only claim to fame seems to be “long dead actress owned it for a couple years”.
It’s all talking about how she was a famous icon. This is gross celebrity worship/fetishism.
There’s nothing in the article, because you, me, the author and the council don’t yet know whether there is anything of historical value in the building. That’s why they are proposing to take a look before it’s knocked down.
Bad faith NIMBY action to try and landmark a mediocre house at the last minute.
If it has architectural merit, why did it take 60 years for anyone to notice?
Who said anything about architectural merit. Yes, she was an iconic actress, married to De Magio and Arthur Miller and she was also extraordinarily well connected. I know nothing about the property’s architectural or historical importance. But having a look before bulldozing isn’t outrageous.
I doubt the people who are lobbying are neighbours, so NIMBY isn’t really applicable
Yeah, but why would this particular house warrant historical importance? She didn't do anything of particular note. I know you're not arguing for it, but it sounds stupid that nothing was done about it for decades until it was decided to be demolished.
I don't get it either. She was pretty and blonde. Are we gonna upkeep all the houses of tiktok celebrities when they die?
She was pretty, blonde, typecast, potentially murdered (I'm not a conspiracy theorist but some point to her relationship with the president), a feminism icon for her push to end the 'ditzy blonde' that stapled and pinholed her career.
She's often listed as one of the most prominent figures in feminism due to her treatment of Joe Dimaggio, who she left after he got abusive with her and tried to restrict what roles and photoshoots she took.. Joe loved her the rest of his life and begged for her back, and she made a point to say she'd never go back to a man who treated her that way, important for the 60s if you didn't know about domestic abuse rates.
A critically intelligent woman who was taken into the world of show business for her looks and her brains intentionally ignored, and then media campaigns to push that she's just "pretty and blonde" still succeed to the modern day.
I don't deeply care about the woman, I liked some of her movies, some like it hot is a top tier film. But I'm also against preserving most people's legacy, because 'why care?'. Regardless of her impact, and the fact that that's her only self-owned home, it's land and stuff and we don't need to be reserving any more land and stuff that isn't significant. Expand public and national parks. Take good pictures of Lincolns childhood home and tear it out, people get one monument at the most, he can have his big stone chair or he can have his cabin.
If demolition is even an option, the house itself is likely in bad shape and not livable
Not necessarily. I don't know if this is the case here but some places, people view the property location as more valuable and have too much money so they buy the house/property and then knock the house down and build what they want no matter the condition of the original house.
This happened to someone I know, their house needed a little work but was perfectly fine. The new owner didn't even go inside to look at the house. Made an offer and then tore it down to build something new.
How about something like this...
He's knocking down his own house he just built plus several others.
I could see this going both ways. If it's important historically and the owners want to demolish it then the city or some org should bid to buy it and maintain it. Otherwise why should the private owner be forced to maintain a dilapidated property.
because my feelings
marilyn monroe was such an icon!
So fucking what? She died decades ago, and she's not an important person like a Gandhi or an Einstein or an FDR. Tear it down. Build new housing. People need to get celebrities dicks all the way out of their throats.
I could not give less of a shit about what happens (happened?) to Gandhi's or Einstein's homes unless they're turned into public museums. Sell it, tear it down, whatever. They aren't important places
So old houses are all bad and should be torn down? It's a 2900sq ft single family home that's historic in a single family home zoned district, not a mansion in the middle of a higher density housing zone. It's not going to be torn down to become low income housing, it would probably be torn down to be turned into a modern monstrosity given the 7M+ sale price.
Tear it down and build affordable housing.
It should be converted into a public museum celebrating her life. I think plenty of people will be interested to see what the life of a celebrity is like away from the spotlight.
Wait, why would her having lived here have anything to do with current construction permits?
Make it seem a suicide!
Make it seem a suicide!
Make it seem a suicide!
Make it seem a suicide!
But it ain't a mystery, baby, not to me.
Yeah but what about Marilyn Manson’s house? Can we demolish that?