Should a house be saved because someone famous lived there? Moot question for Ray Bradbury’s house. LA Times:
The house that Ray Bradbury lived in for 50 years in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills neighborhood was torn down this month by "starchictect" Thom Mayne, who bought it for $1.765 million and plans to build a new house on the lot.
What happened? Why did fans of the author of "The Martian Chronicles," "Something Wicked This Way Comes" and "Fahrenheit 451" not get a chance to make their case that the house be saved?
Because . . . they didn’t own it? You can’t make the heirs sit on the property forever because Ray wrote books in one of the rooms.
Yes, the article said “starchictect”, which I presume is a portmanteau of Starchitect and Chic. Ugh.
Related: While researching a matchbook from Seattle - yes, I know, a blogger’s life as thrilling as all the rumors suggest - I got lost in one of those review sites where tales of bad visits can provide epic accounts of hotel horrors. Most people liked the Max, formerly the Vance, but a few guests thought the rooms were a bit small. The manager responds.
Thanks for staying with us and for taking the time to let others know about your experience via Google+. We are stoked to hear that you loved our location and our amazing beds! They are heavenly.
Stoked? When did the Responsible Adult Community turn into Spicoli?
Additionally, you are right about our rooms. They're smaller that what you'd find at a branded hotel but we rather like it that way. It makes us different and gives us an opportunity to share our history and story. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as others.
Well, you can’t please everyone. Most of the reviews are positive, but another fellow notes you can stand in the middle of the bathroom and touch all the walls. The manager - and I’ll give these guys credit for weighing in to answer kudos and complaints - doesn’t drop some boilerplate, but revises the response a bit.
Now things get snippy.
thanks for staying with us and for taking the time to share your thoughts. Our rooms are definitely on the smaller side. Our building was constructed in 1926 so the funky room sizes and layouts tell you a lot about our history. Ultimately, we rather prefer it that way. I'm sorry our story, history and focus on supporting our local vendors didn't resonate with you. Again, thanks for giving us a chance and we wish you safe and adventurous travels in the future.
The Funky Room Sizes and Layouts don’t tell much about the history, aside from its construction date. I avoid staying in old hotels unless I know the bed does not take up 70% of the room. Because when there’s no room and the bathroom has no counter space, you rarely think “it’s tiny, but the way the support local vendors is resonating so hard right now I can’t think of anything else.”
Anyway, some people like these hotels, especially when they’ve been made Hip and Modern, and renovation is preferable to knocking it down the way Minneapolis trashed all its old grand hotels. Your taste may vary. I stayed in a Klimpton in DC a few months ago - a former apartment building, I think, and a post-war one at that. It was Hip and Modern, which in this case meant the room had a big picture of a young guy with black glasses smiling smugly as he played the piano, and I think it’s only a matter of time before someone punches it. He was just so pleased with himself.