Magnum Mania!

NotthatRick wrote:Call me unreasonable, but anybody, and I mean anybody, be it Tom Selleck, The Pope, Obama or Marty Nesbitt that tore down Pahonu would be on my bad side. Especially if they did indeed tell Eve Anderson that they were going to leave the place intact. Just my opinion.

Shouldn’t somebody be on your bad side for neglecting the place so long it became irreparable?

K Hale wrote:

NotthatRick wrote:Call me unreasonable, but anybody, and I mean anybody, be it Tom Selleck, The Pope, Obama or Marty Nesbitt that tore down Pahonu would be on my bad side. Especially if they did indeed tell Eve Anderson that they were going to leave the place intact. Just my opinion.

Shouldn’t somebody be on your bad side for neglecting the place so long it became irreparable?

It is extremely sad that Mrs Anderson let the place get in that condition. Probably a money thing. ( And most things can be repaired if you have the finances). I just think Marty planned on tearing it down from the get go. Not a good guy in my book.

NotthatRick wrote:

K Hale wrote:

NotthatRick wrote:Call me unreasonable, but anybody, and I mean anybody, be it Tom Selleck, The Pope, Obama or Marty Nesbitt that tore down Pahonu would be on my bad side. Especially if they did indeed tell Eve Anderson that they were going to leave the place intact. Just my opinion.

Shouldn’t somebody be on your bad side for neglecting the place so long it became irreparable?

It is extremely sad that Mrs Anderson let the place get in that condition. Probably a money thing. ( And most things can be repaired if you have the finances). I just think Marty planned on tearing it down from the get go. Not a good guy in my book.

Are you saying that he would’ve torn it down even if it were in pristine condition?

K Hale wrote:Are you saying that he would’ve torn it down even if it were in pristine condition?

I think it's been discussed at length that this is most likely the case. From an investment point of view, the home was not a big draw in terms of layout for the way people live their lives today.

It should have been designated a historic landmark!!!!! What upsets me is Nesbitt probably pulled a Chicago way, my friend is type tactic with the local Government officials to get a demolition permit. I wish a local news person in Oahu would investigate that......

Styles Bitchley wrote:

K Hale wrote:Are you saying that he would’ve torn it down even if it were in pristine condition?

I think it's been discussed at length that this is most likely the case. From an investment point of view, the home was not a big draw in terms of layout for the way people live their lives today.

Which means anyone who’s not an MPI buff would’ve torn it down. Should it have been designated historic landmark? I believe so, but that’s on Eve Anderson.

I never heard of this Marty Nesbitt before but I’m not sure it’s fair to cast him as a villain for tearing down a house that was falling to bits.

Steve wrote:It should have been designated a historic landmark!!!!! What upsets me is Nesbitt probably pulled a Chicago way, my friend is type tactic with the local Government officials to get a demolition permit. I wish a local news person in Oahu would investigate that......

I don’t see any evidence that laws are not being followed. In fact, the applicable laws are even more stringent because it is a coastal property. The following link shows a 379 page report that had to be completed to allow the sea walls to be repaired and fore some, raised.

http://oeqc2.doh.hawaii.gov/Doc_Library ... Repair.pdf

I’ve spent a stupid amount of time going through it, mostly for images and drawings to improve my model of the estate. I’ve had a little more time at home lately! I also looked through the demolition permits a couple of years ago. It was also a rigorous process, and look how long it’s taking. This report has some interesting stuff. They did an environmental impact assessment, a climate assessment, a cultural impact assessment, and included all kinds of historic documents and photos. There’s an aerial photo of the estate from 1949. It was only 16 years old!

The issue of the house being designated as a historic property, as KHale said, was entirely Eve Anderson’s choice. It is not in a historic zone. It is private property and she very clearly could have done that. That is a rigorous process as well. I have a friend who lived in a 1929 high rise in downtown Long Beach that was designated as a national landmark. I’ve read through those files and they were not as lengthy as these sea wall permits.

We obviously all loved the home. That’s why we’re here, but I simply don’t see anything nefarious. If the developers greased some palms to do this, they certainly didn’t get to take any shortcuts!

I forgot to mention that the report also shows the plot plan for the new structures. It appears that a large home will be built on the east side and two relatively smaller homes will be built to the west. The entry gate will be moved to roughly the center of the south wall and shared by all three houses. Look around page 250.

Styles Bitchley wrote:

K Hale wrote:Are you saying that he would’ve torn it down even if it were in pristine condition?

I think it's been discussed at length that this is most likely the case. From an investment point of view, the home was not a big draw in terms of layout for the way people live their lives today.

Agreed Styles! The following is not directed at you.

Large old homes prove harder to modernize than more modest examples. These larger old homes involved multiple servant rooms and the service spaces are typically far removed from the living spaces. This includes the utilitarian kitchen that has become the center of modern living. Pahonu’s kitchen proper was smaller than homes one quarter its size being built today. It was built with a servant dining room, a cold storage room, a trunk room, and sewing room. These are not too common today! Even if the compartmentalized kitchen were opened up by remodeling, as many more modest homes have seen done, in Pahonu’s case this servant area is far remove from all the living spaces. That was done by design and it simply doesn’t work today. Even older large homes often had these spaces in the basement, including the kitchen. Look at floor plans from mansions of the 19th century to see what I mean. Most of these homes are now gone or are museums.

Here’s an example: Lyndhurst in New York, now a museum.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... r_Plan.png

On the far right of this first floor plan, next to the dining room, is a butler’s pantry for use by the servants, and stairs down to the kitchen and associated service spaces. How easily could this be renovated to fit our modern way of living, even the very wealthy. Multi-million dollar homes are not built this way today, or for the last 70+ years really.

I am not an expert, but If I remember correctly reading here, Pahonu most likely suffered a lot from(seawater) humidity that was creeping into the foundations and from there up.
If that really was the case, it was almost unstoppable or if, at a very high cost, so Pahonu was doomed and lost long before the property has been sold.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but modern materials can prevent this but you have to built up from scratch.

All the speculations about „greased“ gears are just that and let‘s keep in mind, that the property was offered for quite some time and sold with a substancial markdown, so it was hardly the hottest offer on the island.

Good morning from Italy!

I had the chance to read all the docs and news and comments about this sad story...

the Enderson estate is gone and just God knows how many times since the moment it was put on the market, I've idealized to set it as a Magnum museum.

at the cost it was sold, for 10$ each, less than 1M fans worldwide were enough to make this dream real. I'm sure that a lot where ready to spend more make it easy to be realized.

now, I received the bad news just three weeks ago, and I'm devastated. too late to set or execute the this plan.

honestly I had the privilege to take some pics out of the estate (from Italy is a long trip) but in a week I was forced to came back twice to be sure everything I was able to document was taken. and I was surprised to see the the sing ''beware of dogs'' was still there.

I've read everything from the net as said, and spent time on official docs from Honolulu Gov to understand how can it be, for a place like Hawaii famous for the attention to the environment, the local culture, and the traditions that an historic place, one of the few buildings from the beginning of last century was set to be demolished...

incredibly, despite what is set to be in other islands within Hawaii, just Oahu consider historic what is not privately owned.
so net net, if the same place is public it is said to be historic, if privately owned not.... incredible. in Italy this is impossible to understand. as you guys may know, Italy (I would say Italians) owns 70% of the artistic heritage WW. every time you need to fix your home for example and it is 100 years old, you need formal permits to put your hands (of owner) on it.

what would be if this control is lost as it is in O'ahu, I just can image it.

I do agree with some of you considering that the Waimanalo Paradise LLC was set to make money out of this deal, it's normal, and I'm pretty sure that Nesbitt never considered to get a major restoration project to save the house. clearly, what is going to suffer for the seawall it is huge, and incredible compared to what he was able to do so far.

incredibly, the project tells us that just the fundamentals will remain as part of the new 2 buildings. but someone said that it was impossible to recover the house because of the fundamentals were lost due to the sea water corrosion (!). I'm confused.

anyway, the curse some of us lunched to them guilty to have destroyed a piece of our heart is started.

Seawall restoration is a nightmare encountering major technical problems and resistance by locals engaged to preserve marine ecosystem, in addition, some excavations tests on the lot (15 to be precise) revealed human rests, not dated yet but probably part of a prehistoric buried. the tomb is set to remain where has been discovered (yes at least this is set by the law), and it is exactly in the middle of the project for the new homes.

net net is is a nightmare. they have spent 8,5M to buy the place, another 90K to demolished it, major problems to restore what remain, a dead man buried in the backyard.... and I'm asking to myself... who can spend Millions to get a nice oceanfront villa knowing to have a cemetery in the garden?

my suggestion to Waimanalo Paradise LLC, out of many errors they made so far, my project stands, I would consider to rebuilt it as it was and make a museum to all of us, fans WW, that sooner or later will visit it paying what is right to be part of the stories we loved so much even if it is just for a day.

Ciao.

A

P.S. all facts reference are from the net, if you need anything you're not able to find just ask.

afortis wrote:
incredibly, the project tells us that just the fundamentals will remain as part of the new 2 buildings. but someone said that it was impossible to recover the house because of the fundamentals were lost due to the sea water corrosion (!). I'm confused.

Welcome!

I’m not sure what you mean by fundamentals. What is still there is the foundation of the main house, mostly a concrete slab on grade, with the part that had a basement being filled in. The boat house is likely still there because once it is torn down, nothing like it can be built that close to the water. It might be renovated for that reason. We have far stricter environmental regulations here than historical regulations. I don’t know about the plans for the gate house.

In comparison to Italy, every structure in the US is new. The fundamental differences though are that most structures built in the US are not constructed to last for centuries and society here generally doesn’t respect the concept of government regulations limiting private property rights for public benefit. It is a fundamental cultural difference, I believe.

For example, most homes here are made of wood, though Pahonu was not. Building with wood is less expensive here than building with masonry but maintaining wood structures is more critical over time. Pahonu’s roof structure was wood, all redwood, a good choice and fairly expensive even for the time, but there was still much rot and decay from the salt air and it was not fixed over time. The original tile roof was on it for about 75 years and there was lots of evidence of water infiltration that went unrepaired for too long. It was unfortunately allowed to deteriorate to the point that repair would have been far more costly than rebuilding.

What is rebuilt is entirely the choice of the owner because the property was not designated as a historical landmark. The choice to designate a property is also solely the owner’s because it is private property. That’s typically the case in the US. That might be unheard of in Italy but it’s the norm here. Again, it’s a fundamental cultural difference. I don’t expect it to change any time soon. Older cities here tend to have stricter historic regulations, but how old is Boston compared to Rome!

I enjoyed your comments and welcome again!

Pahonu wrote:

afortis wrote:
incredibly, the project tells us that just the fundamentals will remain as part of the new 2 buildings. but someone said that it was impossible to recover the house because of the fundamentals were lost due to the sea water corrosion (!). I'm confused.

Welcome!

I’m not sure what you mean by fundamentals. What is still there is the foundation of the main house, mostly a concrete slab on grade, with the part that had a basement being filled in. The boat house is likely still there because once it is torn down, nothing like it can be built that close to the water. It might be renovated for that reason. We have far stricter environmental regulations here than historical regulations. I don’t know about the plans for the gate house.

In comparison to Italy, every structure in the US is new. The fundamental differences though are that most structures built in the US are not constructed to last for centuries and society here generally doesn’t respect the concept of government regulations limiting private property rights for public benefit. It is a fundamental cultural difference, I believe.

For example, most homes here are made of wood, though Pahonu was not. Building with wood is less expensive here than building with masonry but maintaining wood structures is more critical over time. Pahonu’s roof structure was wood, all redwood, a good choice and fairly expensive even for the time, but there was still much rot and decay from the salt air and it was not fixed over time. The original tile roof was on it for about 75 years and there was lots of evidence of water infiltration that went unrepaired for too long. It was unfortunately allowed to deteriorate to the point that repair would have been far more costly than rebuilding.

What is rebuilt is entirely the choice of the owner because the property was not designated as a historical landmark. The choice to designate a property is also solely the owner’s because it is private property. That’s typically the case in the US. That might be unheard of in Italy but it’s the norm here. Again, it’s a fundamental cultural difference. I don’t expect it to change any time soon. Older cities here tend to have stricter historic regulations, but how old is Boston compared to Rome!

I enjoyed your comments and welcome again!

all clear.
again, not an expert in law but I'm referring to this article here: https://historichawaii.org/2018/04/04/i ... emolished/

enjoy.

A

afortis wrote:

Pahonu wrote:

afortis wrote:
incredibly, the project tells us that just the fundamentals will remain as part of the new 2 buildings. but someone said that it was impossible to recover the house because of the fundamentals were lost due to the sea water corrosion (!). I'm confused.

Welcome!

I’m not sure what you mean by fundamentals. What is still there is the foundation of the main house, mostly a concrete slab on grade, with the part that had a basement being filled in. The boat house is likely still there because once it is torn down, nothing like it can be built that close to the water. It might be renovated for that reason. We have far stricter environmental regulations here than historical regulations. I don’t know about the plans for the gate house.

In comparison to Italy, every structure in the US is new. The fundamental differences though are that most structures built in the US are not constructed to last for centuries and society here generally doesn’t respect the concept of government regulations limiting private property rights for public benefit. It is a fundamental cultural difference, I believe.

For example, most homes here are made of wood, though Pahonu was not. Building with wood is less expensive here than building with masonry but maintaining wood structures is more critical over time. Pahonu’s roof structure was wood, all redwood, a good choice and fairly expensive even for the time, but there was still much rot and decay from the salt air and it was not fixed over time. The original tile roof was on it for about 75 years and there was lots of evidence of water infiltration that went unrepaired for too long. It was unfortunately allowed to deteriorate to the point that repair would have been far more costly than rebuilding.

What is rebuilt is entirely the choice of the owner because the property was not designated as a historical landmark. The choice to designate a property is also solely the owner’s because it is private property. That’s typically the case in the US. That might be unheard of in Italy but it’s the norm here. Again, it’s a fundamental cultural difference. I don’t expect it to change any time soon. Older cities here tend to have stricter historic regulations, but how old is Boston compared to Rome!

I enjoyed your comments and welcome again!

all clear.
again, not an expert in law but I'm referring to this article here: https://historichawaii.org/2018/04/04/i ... emolished/

enjoy.

A

Thanks, I’m familiar with the article. I believe someone posted a link here at the time of demolition. Basically, Hawaii removed the historical review requirement from every privately owned structure over 50 years old, to those that have been registered as historic properties by their owners. Pahonu wasn’t registered by Eve Anderson so they didn’t have to go through the process. The question of why the law was changed is largely economic.

If I’m honest about it, my view is that the likely reason she chose not to register it is that such designation carries with it a lot of rules and regulations. These myriad requirements would put off many potential buyers and therefore lower the price. It was simply an economic decision on her part. If there’s any blame to be assigned for not guaranteeing Pahonu’s future existence, it lies with her. She made the decision based on her personal economic interests not the public’s interest. It sounds harsh, I know, but it’s the most likely explanation by far.

In extreme examples like this, historic structures have been offered for ridiculously low cost (I’ve seen $1) but with the legal provision of restoration, and they still can’t find a buyer. This purchase was made for the land. The deal maximized both the developer’s and Eve Anderson’s profits. The land is were the economic value lies, not our sentimental view of the property.

Pahonu wrote:The deal maximized both the developer’s and Eve Anderson’s profits. The land is were the economic value lies, not our sentimental view of the property.

Amen. The truth hurts. But there you have it.

here we are,

Building Department - City and County of Honolulu
Daily Bulletin - Building Permits Issued on March 29, 2018

Permit n°815533

at this link http://www.honoluludpp.org/Portals/0/Bu ... 9-2018.pdf

have someone asked to mr. NICK DENZER if anything has been saved? any memorabilia eventually survived to this disaster?

have a good day folks.

A