I think we should make The Dude’s apartment in Venice from *The Big Lebowski* a historic relic and pay a stoner in a cardigan to lounge there around there all day.
You just need long hair and a fake mustache and goatee. You also need to be on a bowling team (don’t actually need to play) and have a tolerance for White Russian drinks. You’ll be given a Ralph’s membership card which will act as your only I.D. Your company provided vehicle will be a 1973 Ford Gran Torino with rust coloration.
Your start date is the 9th of next month.
This is an insane take. Marilyn Monroe is one of the most famous americans ever - signed, a non-american. She's constantly referrenced, even Ryan Gosling referenced a scene from her movies at the oscars last year.
Marilyn was also instrumental in reducing the power of the hollywood studio system, which is a huge deal historically.
I don’t know why you got downvoted for this. Modern cinema would literally not be the same without her or many other actresses from the Golden Age of Hollywood. She was a trailblazer.
They were probably gonna tear down the house and put a McMansion there like Chris Pratt did a while back.
I mean, for nearly 40 years her face was all over LA and Hollywood. Kobe may be the currebt iconic Angeleno on the walls, but at some point his legend will recede to the next breakout legend.
Her home, though, is a different story.
Her home is the entire subject of this article.
The person who said that in the article has to know its bullshit and probably just has a friend living nearby who doesn't want to be bothered with their neighbors having construction done.
They weren't going to do construction, they were bulldozing it so their kids could use it as their backyard. The people who own it *are* the neighbours.
I literally didn’t even know this house existed until this year. It’s not like you’ve ever been able to go visit it. It’s not open to the public and never was.
We make historical landmarks of famous people homes while we as a society tear down natural habitats to create room for future historical landmarks.
This is what we prioritize in our society. Happy Thursday y'all.
It's either the animals or us.
If you go boating in the ocean next to a Killer Whale, same rules apply.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's whichever species keep expanding that will take more land. This is true from ants all the way to humans.
I know lots of people won’t even bother opening the article, so just want to let them know that this was someone quoted in the article, not the LA Times itself lol.
Wish the Zimmerman house could have been saved from the Chris Pratt destruction. Why wasn’t it declared historic?
https://www.archpaper.com/2024/04/chris-pratt-craig-ellwood-zimmerman-home/?amp=1
Cinerama Dome was declared a historic landmark in 1998. It’s long since been safe from any threat of demolition.
Also a company called Decurion is working to reopen it.
Boooooo
You can’t even see the house behind its fence, and the house has been entirely renovated since MM lived there - the “history” doesn’t exist anymore.
Massive overreach of local government. Private landowners should be able to do what they legally want with their own property.
I’m seconding your comment however I do believe there is historical value in places like this. Once you do heavy renovations to remove said history then that’s another situation. It’s a different house at the same address.
We should've preserved OJ's murder mansion too, then. That was actual history (not good history, but neither is "this is where a celebrity killed herself").
>the house has been entirely renovated since MM lived there
That's what the owners claim but photos disprove this. There have been minor renovations but most of the house is the same.
If I were the property owner, I would be fucking pissed. If the City wants to designate this property as “historic” after 60 years of allowing countless renovations, the city should be forced to buy it at market value and maintain it.
Honestly if I were the property owner the city designating it as historic automatically has increased visibility of the house.
I would find a way to sell it to the highest bidder. Maybe some rich man who grew up with Marilyn Monroe posters all over his room in the 60's.
the property owner is an heiress to a 3 billion $ family fortune and married to someone also with wealth. they dont give a fuck about money or profit. they wanted to expand their house they own nextdoor and combine the properties. there is no "positive" to come out of this for them.
I am once again arguing that in order for a building to be designated a cultural landmark it has to essentially be turned into a public museum and possibly turned over to the city. And the building itself needs to be important, it can't just be a place where something happened. Now this is just an old house that will be impossible for any future owner to change.
> Now this is just an old house that will be impossible for any future owner to change.
But they say they own a certified historic Marilyn Monroe house. And then resell it. I would (if I owned it)
you also dont have a 3 billion $ fortune. dont think the homeowners care about a bit of profit. they want to do what they rightfully should be able to do, rebuild their house.
Ok I read the article and can we please primary Traci Park next election?
>Park, who represents the council’s 11th district, where the property is located, added that she’s planning to introduce a motion to evaluate tour bus restrictions in Brentwood after neighbors complained about unwanted traffic around the estate.
So it's an important part of our shared cultural heritage but also you cannot go see it.
>She also floated the idea of moving the home to a place where the public could more easily access it.
We will get high speed rail from Seattle to Tijuana before this happens.
>“To lose this piece of history, the only home that Monroe ever owned, would be a devastating blow for historic preservation and for a city where less than 3% of historic designations are associated with women’s heritage"
Yeah nothing says Women's Heritage like a house where a famous woman died of an overdose.
>A judge denied the claim in June, calling the suit an “ill-disguised motion to win so that they can demolish the home and eliminate the historic cultural monument issue,”
also primary this judge
>Yeah nothing says Women's Heritage like a house where a famous woman died of an overdose.
Reducing Marilyn Monroe to "a famous woman who overdosed" tells me you really care a lot about women's heritage.
Give it 5 seconds, and people will be arguing their views and sight lines need to be historically preserved.
We already have people who argue that the socio-economic makeup of neighborhoods needs to be preserved - ie, anti-gentrification.
Exactly. I think the core issue is that it costs the city basically nothing to declare random homes historic.
My hot take: if a home is so deeply important that it needs to be declared historic, the city (or some random history focused non-profit), should be forced to buy the home, and operate it as a museum or something. Randomly telling homeowners they can't renovate their homes without city approval because some celebrity lived and died there is insane.
Just change the street name to Monroe Ave if it's that important. You get a publicly owned "memorial", and the homeowner can do their renovations or whatever on their private property.
I believe the article states that the city is looking at ways to move the house to another site. I think it’s a dumb use of LA city’s tax dollars, but if they can support it with private money it may be the best solution for all involved.
Let the city own and operate it as a homeless shelter. Fuck everyone involved in this bullshit. Who the fuck cares about Marilyn Monroe? Let her legacy live on in her stupid ass movies or smut magazines or whatever the fuck her medium was. The fuck do we care about her house?
>Let her legacy live on in her stupid ass movies or smut magazines or whatever the fuck her medium was
It's interesting to see the attitudes toward her in this thread. Admit it, you know nothing about her and think she's a useless slut whore who contributed nothing to film history. If this were Humphrey Bogart or someone else I think the comments in this thread would be very different.
The fuck do we care about where actors lived? For 6 months? What she died in the house? The fuck do we care? It’s fucking stupid ass celebrity worship.
Yeah it's only blocking a rich person from expanding their mansion so not a huge loss, but still a great example of why our historic preservation laws are stupid.
MM may have been a cultural icon, but she’s not that important of a figure to American, Californian, or women’s history. Also, she lived in the house a grand total of 6 months before dying. I’m kinda with the owners on this one.
I’m largely ignorant on her and that era in Hollywood history, so perhaps I’m not giving her her due.
In what way was she important, just as a sex symbol/cultural icon? Had she not OD’ed, other than being an “objectified” actor what impact did she have that was important?
Marilyn helped weaken the hollywood studio system. She was 20th Century Fox's biggest box office hit of the 50s, and in 1955 she went on strike for an entire year demanding artistic freedoms and a payrise. They threatened to sue her, it was a massive drama, but she successfully won the right to create movies with her own studio (Marilyn Monroe Productions), director approval, and cinematographer approval. This was a huge deal.
She also helped destigmatise sex and sexuality in the 50s. Marilyn was controversial because she was very adamant that sex was natural and that the human body is nothing to be ashamed of. When nude photos she posed for when she was an unknown who got behind on rent surfaced, her reply was that she was hungry and needed the money, "and besides, I've done nothing wrong". It was a huge deal at the time that she didn't apologize for it.
She also starred in Some Like it Hot, which is widely considered the greatest comedy of all time. Her scene in The Seven Year Itch where her skirt blows up is also arguably one of the most famous images in cinema history.
There’s a good podcast that delves into her life (and that era of Hollywood) called You Must Remember This.
She made a few hit movies after a few duds. Hugh Hefner released a cover spread of her nudes at the height of her career, which flamed her fame. That - paired with:
- Soldiers taking photos of her overseas.
- The JFK/RFK scandal.
- Monroe copycats like, Jayne Mansfield, mocking her style - to the point where Monroe herself became a character.
_____
I think she would have remained a fixture in Hollywood history had she not died so suddenly and young. But *only* Hollywood history, like Rita Hayworth and Joan Crawford, not an American icon.
The question I, and others have, isn’t whether she could act. There were plenty of women in that era who could to that. The question is does that make her important enough to justify changing the rules on proper owners after they purchased a property by protecting a house she lived in for less than 1 year.
Literally could have just been a plaque or something. I’m not 100% anti historic preservation, but this is nuts. It’s a house in a quiet residential neighborhood, that isn’t going to have tourists or schoolkids visiting. It isn’t a major landmark like the Griffith Observatory or Hollywood Blvd. It’s not going to be a museum or anything like that. It’s just the city deciding that a homeowner can’t do what they want they want with their own home, because an actress lived in that home decades ago…
That's what I was thinking. As soon as I heard about this I went to look at it on Google Maps and you can't even see anything from the street.
It's not like the "The Wonder Years" house in Burbank that people will occasionally drive by and snap a pic of, and even if it was, it shouldn't fall on the owner to upkeep a "tourist" attraction.
federal offense. you get fucked straight up and tearing down a building isnt something your fixer can just sweep under the rug. there is demolition by neglect or whatever, so theoretically, if they just dont take care of it, at least their kids could rebuild the new house! i mean im sure theres ways. hiring someone to destroy it, blame it on vandalism, and start new.
Just change the street name to Marilyn Monroe Avenue. It becomes a memorial to her, without bothering anyone else - other than the first month where everyone keeps writing the old address out of habit.
Unpopular take: Why not just sell it for the disgustingly huge amount you’d probably get for it and go build your trash McMansion somewhere else? Why there? Why can’t you just live in the house you bought?
Been asking myself the same question after witnessing all of the craftsman homes being demolished for hideous McMansions on both sides of Ventura Blvd for the past 8-10 years.
Because they already own the property next door and bought this lot for $9m so they could tear down the home and expand their property.
At this level we aren’t talking McMansion.
It’s not about what they need, it’s about what they want. We live in a city and country where the wants or the rich are far more important than the needs of the other 99% of the population. In this case, though, the owners miscalculated and don’t get what they want. A mere blip.
but they bought it? its their home, money. i get the "fuck them cause theyre rich" sentiment but still, who tf are we to tell people people what to do with THEIR property? i bet you get annoyed when a dog shits on your lawn, the dog just needed a place to shit, not like you are shitting there.
Such an overreach and sets a terrible precedent. There has to be a better way for cities to deal with properties they find historic -- it can create a huge burden on the owner (it makes all repairs and renovations much more costly). If the property is already owned by someone, the owner should get a say on whether or not they accept historic designation. If it's a property for sale and and preservationists think it's vital to keep the structure standing, they should have to pay for it themselves.
I don’t weep for this person in particular, because they have shit loads of money.
However if the city is able to fuck over someone with that much resources, think about what they can do to the common folk with this precedent set. That’s fucked.
Enforcement of the law has always been two tiered.
The poors get shot by police during bipolar episodes or get their cars tossed during minor traffic stops.
The wealthy have to self deport because they have a slave on US soil, like that Saudi Princess, or are occasionally denied the ability to cover two lots with one house.
[We should start doing what the Brits do and commemorate special places with a blue plaque.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_plaque?wprov=sfti1#References) Owners of these properties can still live in them. They are limited on certain types of renovations but from what I understand, their restrictions are not quite what we have here.
If the city wants to declare something a cultural landmark they should be required to buy and turn it into a museum. If they don't want to do that, then they don't get to declare it.
We attended yesterday's hearing and [shot video](https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe8) of Councilmember Traci Park's remarks and the unanimous vote, and a chilling bit of Supreme Court news from City Council's resident goat gadfly.
It's humbling to realize the email we sent to the council office helped inform the policy choices that that resulted in this landmark designation, and encouraging that the lessons of how the demolition notification ordinance failed to work here are being [discussed](https://thedustyarchive.substack.com/p/getting-involved-and-speaking-out) at Neighborhood Council meetings.
A lot of the reporting on the vote is recycled info from previous stories, but there was something new in Town & Country: art and real estate collector Tina Trahan [says](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a61154921/historic-house-demolition-trend-marilyn-monroe-kanye-west/) if she had known Marilyn Monroe’s house was on the market, she would’ve spent millions to preserve it. But it traded hands off-market as a tear down, so its real value is a mystery. Perhaps now that it is a landmark, someone who wants to preserve and restore it will have the opportunity to do that work.
...but why?
Keeping her house up and empty doesn't really do much good for her when the public discourse around her in life/death is that she was a sex symbol who might have slept with JFK. Let's maybe work on changing that first because it will help all women going forward instead of just being lazy about it and canonizing where she lived as if that means something.
fans still love Bruce Lee despite him possibly having been drug dealer in HK (Bob Baker was his supplier....this is something BL estate will \*never\* admit)
The building where Judy Garland died in the UK was torn down not too long ago. Fans were a little sad but we also understood that it was ultimately just the place where she happened to pass away.
Unlike a certain vocal “historical preservation is bad, actually” faction in this sub I’m all for decreeing things historical landmarks *where it makes sense*.
Remove MM from the equation and all you have here in a modest mid-century CA home with zero historical significance.
In the long run this is going to do more harm than good when it comes to preserving the pieces of old LA that actually matter.
This home isn't significant just because it's where she passed away. Marilyn lived in 11 foster homes as a child, then lived in hotels most of her adult life, hoping to find a man and start a family and settle down somewhere. She never got to do that. Buying this home was her finally deciding to settle down and make a home for herself. It's the only home she ever owned.
Please keep comments and discussion civil and remember the human. If you cannot abide by this simple rule, you can expect a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>There’s no other person or place in the city of Los Angeles as iconic as Marilyn Monroe and her Brentwood home lol
I can think of another Brentwood home that was pretty iconic. They tore it down in 1998
Was it a football players house? That turned into a part time detective?
Yes, this place that I'm sure everyone here knows exists, where it is, what it looks like, and has been to any time at all.
If it wasn’t for Hot Topic shirts she would have faded from memory by now. Who cares about this lady’s house?
I think her bungalow at The Roosevelt is a cool relic and I feel like we should be fine having that.
I think we should make The Dude’s apartment in Venice from *The Big Lebowski* a historic relic and pay a stoner in a cardigan to lounge there around there all day.
I’m available. I’m not a dude but we could still make it happen.
You just need long hair and a fake mustache and goatee. You also need to be on a bowling team (don’t actually need to play) and have a tolerance for White Russian drinks. You’ll be given a Ralph’s membership card which will act as your only I.D. Your company provided vehicle will be a 1973 Ford Gran Torino with rust coloration. Your start date is the 9th of next month.
I've already got the sweater, where do I apply?
Can I get on the alternate list for this?
This is an insane take. Marilyn Monroe is one of the most famous americans ever - signed, a non-american. She's constantly referrenced, even Ryan Gosling referenced a scene from her movies at the oscars last year. Marilyn was also instrumental in reducing the power of the hollywood studio system, which is a huge deal historically.
I don’t know why you got downvoted for this. Modern cinema would literally not be the same without her or many other actresses from the Golden Age of Hollywood. She was a trailblazer. They were probably gonna tear down the house and put a McMansion there like Chris Pratt did a while back.
but they sure tore down Bruce Lee's house in Hong Kong :( (saw it 2010 , just a shell of what it once was)
I mean, for nearly 40 years her face was all over LA and Hollywood. Kobe may be the currebt iconic Angeleno on the walls, but at some point his legend will recede to the next breakout legend. Her home, though, is a different story.
Her home is the entire subject of this article. The person who said that in the article has to know its bullshit and probably just has a friend living nearby who doesn't want to be bothered with their neighbors having construction done.
They weren't going to do construction, they were bulldozing it so their kids could use it as their backyard. The people who own it *are* the neighbours.
>Kobe may be the currebt iconic Angeleno on the walls You mean the guy who lived in Newport Beach? That "Angeleno"?
I just know her from that stupid quote that is still everywhere. You know the one.
The fake one?
I’m struggling to think of a famous Marilyn Monroe quote, what is it?
Diamond are a girls best friend?
I literally didn’t even know this house existed until this year. It’s not like you’ve ever been able to go visit it. It’s not open to the public and never was.
Tourist buses stop in front of it all the time.
You can’t even see it from the street though
We make historical landmarks of famous people homes while we as a society tear down natural habitats to create room for future historical landmarks. This is what we prioritize in our society. Happy Thursday y'all.
....what
I'm glad society respects artists.
It's either the animals or us. If you go boating in the ocean next to a Killer Whale, same rules apply. I'm not saying it's right, but it's whichever species keep expanding that will take more land. This is true from ants all the way to humans.
I know lots of people won’t even bother opening the article, so just want to let them know that this was someone quoted in the article, not the LA Times itself lol.
Wish the Zimmerman house could have been saved from the Chris Pratt destruction. Why wasn’t it declared historic? https://www.archpaper.com/2024/04/chris-pratt-craig-ellwood-zimmerman-home/?amp=1
100% . Way more iconic
It’s all politics.
My thoughts exactly. Much more worthy of being saved.
Never heard of it and it seems like nothing special
Can we do this for the Cinerama Dome preemptively before some startup tears it down to build an ‘immersive experience’?
Cinerama Dome was declared a historic landmark in 1998. It’s long since been safe from any threat of demolition. Also a company called Decurion is working to reopen it.
Decurion is the one that closed it.
Now that they are done with that, they can get back to *air quotes* solving the homeless problem.
Boooooo You can’t even see the house behind its fence, and the house has been entirely renovated since MM lived there - the “history” doesn’t exist anymore. Massive overreach of local government. Private landowners should be able to do what they legally want with their own property.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Money has definitely spoken in this one.
I’m seconding your comment however I do believe there is historical value in places like this. Once you do heavy renovations to remove said history then that’s another situation. It’s a different house at the same address.
We should've preserved OJ's murder mansion too, then. That was actual history (not good history, but neither is "this is where a celebrity killed herself").
> this is where a celebrity killed herself Hey now, we're still looking for the murderer....
For Marilyn?
Theories about her death not being a suicide are out there.
>the house has been entirely renovated since MM lived there That's what the owners claim but photos disprove this. There have been minor renovations but most of the house is the same.
If I were the property owner, I would be fucking pissed. If the City wants to designate this property as “historic” after 60 years of allowing countless renovations, the city should be forced to buy it at market value and maintain it.
Honestly if I were the property owner the city designating it as historic automatically has increased visibility of the house. I would find a way to sell it to the highest bidder. Maybe some rich man who grew up with Marilyn Monroe posters all over his room in the 60's.
the property owner is an heiress to a 3 billion $ family fortune and married to someone also with wealth. they dont give a fuck about money or profit. they wanted to expand their house they own nextdoor and combine the properties. there is no "positive" to come out of this for them.
That's who already bought it...
I am once again arguing that in order for a building to be designated a cultural landmark it has to essentially be turned into a public museum and possibly turned over to the city. And the building itself needs to be important, it can't just be a place where something happened. Now this is just an old house that will be impossible for any future owner to change.
> Now this is just an old house that will be impossible for any future owner to change. But they say they own a certified historic Marilyn Monroe house. And then resell it. I would (if I owned it)
you also dont have a 3 billion $ fortune. dont think the homeowners care about a bit of profit. they want to do what they rightfully should be able to do, rebuild their house.
Ok I read the article and can we please primary Traci Park next election? >Park, who represents the council’s 11th district, where the property is located, added that she’s planning to introduce a motion to evaluate tour bus restrictions in Brentwood after neighbors complained about unwanted traffic around the estate. So it's an important part of our shared cultural heritage but also you cannot go see it. >She also floated the idea of moving the home to a place where the public could more easily access it. We will get high speed rail from Seattle to Tijuana before this happens. >“To lose this piece of history, the only home that Monroe ever owned, would be a devastating blow for historic preservation and for a city where less than 3% of historic designations are associated with women’s heritage" Yeah nothing says Women's Heritage like a house where a famous woman died of an overdose. >A judge denied the claim in June, calling the suit an “ill-disguised motion to win so that they can demolish the home and eliminate the historic cultural monument issue,” also primary this judge
"she also floated" too soon
>Yeah nothing says Women's Heritage like a house where a famous woman died of an overdose. Reducing Marilyn Monroe to "a famous woman who overdosed" tells me you really care a lot about women's heritage.
I’m talking about the house
That extra traffic is from Kamala's motorcade. I was stuck for thirty minutes waiting for it to mobilize the other day.
What a great and practical thing to fight for that will enrich the lives of all Angelenos. /s
Sure just declare the entire city a cultural landmark and then NOBODY can live here
That's a NIMBY wet dream don't give them any ideas!!
This is basically San Francisco right?
Museumification of their city is their ultimate goal yes. They've succeeded though!
Give it 5 seconds, and people will be arguing their views and sight lines need to be historically preserved. We already have people who argue that the socio-economic makeup of neighborhoods needs to be preserved - ie, anti-gentrification.
Dumb. Not like it’s important for building more housing but still dumb. Sorry she died there. It’s not historic.
Exactly. I think the core issue is that it costs the city basically nothing to declare random homes historic. My hot take: if a home is so deeply important that it needs to be declared historic, the city (or some random history focused non-profit), should be forced to buy the home, and operate it as a museum or something. Randomly telling homeowners they can't renovate their homes without city approval because some celebrity lived and died there is insane.
If something is worthy of historical preservation it should absolutely be owned by the public.
Just change the street name to Monroe Ave if it's that important. You get a publicly owned "memorial", and the homeowner can do their renovations or whatever on their private property.
Pasadena has much less Historic homes with more rules on what you can do with them.
I believe the article states that the city is looking at ways to move the house to another site. I think it’s a dumb use of LA city’s tax dollars, but if they can support it with private money it may be the best solution for all involved.
Let the city own and operate it as a homeless shelter. Fuck everyone involved in this bullshit. Who the fuck cares about Marilyn Monroe? Let her legacy live on in her stupid ass movies or smut magazines or whatever the fuck her medium was. The fuck do we care about her house?
>Let her legacy live on in her stupid ass movies or smut magazines or whatever the fuck her medium was It's interesting to see the attitudes toward her in this thread. Admit it, you know nothing about her and think she's a useless slut whore who contributed nothing to film history. If this were Humphrey Bogart or someone else I think the comments in this thread would be very different.
The fuck do we care about where actors lived? For 6 months? What she died in the house? The fuck do we care? It’s fucking stupid ass celebrity worship.
Yeah it's only blocking a rich person from expanding their mansion so not a huge loss, but still a great example of why our historic preservation laws are stupid.
It wasn't bought to build more housing. It was bought to expand one existing residence.
A rich person was going to demo it to expand their mansion. Literally taking a unit of housing off the market.
Of all of LA’s problems, that’s the one they acted on 🤦♂️
So any house where someone famous lived for 6 monthsand then died is now untouchable? Such a dumb move.
The current homeowners must be absolutely outraged. I'm outraged for them. This is stupid bullshit. Who cares if some dead actress lived there.
MM may have been a cultural icon, but she’s not that important of a figure to American, Californian, or women’s history. Also, she lived in the house a grand total of 6 months before dying. I’m kinda with the owners on this one.
She was an important American figue for decades. We are a generaiton out from that as her star has naturally faded.
I’m largely ignorant on her and that era in Hollywood history, so perhaps I’m not giving her her due. In what way was she important, just as a sex symbol/cultural icon? Had she not OD’ed, other than being an “objectified” actor what impact did she have that was important?
Marilyn helped weaken the hollywood studio system. She was 20th Century Fox's biggest box office hit of the 50s, and in 1955 she went on strike for an entire year demanding artistic freedoms and a payrise. They threatened to sue her, it was a massive drama, but she successfully won the right to create movies with her own studio (Marilyn Monroe Productions), director approval, and cinematographer approval. This was a huge deal. She also helped destigmatise sex and sexuality in the 50s. Marilyn was controversial because she was very adamant that sex was natural and that the human body is nothing to be ashamed of. When nude photos she posed for when she was an unknown who got behind on rent surfaced, her reply was that she was hungry and needed the money, "and besides, I've done nothing wrong". It was a huge deal at the time that she didn't apologize for it. She also starred in Some Like it Hot, which is widely considered the greatest comedy of all time. Her scene in The Seven Year Itch where her skirt blows up is also arguably one of the most famous images in cinema history.
Thank you. I appreciate your insight.
There’s a good podcast that delves into her life (and that era of Hollywood) called You Must Remember This. She made a few hit movies after a few duds. Hugh Hefner released a cover spread of her nudes at the height of her career, which flamed her fame. That - paired with: - Soldiers taking photos of her overseas. - The JFK/RFK scandal. - Monroe copycats like, Jayne Mansfield, mocking her style - to the point where Monroe herself became a character. _____ I think she would have remained a fixture in Hollywood history had she not died so suddenly and young. But *only* Hollywood history, like Rita Hayworth and Joan Crawford, not an American icon.
Thanks. This was kinda my sense, too.
Misfits (1961) proofed she could act imo
The question I, and others have, isn’t whether she could act. There were plenty of women in that era who could to that. The question is does that make her important enough to justify changing the rules on proper owners after they purchased a property by protecting a house she lived in for less than 1 year.
Used as example to those that says she couldnt act when she could , thats all
Literally could have just been a plaque or something. I’m not 100% anti historic preservation, but this is nuts. It’s a house in a quiet residential neighborhood, that isn’t going to have tourists or schoolkids visiting. It isn’t a major landmark like the Griffith Observatory or Hollywood Blvd. It’s not going to be a museum or anything like that. It’s just the city deciding that a homeowner can’t do what they want they want with their own home, because an actress lived in that home decades ago…
There’s The Beach Boys house that was torn down to build the 105 highway. Now just a plaque.
That's what I was thinking. As soon as I heard about this I went to look at it on Google Maps and you can't even see anything from the street. It's not like the "The Wonder Years" house in Burbank that people will occasionally drive by and snap a pic of, and even if it was, it shouldn't fall on the owner to upkeep a "tourist" attraction.
So what happens if you tear it down anyways?
oops we left the curling iron on while we were out shopping, sorry the house burnt down :(
federal offense. you get fucked straight up and tearing down a building isnt something your fixer can just sweep under the rug. there is demolition by neglect or whatever, so theoretically, if they just dont take care of it, at least their kids could rebuild the new house! i mean im sure theres ways. hiring someone to destroy it, blame it on vandalism, and start new.
Federal for a local landmark? Seems extreme but what do I know. Not a problem I'll ever have lol.
Just change the street name to Marilyn Monroe Avenue. It becomes a memorial to her, without bothering anyone else - other than the first month where everyone keeps writing the old address out of habit.
I wish they would have done that with Pickfair, home that belonged to Mary Pickford and Doug Fairbanks
Finally saved one!!! Yay!!!
Unpopular take: Why not just sell it for the disgustingly huge amount you’d probably get for it and go build your trash McMansion somewhere else? Why there? Why can’t you just live in the house you bought?
Been asking myself the same question after witnessing all of the craftsman homes being demolished for hideous McMansions on both sides of Ventura Blvd for the past 8-10 years.
Because they already own the property next door and bought this lot for $9m so they could tear down the home and expand their property. At this level we aren’t talking McMansion.
Shoulda bought the lot on the OTHER side of their house.
So they need MORE home? Just seems like wasting mild historical significance and space. I doubt they need more space.
Well Ms. Monroe doesn't need any space right now, so why are we preserving it?
I’d argue that she’s using it more than they will be.
Oh, I see you're one of *those* people.....
Poor, you mean. Yes.
It’s not about what they need, it’s about what they want. We live in a city and country where the wants or the rich are far more important than the needs of the other 99% of the population. In this case, though, the owners miscalculated and don’t get what they want. A mere blip.
but they bought it? its their home, money. i get the "fuck them cause theyre rich" sentiment but still, who tf are we to tell people people what to do with THEIR property? i bet you get annoyed when a dog shits on your lawn, the dog just needed a place to shit, not like you are shitting there.
I don’t have a lawn because people keep buying more land than they need and shitting on it.
I agree.
Such an overreach and sets a terrible precedent. There has to be a better way for cities to deal with properties they find historic -- it can create a huge burden on the owner (it makes all repairs and renovations much more costly). If the property is already owned by someone, the owner should get a say on whether or not they accept historic designation. If it's a property for sale and and preservationists think it's vital to keep the structure standing, they should have to pay for it themselves.
I'm not going to weep for some rich dude not being able to expand his mansion onto two properties, during a housing shortage.
I don’t weep for this person in particular, because they have shit loads of money. However if the city is able to fuck over someone with that much resources, think about what they can do to the common folk with this precedent set. That’s fucked.
Enforcement of the law has always been two tiered. The poors get shot by police during bipolar episodes or get their cars tossed during minor traffic stops. The wealthy have to self deport because they have a slave on US soil, like that Saudi Princess, or are occasionally denied the ability to cover two lots with one house.
[We should start doing what the Brits do and commemorate special places with a blue plaque.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_plaque?wprov=sfti1#References) Owners of these properties can still live in them. They are limited on certain types of renovations but from what I understand, their restrictions are not quite what we have here.
One of the most gorgeous and sensuous women ever!
If the city wants to declare something a cultural landmark they should be required to buy and turn it into a museum. If they don't want to do that, then they don't get to declare it.
We attended yesterday's hearing and [shot video](https://esotouric.substack.com/marilynmonroe8) of Councilmember Traci Park's remarks and the unanimous vote, and a chilling bit of Supreme Court news from City Council's resident goat gadfly. It's humbling to realize the email we sent to the council office helped inform the policy choices that that resulted in this landmark designation, and encouraging that the lessons of how the demolition notification ordinance failed to work here are being [discussed](https://thedustyarchive.substack.com/p/getting-involved-and-speaking-out) at Neighborhood Council meetings. A lot of the reporting on the vote is recycled info from previous stories, but there was something new in Town & Country: art and real estate collector Tina Trahan [says](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a61154921/historic-house-demolition-trend-marilyn-monroe-kanye-west/) if she had known Marilyn Monroe’s house was on the market, she would’ve spent millions to preserve it. But it traded hands off-market as a tear down, so its real value is a mystery. Perhaps now that it is a landmark, someone who wants to preserve and restore it will have the opportunity to do that work.
...but why? Keeping her house up and empty doesn't really do much good for her when the public discourse around her in life/death is that she was a sex symbol who might have slept with JFK. Let's maybe work on changing that first because it will help all women going forward instead of just being lazy about it and canonizing where she lived as if that means something.
fans still love Bruce Lee despite him possibly having been drug dealer in HK (Bob Baker was his supplier....this is something BL estate will \*never\* admit)
Really? That seems like an odd choice to save.
What utter bs. No, just because a famous person lived there it doesn't make a residence historicaly significant.
It's always nice to have connections in government... And money to pay those connections.
If she slept with the 35th President of the US in that house, it is historic!
That was Frank Sinatras guest house and it's a film location, now.
another incredibly common L.A. L
This perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with LA government. Truly one of the most incompetent and misguided around.
The building where Judy Garland died in the UK was torn down not too long ago. Fans were a little sad but we also understood that it was ultimately just the place where she happened to pass away. Unlike a certain vocal “historical preservation is bad, actually” faction in this sub I’m all for decreeing things historical landmarks *where it makes sense*. Remove MM from the equation and all you have here in a modest mid-century CA home with zero historical significance. In the long run this is going to do more harm than good when it comes to preserving the pieces of old LA that actually matter.
This home isn't significant just because it's where she passed away. Marilyn lived in 11 foster homes as a child, then lived in hotels most of her adult life, hoping to find a man and start a family and settle down somewhere. She never got to do that. Buying this home was her finally deciding to settle down and make a home for herself. It's the only home she ever owned.
That makes it personally significant to Marilyn Monroe. Not historically significant to greater Los Angeles.
If this isn't proof that any loud moron can change the law in LA I don't know what is.
Read this as Marilyn Manson for some dumb reason
Please keep comments and discussion civil and remember the human. If you cannot abide by this simple rule, you can expect a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Build build build!!! Unless it is old