Is there something really special about the lot?
Great views of desert, is it a substantial size, a valuable distance from stuff, some type of natural resources? Is the land/housing market in the area just strange?
Because, that seems like a really expensive purchase to be a tear down where they’re considering the existing house has zero or negative value.
I feel this most when big trees are taken down for no good reason.
Oh gosh yes.
Here in the UK the news storm around the vandalistic (is that a word?) killing of the tree in the Sycamore Gap was pretty huge. But the scale of destruction in the name of HS2 didn’t get quite the same coverage. Again, there are reasons why trees might have to be taken down (it’s a health thing in the park near our home, for instance) but gosh in those HS2 cases I wish they’d waited to find out for sure if the line was actually going to go ahead or not.
That’s where you and I disagree. I’m glad I live in a country with strong historic preservation laws and a listing process. A building may belong to an individual but it is part of the heritage of all of society. When you buy a historic building you take on a responsibility to society. You get to enjoy it, but you also have to make sure that the future will as well.
If you don’t feel like you can take on this responsibility or you don’t think a house is worth preserving? Just don’t buy it.
ETA: remember this? The owners bought the building, they did what you suggest. I am glad they now have to rebuild, because the building clearly meant a lot to the community.
I actually don’t think this is a beautiful building. Even with it’s unique shape it is somewhat depressing to me, but it’s clearly iconic and beloved, so I don’t care who owns it, they can’t just demolish it for the rest of us.
Stop moving to the desert. It’s getting untenable.
America sure seems to have this “everything is disposable” attitude. Which is a darn shame given how cool and unique a lot of older things are.
No idea about how worthy this house is as an example. It looks like it has “good bones”. You know, people do move whole houses That could be an option.
Probably won’t matter. As neat looking as it is (to some people), it isn’t a Frank Lloyd Wright or in like-new condition. And if the rich person owning it doesn’t value it, then they will probably be allowed to do what ever with it.
Ironic we are in a housing crisis, and a rich guy wants to tear down one to build a new one in it’s place.
Build a house by it, convert this house to a fancy garage to house your cars. That’s what I’d do if I was loaded and didn’t want to live in it.
It is kinda a shame, because I really think we should value your historical architecture more. Obviously we can’t save ALL of it, but more than we do. At least they would probably reclaim all that vintage lumber.
Sadly the North Shore of Vancouver is losing many of its MCM / West Coast Modern masterpieces to redevelopment. My Dad also points out many were lost because their cedar interiors were prone to go up in flames.
Bob Lewis built many stylish and modest MCM homes. This one sold a few years ago well above the average price on the street. It is a great example of renewal of MCM / WCM homes.
There’s certainly a case to be made for historic preservation of buildings that are part of the local culture (such as courthouses, theaters, and pubs). I could even see the case for preservation of homes that are part of the fabric of the city, such as one near a town square, etc.
This house is none of those. It’s on a 60’s-esque windy subdevelopment road that butts up against a mountain range (google maps), so nobody sees this house by accident. I highly doubt this house had any affect at all on lives outside of the owners, and maybe the 30 or so people who drove by it because they lived in the same neighborhood.
So, if a MC home disappears in the forest nobody sees?
Many one off MC homes are in out of the way places. So we should tear them all down because we can’t see them? I think not.
Heck, they could probably build a new house and keep the old one as a viable visitor attraction. But anyone who wants to demolish it is probably on a very different wavelength to any such suggestion.
I agree with you and I am a big fan of mid-century modern architecture.
This example though just looks a square box sitting in the desert. Not particularly unique or aesthetically remarkable. Without any of the original insides showcasing the design I have to agree with the new owners that there’s not much to preserve here.
Compare some of his other single family residences to this one. It would take a substantial remodel of both the interior and surrounding landscape to bring this back to it’s original glory.
Beadle’s House #11 is far more interesting and a much better representation of the era than this house.
All of it? Always? As a historian (and someone who lives in a city that’s really shit about preserving old housing stock), I’m aware of the necessity of preserving our heritage, believe me… but the reality is that not everything can or should be preserved… And what we decide is worth saving and preserving is always a moving target. Plus, in some cases, such efforts are intimately tied in with gentrification, pushing out people who might not be able to afford neighborhoods with preserved houses. Where my BFF lives is full of mid-century modern housing stock (in a huge neighborhood that was prior to the 50s, acres of farm land), and it’s a fully gentrified place. One can’t buy a place there (even those that are relatively run down, or, in one case, fully in a flood plane!) for less than at least 500,000 and more often between 800,000 and a million. Sometimes it makes more sense to build more dense, affordable housing to serve the need of more people rather than someone with wealth looking to signal their wealth and virtue. 
I don’t know this house, or this area, so I have no idea what of that applies, but someone disagreeing that this might not need to be preserved based on aesthetics is a point to be made.
This seems to be a bigger problem in need of addressing, honestly.
I don’t think anybody is talking about mandated razing of all homes > 50 y/o. I just think that the case for preservation should be applied with consideration to location, condition, and significance, not just whether the exterior architectural style is popular right now. If a homeowner is tired of dealing with the hassles of flat roofs, drafty custom picture windows, and inefficient built-in appliances and a/c in the middle of the woods, they should be allowed to raze it and start over if they want to.
Everyone’s -opinion- is fine, but people bought house, now they own it, and can do whatever they want (in good faith) within the law/building codes.
BoingBoing BBS posts aren’t binding decisions? That explains a lot…
Speaking personally, I don’t like the white house in Phoenix. It looks like an alien spaceship set plonked on a desert lot for a high concept, low budget SF film of the late 60s to early 70s. I wouldn’t buy it.
I wouldn’t buy the Scottish home either. It reminds me of cheap, local authority built schools, the kind which are now plagued with a variety of maintenance issues. The inside looks awesome, though. Great job on the redesign!
I don’t know how important they are to preserve for architectural heritage purposes. It seems a pity for something unusual to be razed and replaced, especially when you don’t know what’s going to replace it. Things have to be considered within their environment, which includes the culture they are part of. As Brit, I’m used to a very different scene than a lot of the US.
All three of the surviving Beadle houses are ugly! They remind me of old strip malls.
Click through below to see the other two survivors.
The second was originally painted pink and purple but has since been repainted white.
The “breezework” panels on the second have been plastered over and filled in.
One assumes that the three that haven’t survived were even uglier.
Sold!
Nope!
Opinions change, people change (or don’t), and habits judged as good or bad, can be hard to break.
I’m still human, and still a hypocrite. But that’s just me.
The plan to destroy White Gates and replace it with something else makes me think of Charles V’s reaction when a group led by a Catholic bishop insisted on building a Christian cathedral inside the Great Mosque of Cordoba:
“You have built what you or anyone else might have built anywhere; to do so you have destroyed something that was unique in the world.”
If people knowledgeable about architectural preservation think something is worth preserving it is usually worth preserving. It is a question about knowledge, not taste.
Sometimes there is another interest that weighs stronger than preservation and something worth preserving must be torn down. Replacing a single family home with another single family home is usually not one of those.
With a extremely shallow understanding about the architecture of the US south west I find that building interesting. Shame about someone gutting in though. And there is also the fact that demolition should be avoided because of the waste of embodied energy.
