Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was reading today that Ariel Castro’s home has been demolished as if to excise the demons of the place. The same thing happened to 25 Cromwell Street where two of Britain's most notorious serial killers, Fred and Rose West tortured, murdered and buried their victims (it is now a cut through - see below).



Now assuming these houses were left standing as ordinary properties and were subsequently properly cleaned and refurbished, could you live in them? And if not, why not?

Too creepy.

Sure, why not. Could probably get a pretty good deal on the rent after mentioning it to the landlord.

Why not? Trent Reznor claimed he had no idea that the house he used to live in the 90s was where Sharon Tate was murdered. Of course, it also didn't keep him from taking the Helter Skelter door before he left...

But a house like Ariel Castro's would be way to creepy. Dungeons only do it for real scary people.

Totally. I would love to live in a house with a dark history.

I would actually prefer to, due to the typically lower cost versus actual property value.

Ghosts and curses don't exactly fit into my worldview.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I would actually prefer to, due to the typically lower cost versus actual property value.

Ghosts and curses don't exactly fit into my worldview.

This.

Places like these are destroyed to prevent them from being a blight on their local communities.

There's a difference between evil, and house that has been modified into a sadistic torture dungeon. How many unlicensed modifications were made to the wiring, plumbing, internal structure and everything else by Castro during the years he concealed those girls from the world? How much of a fixer-upper would it be to de-dungeonize half the house?

How many of those aborted babies ended up under the floorboards, or shoved into corners of the attic?

Practically speaking, too much of a chance of finding bodies, and reopening police investigations for me. Also, spirits and curses absolutely fit my worldview. I am a solid 'no'.

Nope.avi

I would never live in one because it would be bad for my sanity and also I would be tempted to bring back the dead. Just sayin.

I just don't want to be walking around wondering "were they killed here or here, or buried in there." Eew. I'll stick to places where people weren't gutted on the floor or buried in the walls XD

I couldn't, no. The knowledge of what happened there coupled with rumours, legends, and tales would likely overwhelm my more logical side, and I'd probably start paying to attention to sounds and tricks of the light that without foreknowledge would just be dismissed. I can do without having to try and reassure myself when I know damn-well there's nothing wrong with the place.

I could, for the reasons mentioned by Azazel.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I would actually prefer to, due to the typically lower cost versus actual property value.

Ghosts and curses don't exactly fit into my worldview.

Although ghosts do fit into mine, for this purpose no one died that we know of in that house. I personally could not because i would be sitting in a room where someone was likely tortured.

feth no.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I would actually prefer to, due to the typically lower cost versus actual property value.

Ghosts and curses don't exactly fit into my worldview.

+1 this.


Evil places don't exist.

I've stayed in supposedly "haunted" places and got the best sleep I've ever had.
I've stayed in places where people have died in not pleasant ways - and had no trouble sleeping (My siblings, not so much - but one of them is inclined to see things that she wants to see, and the other is delusional).

Make the front room a museum and make a few bucks.

I definitely could, but probably wouldnt.... Depending on the timeline of the house being put on market, the majority of the neighbors would still be there. And I suspect that if you move into a "house of a thousand corpses", then they will automatically look at you with great suspicion, because they KNOW that you know went down there, and are moving in anyways.

So, basically, you'd start any sort of neighborly relationship on a bad foot, and would really almost never be able to get back to a normal standing.


Now, if the place stands vacant, or the incidents happened in like the 40s, or on back through the 1800s, then sure, no problem at all... until of course, I start renovating and making an ossuary in the basement out of the bones that are still there

Forget Castro's place, how about Anthony Sewell's place in Cleveland? Way worse. The guy kept like a dozen or so rotting bodies strewn about his house for years. Apparently the stench emanating from his place was horrendous, but people thought it was coming from the sausage store next door.

To answer the question - no way could I live in a place like that. No way.

To those stoically claiming they would buy the place to score a good RE deal - well, the flip side to that is when (not if, when) you go to re-sell the place, the stigma attached to the property will mean you will have a hell of a time selling it and someone just like you will write you a lowball offer looking for a deal. It's basically a wash when all is said and done.

House with a history of murders and the like? Meh, boring.

Really the only kind of spooky structure I can think of is a large house in the middle of the woods. There's just something unnatural about a large man made structure in the middle of a forest.

My ideal house is a place isolated in the woods! Unfortunately I like delivery food, city water and sewer, and being close to work too much.

A murder/ torture house wouldn't affect my offer on the place, but I'd assume the listing price reflected the lowered desirability of the property. It would have to. If it didn't, I'd walk away and find a place without the baggage.

If I did buy, when I went to sell, having lived there for however long I'd talk to any prospective buyer to reassure them that living there had been a lovely experience. Look a the new floors, remodeled bathroom, updated landscapes... no body parts anywhere! No red basement room! No torture altar, I swear! And the attic is 100% fetus free!

I would worry about finding parts or stains, though, in the course of improvements. I'd hate to have a crime scene in my yard every time I want to plant a new azalea, or have to worry about removing blood stains when refinishing the hardwood floors.

For me, ghosts, spirits, etc don't fit my worldview. I do have a very overactive imagination and already creep myself out over any new noise. Which would only be made worse by knowing awful murders/incomprehensible torture occurred there.

So, yes, I could live there. It could be a great opportunity to turn a property around, depending on the level of atrocity. The lack of superstitious-relative-houseguests would be fantastic, i.e. my dad could never stay in a murderhouse. But, due to my overactive imagination, I'd have to have nightlights in every room. And all the closets have to stay completely closed at all times. No cracks!

I bet I know of a house you'd just die for.

 Necroshea wrote:
House with a history of murders and the like? Meh, boring.

Really the only kind of spooky structure I can think of is a large house in the middle of the woods. There's just something unnatural about a large man made structure in the middle of a forest.

Wasn't that the plot of the Shining?

I have lived in a couple of houses like that, but to a smaller degree.

The ghetto I lived in as a kid was an old cemetery that was built over. Bodies are still under the property. And gang warfare was rampant. we had 3 dead bodies hastily buried in our back yard.

The family property my grandmother, grandfather, aunt and uncle owned has had 12 deaths on it in the past 70 years. 4 were murders. I find the place very creepy, but lived there for 2 years, and plan to inherit it.

So yeah, i've no problem.

Personally it wouldn’t bother me but I understand why these places are destroyed. They would attract allot of sinister murder tourist types and would drag down the value of the whole street, not just that house.

Is there much difference between these house and any other where someone died?

If you live in an old house in the UK someone could well have died there - of old age/child birth that sort of thing.

 Flashman wrote:
I was reading today that Ariel Castro’s home has been demolished as if to excise the demons of the place. The same thing happened to 25 Cromwell Street where two of Britain's most notorious serial killers, Fred and Rose West tortured, murdered and buried their victims (it is now a cut through - see below).



Now assuming these houses were left standing as ordinary properties and were subsequently properly cleaned and refurbished, could you live in them? And if not, why not?

Not those particular houses no. A house where your standard issue murder occurred or such, meh could care less.

Yes, it would keep me warm at night.

Depends on how many murder "tourists" stopped by to take pictures and the price.

 notprop wrote:
Is there much difference between these house and any other where someone died?

If you live in an old house in the UK someone could well have died there - of old age/child birth that sort of thing.

The reason houses like this are torn down is associated with the "infamy" of the location. They attract gawkers and sometimes result in people trying to steal pieces of the home to sell as macabre keepsakes.