Although superlative residential architectural works are elegant mirrors of their times and an important aspect of the city’s cultural heritage, the pressures of property values, changed styles of living (the craze for open kitchens and great rooms have doomed many period homes), and property owners’ rights often outweigh the glories of the past. The demolition of amazing, one-of-a-kind architectural homes is an all too frequent occurrence in LA, despite epic efforts by preservationists. — la-confidential-magazine.com
3 Comments
So.....? My first reaction to this piece is so what? How can you disagree with preserving FLW or a Greene Bros or a Quincy Jones? Los Angeles is a magnet for the wealthy because of the Hollywood, called 'the industry' here. And the movie business makes the entertainment products the world buys.
But Hollywood productions are nor avant-garde, or even cutting edge really. Hollywood producers and studios are conservative with their monies. That is why they rely so much on remakes , sequels , best sellers, and hit plays for movies. Is it any wonder that Hollywood monies with this mentality go for homes that are of a 'sure bet' investment and by well known name architects?
Hollywood money rarely invests in new talent, or the avant-garde. it 's a good thing for Los Angeles architectural preservation that the Hollywood business model is saving LA history.
I read the article completely differently. I don't think anyone was arguing for tearing down these houses, infact quite the opposite.
"The demolition of amazing, one-of-a-kind architectural homes is an all too frequent occurrence in LA,"
As for the avant guard, I don't think it can be business oriented by definition. What's strange though is the assumption that if something isn't cutting edge, it somehow lacks quality. How many new and revolutionary turns can an art form make before the whole idea of perfecting a craft becomes irrelevant? BTW, the fact that Hollywood is saving LA's build history is good for Los Angeles, not just it's architectural preservation movement. Amazing what a throw away society we live in.
I am assuming very few of these buildings are "in the public realm" - they're private homes on private property set back from public ways, owned by private individuals who can do with them what they want. If they were truly cultural artifacts, then "the public" has at least some interaction with them.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.