[ SECRET POST #6322 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6322 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #904.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. https://i.imgur.com/i5XKnYf.png

[(Anonymous)]

It also isn't a particularly historic house. This house isn't unique. The architect made dozens of the same designs.

[(Anonymous)]

That original house looked like a rather meh bungalow and not a gorgeous old cottage so I don't get the anger. They'll probably build some modern glass monstrosity that will look dated in a few years but that's a different problem.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really care about Pratt but I am eternally amused that a mid-century modern house is supposedly such a loss when most of those are pretty damn ugly most of the time (and also often have major structural issues). I know, I know, still a somewhat historical building and tastes vary but...eh.
(Same with mid century furniture. Like, I'm also not a fan of dumping tons of tacky paint on old furniture but most mid century furniture is pretty cheap with badly damaged veneer so it's often not worth restoring.)

[(Anonymous)]

I kind of adore the mid century look but you're not wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

I've noticed that, too.

Also, we don't know what sort of problems or structural damage(water damage, electrical, etc.) may have had that fed into the decision to tear it down and build another one.

[(Anonymous)]

Save your ire for the people who bought Ray Bradbury's Spanish style house and tore it down to build a modern monstrosity. I will die mad about that.

I am also really sorry the people who bought Betty White's mid-century seaside home also tore it down. That was a lovely well cared for example of the style, and also Betty White.

Chris Pratt is my least favourite Chris but let's not pretend he did anything unusual there.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my god, why would people even do that? What was the point of buying such historic homes (even if not by architecture, at least by right of previous ownership) only to destroy them?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but my guess is that the location and neighborhood is the bigger attraction for them, and when you're a millionaire/billionaire, tearing down a house to build from scratch probably sounds easier in the long run.

[(Anonymous)]

Original comment anon: yeah, you hit the nail on the head. I was hoping some rich Bradbury fan would buy his house, do some sympathetic renos, and live there happily ever after, but it was basically a $3 million dollar building lot.

I just checked and I think Betty White home that was torn down wasn't the mid-century one after all, but I am boggled at the idea of someone buying a house for $10M and then tearing it down, but it's not as bad as the beautiful mid century place I thought had been torn down.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree with you in sentiment, but that's the thing about sky-high property values: if you're paying $10M for a property, why wouldn't you tear down whatever is on it and build a home to your exact specifications? (I mean, there's an ecological cost to building a whole new house, of course, but I don't really think most people spending $10M on a property are going to put environmental concerns over having their home exactly how they want it.)

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but the most annoying thing about living in a neighborhood where the average post WWII tract house was in the 850 square feet range but the property values have skyrocketed is that buyers aren't putting in their dream homes when they have the original house torn down to studs and one wall (so it counts as a remodel and not new construction, which costs more and requires solar here.)

They're putting in white or greige 3.5 story 4 car garage 6,500 square foot boxes with all the charm of an industrial park, because more house=better investment. Nevermind that they're left with postage stamp concrete patios and plastic lawn furniture and no backyard.

The 800 square foot house next door to me sold for 1.8 million and the first thing the new owner did was cut down every single tree (including some endangered ones I hope they got fined for) and shrub to make way for construction crews.

The paperwork must not have cleared because the demolition hasn't started yet, but I dread the day when I lose all the afternoon sun exposure in my yard and the new neighbors can stare at my ancient tiny house and (dying from lack of sun by then) overgrown garden and fruit trees and chicken coop and general white trash ambience from their third floor windows.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's ego and an enjoyment of destructive cruelty.

"I BOUGHT this building, therefore I am entitled to destroy it, no matter the historical or artistic value."

Waving one's economic dick around, history be damned.

[(Anonymous)]

I’m aware there is major love for MCM houses because I see it daily on home restoration groups and subs. But I will never understand it. Some people will bring out their pitchforks no matter who tore down that ugly little house, but I think you’re right that most only did it because of Pratt. I don’t much care about him one way or another tbh but I generally don’t understand the blind devotion or hatred of any celeb.

[(Anonymous)]

Gorgeous? Tastes vary, but c'mon.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a shoebox with windows.

[(Anonymous)]

I adore mid century architecture (and I am absolutely fighting anyone for hating brutalist architecture, so my tastes are here), but I prefer it for public buildings. I just don't understand houses that look like an aquarium

[akacat]

I love MCM. But even if you hate it, it’s always a shame when a house with character is replaced with a McMansion. Or with an over-sized energy-wasting mansion that fills up all the green space.

If the original house is too far gone to save, at least replace it with something that doesn’t take up the entire lot or tower over the neighboring houses.

[(Anonymous)]

this is exactly how I feel; I live in LA and I get that MCM (or Craftsman or Spanish Revival or any of the architectural styles that were popular here back in the day) isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it always bums me out to see a house with personality torn down and replaced with some bland hyper-modern shoebox that looks completely out of place with the rest of the neighborhood.

[(Anonymous)]

lol at shoebox because McMansions are ugly but they’re not anything like a shoebox in either design or size. But the house in the secret looks exactly like a shoebox lmao

[(Anonymous)]

There is a particular style of new build in my city that already looks dated. They are huge, and bland, and ugly, and twenty years from now everyone who looks at the house will be able to guess its age within 5 years of its build date. And most of them aren't even all that well built which is a separate issue, but certainly makes me angry when a functional hone is torn down and every square inch of the lot is taken up with this monster that blocks views and looks like a carcinoma on the neighborhood

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, same. My city is going down the same path and it is depressing

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not a fan of Pratt's, but you're right, a rich person tearing down a house that's seventy years old to put up a new one really shouldn't be this much of a story. Of course, I don't like that style at all and honestly, if I was rich enough and really liked the property it was on, I'd get rid of that house, too. I hope I would put up something in its place that fit in well with the surroundings and was at least somewhat eco-friendly, but that's me.

[(Anonymous)]

I just don't think we need more McMansions, which is 100% what he's going to put there. They're terrible and more about throwing money around than having a good, functional house.

[(Anonymous)]

I just didn't like him in Guardians of the Galaxy. Don't care about him as a person. I'm just butthurt that his talentless ass is so rich.