Should a house be saved because someone famous lived there? Moot question for Ray Bradbury's house. LA Times:
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.
Stoked? When did the Responsible Adult Community turn into Spicoli?
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.
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."
