The final home of Marilyn Monroe – and the only residence she ever owned independently – will remain standing for now after Los Angeles officials intervened to block the property’s demolition.

The news that the new owners of 12305 Fifth Helena Drive, where Monroe died at age 36, filed for demolition permits had attracted widespread outrage. Los Angeles city councilwoman Traci Park said she received hundreds of calls urging her to save the Spanish colonial-style house in the city’s Brentwood neighborhood.

“Unfortunately, the department of building and safety issued a demolition permit before my team and I could fully intervene and get this issue resolved,” Park said at a news conference last week, adding that there was a need for “urgent action”.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never heard anybody talk about where Marilyn Monroe lived in my life. If the property was important for preservation why didn’t the city already own it? Was there just supposed to be some general understanding that it wasn’t allowed to be demolished? I would think it’s just an empty shell at this point.

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s pretty common to still allow private ownership of historic places, but with additional rules associated with them.

      The silly part is if this mattered, why wasn’t this already part of that? I suppose it’s a social inertia of a kind, and this will likely resolve by getting it recognized as a historic building.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The silly part is that anyone considers a this a historic place. What happened in Marilyn Monroe’s mansion that makes it worthy of keeping? She’s historic, the house she happened to own is not.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there is a bunch of people who care so much about the house that they would put in effort to stop the demolition then they should purchase it.

      • jopepa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of them are very liquid right now, they have most of their savings invested in a box under their bed labeled “homework”

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The property, which features a guest house and swimming pool, was purchased in 2017 for $7.25m by Glory of the Snow LLC, then managed by a hedge fund executive, the Los Angeles Times reported. It was sold to the Glory of the Snow Trust for $8.35m earlier this year.”

    It should be illegal for LLCs or trust funds to purchase housing of any kind.

    • kryptonicus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It should be illegal for LLCs or trust funds to purchase housing of any kind.

      I completely agree that LLCs, REITs, and institutional investors shouldn’t be able to buy single family homes (and maybe even duplexes), but I don’t know about “housing of any kind.”

      Large, multi family units like apartment buildings serve a vital need in the affordable housing market. Private individuals who have the capital to purchase a multi million dollar apartment building aren’t any more likely to be a conscientious landlord than a corporation. At that point, it all boils down to effective enforcement of tenant rights laws.

    • grimace1153@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That might be a bit too much. LLCs aren’t always evil corporations. For example, I am an LLC and bought my house with the LLC for privacy reasons. I know other people who have done the same. Not always nefarious

  • kaitco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think she was a beautiful icon, but this is asinine. What could possibly be so special about this particular house? If demolition is even an option, the house itself is likely in bad shape and not livable, so it’s just taking up space.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      What could possibly be so special about this particular house?

      I have absolutely no idea. Presumably that’s why there is a a motion to initiate consideration of the home for historic preservation. Seems reasonable. And not asinine, on the face of it.

    • flynnguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If demolition is even an option, the house itself is likely in bad shape and not livable

      Not necessarily. I don’t know if this is the case here but some places, people view the property location as more valuable and have too much money so they buy the house/property and then knock the house down and build what they want no matter the condition of the original house.

      This happened to someone I know, their house needed a little work but was perfectly fine. The new owner didn’t even go inside to look at the house. Made an offer and then tore it down to build something new.

  • netwren@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I could see this going both ways. If it’s important historically and the owners want to demolish it then the city or some org should bid to buy it and maintain it. Otherwise why should the private owner be forced to maintain a dilapidated property.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, why would her having lived here have anything to do with current construction permits?

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should be converted into a public museum celebrating her life. I think plenty of people will be interested to see what the life of a celebrity is like away from the spotlight.

  • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Make it seem a suicide!

    Make it seem a suicide!

    Make it seem a suicide!

    Make it seem a suicide!

    But it ain’t a mystery, baby, not to me.

  • bobman@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Woah, I didn’t know marilyn moneroe was dead.

    Crazy how ‘widespread outrage’ for rich people can subvert the law.

    LA really is a shithole, lol.