Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger slammed for demolishing historic California home
People are mad at Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger. Really mad.
The power couple ruffled feathers in the architectural preservation community — which, as it turns out, is rather large — when it was revealed they demolished a $12.5 million historic home in Brentwood, Calif. The Los Angeles property, known as the Zimmerman House, was completed in 1950 and designed by the late modernist architect Craig Ellwood. In its place, Pratt and Schwarzenegger are apparently building a farmhouse-style mansion. Here's why the internet cares — and what Ellwood's daughter has to say.
The home, commissioned in 1949 by Martin and Eva Zimmerman, sat on a 0.83-acre estate and included five bedrooms and three bathrooms. It featured a blocky exterior and 2,770 square feet of single-story living space. The famed midcentury home was one of Ellwood's earliest projects. As noted by the Robb Report, which broke the news of Pratt and Schwarzenegger's demolition, Ellwood is considered a pioneering modernist architect. His work is rare.
The Los Angeles Conservancy, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve historic places, wrote: “Older homes of all eras can nearly always be updated and expanded to meet current needs while still respecting the original architecture and design. It is what we consistently press for at the Conservancy: ** win-win outcomes ** that allow L.A. to grow and adapt while still holding onto its heritage.”
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 39 | April 25, 2024 1:37 AM
|
"farmhouse-style mansion" Enough said.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | April 24, 2024 9:44 AM
|
He looks like he smells of stale sweat. I wonder if Maria is embarrassed?
by Anonymous | reply 3 | April 24, 2024 9:50 AM
|
Chris Pratt could cure cancer and I would still hate him.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | April 24, 2024 9:53 AM
|
The home was not architecturally interesting, significant, or open to the public. Why should it have been preserved?
Preservationists shared beautiful photographs of the home filled with midcentury modern furniture in the sixties.
You know what was beautiful?
THE FURNITURE. That’s long gone. The building was not beautiful. It could have easily been a national park restroom.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 5 | April 24, 2024 9:54 AM
|
R5 Thanks for adding perspective.
by Anonymous | reply 6 | April 24, 2024 9:58 AM
|
Meanwhile
What did they do to the Armand Hammer building, an actual Midcentury Modern gem that was open to the public, was visible from a major thoroughfare, Wilshire Boulevard, and was from an architect with a significant connection to Los Angeles, William Pereira?
KNOCK IT DOWN!
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 7 | April 24, 2024 10:03 AM
|
Nothing like being born into the Kennedy family and then having Schwarzenegger money and then marrying a rich actor. No wonder Katherine is smug.
by Anonymous | reply 8 | April 24, 2024 10:06 AM
|
fail, op. someone already tried this outrage clickbait. nobody cares
by Anonymous | reply 9 | April 24, 2024 10:07 AM
|
And do you know what they replaced it with? A building that could have easily been a rest stop over a major highway!
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 10 | April 24, 2024 10:07 AM
|
At best, the new LACMA recalls an extremely conservative effort to evoke the dynamism of googie architecture gems like the Beverly Hills gas station or the KAX theme building. Minus the sweeping curves or originality. Do you know what it was supposed to recall.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 11 | April 24, 2024 10:11 AM
|
A TAR PIT. Possibly the most magnificent postmodern statement on Los Angeles and the futility of art and preservation.
But it was black and people didn’t like that, so now it’s white and has no visual anchor.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 12 | April 24, 2024 10:14 AM
|
Instead, do you know what Los Angeles is getting for an art museum?
AN ILLINOIS TOLLWAY OASIS.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 13 | April 24, 2024 10:17 AM
|
Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | April 24, 2024 10:21 AM
|
So please, save your crocodile tears for a structure that doesn’t look like a small suburban bank branch. This was a fucking ugly building and anyone here who had the resources to replace it would have made the exact same decision.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 15 | April 24, 2024 10:21 AM
|
R14
Wrong quote
Noah Cross : Of course I'm respectable. I'm old! Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | April 24, 2024 10:22 AM
|
It's his money, they can do whatever they want with it.
by Anonymous | reply 17 | April 24, 2024 10:23 AM
|
They're like Pia Zadora and Meshulam Riklis of the 21st century.
by Anonymous | reply 19 | April 24, 2024 10:45 AM
|
People are outraged because mid century modern is back in style at the moment. If this were 2010, nobody would care.
by Anonymous | reply 20 | April 24, 2024 10:50 AM
|
I don’t blame them for tearing it down, I blame them for wanting a “modern farmhouse.”
by Anonymous | reply 21 | April 24, 2024 10:59 AM
|
R3 Maria lives across the street... she is completely on board.
by Anonymous | reply 22 | April 24, 2024 11:01 AM
|
Do they double date with Harry and Megs?
by Anonymous | reply 23 | April 24, 2024 11:11 AM
|
Mid century modern FURNITURE is big at the moment. That’s why the dishonest preservationists shared photos of the house with period furnishings.
Very few people like mid century modern buildings. How many of you go to New York and take pictures of the Metlife Building or the Seagrams Building?
Who goes to San Francisco to see Embarcadero Crnter?
by Anonymous | reply 24 | April 24, 2024 11:33 AM
|
[quote]People are outraged because mid century modern is back in style at the moment. If this were 2010, nobody would care.
It was back in style around 2006. Maybe not wherever you're from.
by Anonymous | reply 25 | April 24, 2024 11:38 AM
|
Mid century modern became fashionable again due to Mad Men which premiered in 2007. And that show became mainstream only after the second season. Mad Men was seen as aspirational and its storytelling was achieved through heavy use of midcentury modern furniture which combined both nostalgia with elegant, minimalist design which translated well to contemporary tastes.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 26 | April 24, 2024 11:44 AM
|
If the property was THAT significant it would already enjoy protected status. It doesn't.
Knock that sucker down Chris.
by Anonymous | reply 27 | April 24, 2024 12:17 PM
|
He was hot for a brief period, but he's gone back into the 'not hot' territory. Therefore, I'm failing to muster the energy to care about this.
by Anonymous | reply 28 | April 24, 2024 12:24 PM
|
that historic California home looked like a drug dealer's house in any piece of shit drug California drug movie that that whole piece of shit drugged-out town makes.
by Anonymous | reply 29 | April 24, 2024 12:37 PM
|
[quote]The home was not architecturally interesting, significant, or open to the public. Why should it have been preserved?
[quote]Preservationists shared beautiful photographs of the home filled with midcentury modern furniture in the sixties.
[quote]You know what was beautiful?
[quote]THE FURNITURE. That’s long gone. The building was not beautiful. It could have easily been a national park restroom.
R5 is right on this. It doesnt appear to have had any preservation order on it... for good reason. Personally I find the furniture ugly too, but thats a matter of personal taste
[quote]So please, save your crocodile tears for a structure that doesn’t look like a small suburban bank branch. This was a fucking ugly building and anyone here who had the resources to replace it would have made the exact same decision.
Agree with R15 too, although I think it looks more like a national park restroom than a suburban bank branch myself
If this house was actually significant somebody should have ensured it got a historic preservation order
by Anonymous | reply 30 | April 24, 2024 12:58 PM
|
The 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 question has gone unasked......
In Newsomeland will even Chris be able to insure his freshly built home ?
Thousands more Californians will lose their home insurance this summer as two more insurers withdraw from the state.
In filings with the California Department of Insurance, Tokio Marine America Insurance Co. and Trans Pacific Insurance Co. said they would both withdraw from the homeowners and personal umbrella insurance markets in California. Both are subsidiaries of Tokio Marine Holdings Inc., a Japanese company.
Tokio Marine America and Trans Pacific join a roster of insurers big and small that have limited or stopped doing business in California, often citing the risk of wildfires. Some, such as Allstate and State Farm, have stopped writing new policies in the state even as they continue to renew policies — though last month, State Farm announced it would not renew 30,000 homeowner policies. Farmers Direct Insurance has chosen to leave the state.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 31 | April 24, 2024 1:08 PM
|
Death to all modern farmhouses.
by Anonymous | reply 32 | April 24, 2024 2:40 PM
|
The preservationist bitches can get nasty when crossed.
by Anonymous | reply 33 | April 24, 2024 2:50 PM
|
Even flyovers are moving on from modern farmhouse. It's played out.
by Anonymous | reply 34 | April 24, 2024 3:01 PM
|
Never question the prerogatives of the rich.
by Anonymous | reply 35 | April 24, 2024 11:21 PM
|
Ungars litter Brentwood and the Palisades. Snoozefests, to a one.
by Anonymous | reply 36 | April 24, 2024 11:37 PM
|
I like the Seagrams Building, R24, but I see your point.
by Anonymous | reply 37 | April 25, 2024 12:01 AM
|
You call it Newsomeland as if it's his fault, r31. Incredibly stupid name for California, by the way.
by Anonymous | reply 38 | April 25, 2024 12:19 AM
|
R31 If you’re going to mock someone, at least learn to spell his name.
NEWSOM.
by Anonymous | reply 39 | April 25, 2024 1:37 AM
|