[ 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

[(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)]

DA

I can’t relate to them but people do not want yards at all. They don’t want the upkeep and they definitely don’t want trees (I kinda relate on that one). If you have an acre or more, trees 100+ feet from the house are great but anything closer needs to go unless they were routinely topped. The houses on my property weren’t and we’ve had to pay a fortune to have some gorgeous old trees cut down. It broke my heart but they would literally kill us if they fell on the house. We’re lucky that the tree that did fall on the house only took out our front porch, the dining room, and the living room. If it had been on the other side, we’d be dead. My neighbors had one fall on their bedroom 3-4 days after the one fell on my house. They heard noise and woke up and the wife bolted from the room. The husband was saying she was being melodramatic because of what happened to us. Then the tree fell and luckily he was just far enough away that the roof truss missed him but he got pinned in there for a few hours. He broke his back and several ribs. So yeah, trees next to the house are just a really bad idea.

[(Anonymous)]

If you don't want trees in your yard, get an apartment in the city.

Cutting down trees contributes to climate change like CRAZY. For every tree that's cut down, the average temperature rises noticeably. The only thing that mitigates temperature rising at all is mature trees, which give shade and reduce carbon.

(My preferred living situation is a city apartment in a 4/6-unit building on a treelined street near public transit. I don't want to mow a fucking lawn, lol, fuck lawns, but I do want trees)

[(Anonymous)]

“For every tree that's cut down, the average temperature rises noticeably.”
That’s not even remotely true. Cutting a few trees down away from housing is actually recommended as part of controlling climate change. And climate change isn’t just global warming. You haven’t been alive long enough to feel global warming; no one has.

Deforestation is what contributes to climate change. The kind of tree cutting for enlarging cities. Not only do we lose the benefits of CO2 filtration, but the cement jungle that replaces forests actually does raise the local temperature enough to be felt.

[(Anonymous)]

You haven’t been alive long enough to feel global warming; no one has.

Uh... yeah, we have. I definitely have. The seasons have changed, dog.

And you definitely want trees next to and around housing. The more trees you have, especially ones of a specific age, the cooler the environs are going to be.

[(Anonymous)]

Climate change and global warming aren’t the same thing. You’ve experienced climate change, you have not felt global warming.

Trees near houses are definitely a great thing! Trees immediately next to houses are not if they’re over 50 ft tall. Trees should be 100 ft from houses. I highly recommend you check out the Arbor Day foundation. And google global warming too since you obviously don’t have a fucking clue about it.

[(Anonymous)]

DA -- the only reason I wanted to move to a house was to get a yard. (Ten years ago when prices were VERY different.) I spent the first summer sitting on my back deck looking at the trees at the back of the lot. And then I got dogs. My former grass is all trampled and I certainly don't garden, but boy I love watching the dogs chase each other.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT -- in large part it's the sense of waste, especially when the house is in good shape. I may be stingy but if I could even imagine spending $10M on a home, I would expect to be moving into that home.

And communing with the spirit of Ray Bradbury. :(

[(Anonymous)]

This. If I'm paying $10 mil for a historic house, it's because...I want that house. as it is. Maybe some repair work that's needed, but I'm not going to tear it down because the reason I bought it is because I LIKE IT.

If I have that kind of money to spend, I will use it to buy a house I like. Not one I don't like that I want to destroy.

[(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.