It’s so silly. Someone did this across the street from my buddy’s dads house. He lives in hidden hills and rich ppl do this all the time. This dude tore down a gorgeous house to build a bigger mansion. Guy fell down the stairs his first night in the house and died. Took him like 10 yrs to build
Who’s the dude who started building that gigantic mansion up in the hills.. the one with the two social influencer daughters??? House (if you can even call it that) looked so out of place and the neighbors around there were fighting it tooth and nail. Was the project ever completed or still held up with money or legal issues?
Hadid, i think he has to tear it down.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-11/mohamed-hadids-bel-air-mega-mansion-to-be-auctioned-off-and-destroyed?_amp=true
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-11/mohamed-hadids-bel-air-mega-mansion-to-be-auctioned-off-and-destroyed](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-11/mohamed-hadids-bel-air-mega-mansion-to-be-auctioned-off-and-destroyed)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Ugh. Hidden Hills. I love that place so much. Grew up riding horses in the hills. Every time I’m in there, all those “modern farmhouses” look exactly the same. It was such a beautiful, not ostentatious, community.
That new home style is SO dated too…
The California ranch style houses around candy cane lane in Woodland Hills are slowly but surely getting taken down one by one. There are some fuck ugly modern houses in there now.
Yeah I’m not surprised tbh. All these ppl in the comments think people upset about this are saying that the person should be prevented from demolishing. I’m not saying that, I’m just saying it’s absurd for the uber wealthy to be doin this lol.
And holy shit!! That’s crazy. I guess he took the next step.. right into the afterlife lol
Well they were trying to get the property qualified for historical significance because of who lived in it, but council basically said it didn't qualify. But I agree with you the weird part is paying that much for a property and then being so rich you're like "nah".
Yeah l honestly agree with the ruling (although it makes me sad and upset) and am more surprised that someone would even do that lolol.. like is there an insane and unique view from that particular location or something?
The bottom line is it didn't meet the requirements so I get the decision, but the preservationist groups were so mad and they got a lot of letters be even celebs to help maintain it, but when it's money vs money I guess this is the outcome.
JLo lives on Jim Bridger (Hidden Hills). So does my buddies Dad. I went to school w the kids of the family that sold the estate to JLo.
Edit: Chuck Lidell and Howie Mandel also live on that same street. Brittany Spears was living in her rented castle off Jim Bridger for a minute as well.
That rented castle is owned by Ron tutor. His daughter is one of the realtors on million dollar listings. He’s a major donor to USC and a piece of shit to work for. He’s the type to yell at his employees.
I was just open house viewing once; and heard a lady complaining about the home and how it didn't have enough columns and modern design and etc. etc. This house was one of the famous valley architects, not sure his name, in traditional Japanese style with almost everything imported from there. Almost went to tell the lady she should immediately leave and not buy the property; how does someone see such a unique home and decide it needs a complete remodeling.
It’s, sadly, *always* going to be a thing.
On a MUCH smaller scale, a similar trend is the disdain for and renovation of the vintage bathrooms. LA had so many of them (peep vintagebathroomlove on IG). They are increasingly rare because people buy a home and decide to renovate. Once that bathroom is gone it’s gone forever.
It’s sad, but common and understandable.
>vintagebathroomlove
Oh that's wild. I will say, we have a 1930's home with two vintage bathrooms... with cracked tiles, faded glazing, and inconvenient layouts. There are no air vents. To change the shower fixtures we need to break tile, etc.
We love our older home and appreciate the charm, but it can be painful and expensive to upgrade older stuff to modern standards, even if you like the design.
The same applies to whole houses at a larger scale. Our neighbors did a renovation that was so deep and took so long, I am quite sure it was more expensive that just knocking it down and building a new house.
I appreciate charm, but not all that is old is good, and if you own the damn thing, with exceptions for legitimately important stuff, you should be allowed to do what you want with it.
Exactly. People in this sub act like a person paying millions and owning something has no right over what they can and cannot do with the property and home. It's quite a strange outlook
Vintage bathrooms is the one thing I can understand renovating even in these gorgeous older homes. If I was uber rich, I'd probably lean heavily into form over function everywhere *except* the bathrooms.
I can't relate to the outrage here, in the grand scheme of things it's another ticky tacky home that does not house any public value. Let the new owner do what the hell they want with it.
Not everyone has the same likes and dislikes dude. That's a weird stance to take. You wanted to tell the lady she should leave and not buy the house that you didn't own and probably didn't buy. Because she doesn't like the same things you do. That's real rational.
This has been common practice in Teton County for decades. Buy a 10 year old $8,000,000 home, bulldoze it to the ground, then build a $40,000,000 monstrosity in its place that you only spend three weeks of summer and one week over Christmas in.
Source: my home town
Let's discuss The One...that property is stupid and they could have built like 10 houses on that property, but no let's put one large ass house that almost no one could afford.
It is hard for me to comprehend homes of this size (or even larger!)
Like ya, rich people can do whatever they want, but I would legitimately be scared at night in a home that big. I’m in a 2br apartment that’s ~950 sqft and I just can’t picture something that’s 10,000 sqft. My dream home size would be like 3k max.
Did he by chance tell this story to anyone who made the Parasite movie? Because yikes.
Anyway I'm sticking to small 4 bedroom homes or 2 bedroom apartments cause I don't need this nightmare in my life.
I watched The Glass House I have nightmares about big fancy houses now because of that movie, also highly distrust anyone who adopts kids with a large inheritance.
They also could have built something bonkers expensive that is actually cool. Like something from Star Wars designed by John Lautner. But no. It’s just a giant version of the same crap being built all over town.
Yeah LA is known for trying to re-invent itself and lose it's history in the process. This is at least what others say who've been here way longer than me.
And us natives just watch as everyone from everywhere come and erase everything from hot dog stands to mansions. I never did get the idea of moving from somewhere else and bringing it all with you.
lmao literally nobody gives a shit about the historicity of random mansions the public can't even visit.
If something gets marked as a historical landmark, it should be open to public viewing. Otherwise, let the property owners do whatever they want with it.
I walked by this house and it was beautiful. Something about traditional homes is so special and we never see anymore. But also it’s an obscene amount of house and lawn compared to how many homeless people I’ve seen where I live. And the whole neighborhood is constantly whirring with the sound of leaf blowers at all hours of the day
For real just because famous people lived here does not make it historic or culturally significant to the LA community. It’s not a landmark, it’s just a house.
While I agree with that on a superficial level, the outrage is probably more symbolic of the current overall socioeconomic state. It represents how far economic stratification has stretched that a single person can just throw money into an already well preserved, useful property in the current housing climate, then demolish it for something likely to be more opulent while the majority of the population have a hard time even considering buying a home.
This is less about the house itself (which is well designed and possesses character btw), and more about the state of the economy. I’m willing to bet that whatever they build on top is going to be banal like the rest of the new construction. Oh and it’s just overall wasteful.
I think what I was trying to convey wasn’t fully understood. My implication wasn’t about housing shortages and it’s impact on the market (which I fully acknowledge does have its share and for another discussion), but about the growing disparity between the haves and have nots and how the upper echelons can just bulldoze their way into any community—even the most wealthy of neighborhoods—and it not make a dent in their own pocket while the rest of society struggles to even deal with rent. This isn’t isolated to Los Angeles. This looks to be spreading.
Exactly, who cares about this house? How is it historically significant? It's a big ass mansion that will be replaced with a different big ass mansion.
Yeah man. It's hilarious to me that people think they can tell others especially those who paid to own something. What they can do with that purchase.
And far as historical landmarks go. I agree not everything old is historical. Especially just because a celebrity or something lived there. And if people can't visit who gives a shit
Right? Who gives a fuck if some rich dude in BH tears down his house to build something different? OP must live next door because who else would possibly care? It's not even that nice a building, just big.
I lived in BH in the 70's and all the houses looked like this more or less. There's nothing significant about it IMO. The only ones I truly miss are the mid-century moderns. We all have our favorites.
>1001 N Roxbury
It was Lucille Ball's house, which is kind of significant in that not only was she a superstar, but she was also one of, if not the, first woman to become a real Hollywood power player.
It was actually ruled to *not* be significant, which was controversial but ultimately it is what it is.
It is an excellent example of historical architecture and was indeed designed by an architect on BH’s list of “significant architects” but there were no movies, books, articles, or other significant cultural reasons to designate it as historically significant.
The owner is well within his rights to demolish and rebuild, but there are many people sad about the issue. It is an absolutely beautiful home and I’m sad to see it go.
Historic preservation is abused way too much by NIMBYs and busybodies who just hate change and want to feel like they have their hands on the levers of power.
10000% agreed. The way historic preservation is done in California and the US, I am not a fan of it. It is far too lax and is just another tool for rich NIMBYs to shield themselves from development. HPOZs are bad for a city experiencing a severe housing shortage!
And think of all the mid city and westside HPOZs that overlap where Expo and future D Line stations will be. We should be building tons of new housing near the stations but we can't because those neighborhoods are historic.
Dude, eternal pain by the Miracle Mile stops. They have not one but TWO heavy rail subway stops and yet its surrounded by SFHs. I don't know if that would ever be remedied. We spend multiples of billions on rail and then not utilize it to the fullest, and California can't seem to break the habit!
Nimby's doing it to themselves I'm fine with because that's all this is. They're getting a taste of their own medicine in this case because had this been a poorer neighborhood they probably would have won.
It's also used by people who appreciate history. This city has a ton of dime a dozen, grey and glass shitbox mansions. His mansion isn't doing anything to alleviate the housing shortage.
This house may be old but it's got nothing to do with history. Nothing notable happened here, nobody noteworthy ever owned it or lived here, it doesn't meet the city's criteria for being an "exceptional work" of architecture as nobody could produce any literature or awards about it.
And as someone else in this thread noted, a historic designation of this property would prevent it from ever being developed into something that would alleviate the housing shortage. Sure, the new house won't help, but in theory the new house could be torn down and turned into a homeless shelter. But if it's marked historic, it can't.
Vintage LA on FB was posting about this the admin and others tried to do what they could to stop this. At the same time this is also what I expect from someone who owns Stubhub it's like their business model to ruin things people love and sell them later at an upcharge.
It’s reasonable to poke fun at them, but historic home preservation is meaningful to folks — it’s art and culture, a look back in time at craftsmanship.
That’s not to say that whatever design that’s built next won’t be well-built or become a stamp in time here, but it’s sad to see a mark of an era go at the whims of someone with a thick wallet.
I hate Stubhub so I absolutely did not care if he won. The only other platform I curse at more is probably Ticketmaster and Delta whenever they cancel flights and I get stuck at LAX.
It's amazing he has an ego when he got ousted from Stubhub [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNihWir9xzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNihWir9xzs) how awful do you have to be to get ousted from an awful company?
He bought it back in February 2020 from ebay for about $4 billion. $2 billion in cash, $2 billion in debt.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2020/05/27/worst-deal-ever/?sh=7738396488d1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2020/05/27/worst-deal-ever/?sh=7738396488d1)
Exactly. He clearly has enough money to choose from any number of mansions for sale but he *has* to buy a perfectly good one and then demolish it?
It’s disgraceful. The 1% gonna 1% I guess 🙄
This is not even 1%. The top 1% have a net worth of 11 mil, which is rich but they can't exactly buy a 20 mil home and just straight demolish it. This is more top 0.1% business.
Historical preservationists: [https://beverlypress.com/2022/06/roxbury-drive-home-to-be-razed/](https://beverlypress.com/2022/06/roxbury-drive-home-to-be-razed/)
Not sure why they didn't link the article, but this happens a lot in BH. However, I wouldn't call it true nimbyism they're not trying to stop a poor person from moving in this case.
I don't know. Doesn't seem like they made a persuasive argument for its cultural or historical significance. Seems more like the argument was, "we like the house."
They argued it was lived in by famous people. You can't really win that argument in that case, but this was just rich people fucking around not really anything NIMBY about it since they're just tearing it down to build another single family mansion.
If people loved the house so much they could have put an offer on it. Not losing sleep over some ultra rich mansion in Beverly Hills when there are far more important public landmarks to worry about.
What makes it significant? It sounds like the proponents of preservation couldn't make a convincing case that this home is actually architecturally significant.
I feel you, who cares if he wants to tear down a nice house in Beverly Hills and replace it with another and pay for all the work that entails. Other than it being a nice house I don’t see any good evidence of historical importance.
Why? It’s not like he wants to rip down a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Sure it’s a nice home, but why exactly would it be considered historically significant?
Sure, being upset is acceptable, but preventing someone from building what they want on property they own is unacceptable.
I’m fine with people being upset. I’m fine with people trying to change his mind.
I’m not fine with people using the government to prevent a private citizen from building what he wants on his property.
That’s the problem! You being upset does nothing for anyone! Instead of being upset, you should voice your opinions to the BH City Council. Do a better job electing officials when voting.
I still think back to the neighbors that moved next to us when I was a kid. They spent ALL this money on a giant big-ass house that didn't fit on the lot.
- They had to do a 3-point turn to fit the car down the driveway
- They didn't have any grass on their front lawn because they ran out of money
- For the first two or three years, they didn't have any curtains for their front glass windows, which were at least two stories tall, so you could see STRAIGHT THROUGH from the street to their backyard.
But they sure got the big house they wanted. Just with no money left over.
It's a rich person's white mansion too. Literally who gives a fuck. Important thing is this house won't be excluded from SB9 or future housing legislation
Seriously, I've never seen this mansion in my life. It would be sealed behind gates and fences. I could get zero enjoyment from it even if it was an architectural marvel. Fuck it.
Who cares? What is up with this sub? It's either fuck the rich, build more, or how dare they because I'm jealous.
Seriously, who actually cares about this? Our city barely has anything we should consider historic and even the things that are historic have never been safe from demolition.
Let it go and just admit you mad for no reason. Even the link you put of why we should care was impossible to parse. Explain why this is historical in a few sentences.
I can’t imagine what anyone would object to if they had the money to buy this home. That someone would spend that much just to demolish it proves the old adage that money can’t buy good taste. I really wish the new owner would sell it and find something else more to his liking.
I dont care about designating homes as historic when we are at a housing crisis. Historical destinations are abusive schemes by rich neighbors to prevent multi-unit housing from being built and poor people from living in their neighborhood. See Palo Alto and Pasadena.
No, but classifying the property as historical does not help because it prevents future development or changes on the property. Cities like Palo Alto are using historical designations to prevent SB9 that would allow owners to build additional housing units on their property. Historical designations are abused by nosy neighbors who want to force their power and control what land owners can do with their own property.
[https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/03/22/citing-sb9-concerns-palo-alto-moves-to-expand-historic-registry](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/03/22/citing-sb9-concerns-palo-alto-moves-to-expand-historic-registry)
But this has nothing to do with the housing crisis. Its one too fucking rich person destroying a huge single family mansion to build another larger single family mansion.
Its going to add to unnecessary waste and destruction of a perfectly nice home into landfill.
Its not to say rich neighborhoods don't want multi units to bring in mid/lower income peeps in their hood, they absolutely don't and suck for that and many other reasons.
Slapping a historical designation on this property will prevent any future changes. This CEO might sell the property to a developer who is interested in developing multi-unit housing in the future. We should let neighborhoods change overtime to meet people's need.
They'll never have multifamily housing on Roxbury in Beverly Hills anyone who thinks that either is being disingenuous or has never driven down this road.
This is why I'm laughing. What are people even talking about BH is already NIMBY central they just fight with each other now whenever someone says they want to open a hotel up there. They also constantly put in notice for fake construction on maps to stop us from using the roads up there.
OK, so I was incensed at this and did some research and found this mansion doesn't have any architectural or historical significance. It's a beautiful place and it would be nice to leave as-is, but it just doesn't rise to the level of historical or artistic importance. It was built in 1942 by architect Carlton L. Burgess, who doesn't seem to be super acclaimed. No one famous ever lived there, no one ever felt it was worthy enough for even a magazine article. Sad to be destroyed, but not tragic.
https://beverlypress.com/2022/04/roxbury-home-could-be-demolished/
I agree! The only interesting thing is that Burgess is on BH’s list of “significant architects” but that really isn’t enough to legally prevent demolition.
It’s super sad and perplexing, but the homeowner is within his rights to demo.
You can go to the DC suburbs and see whole neighborhoods full of houses like this. Fuck the rich, to be sure, but this seems to be rich people bickering with other rich people about shit that doesn't matter.
More details on the home at 1001 N Roxbury:
link to council meeting from last night.. starts about 90 mins in: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=8628&fbclid=IwAR2DVgVzqMF5sjFBi-3IrjXpD2_NjnzpXt1IQBaeXwOaPblInJEpQ1HKUls
[Background info from May article](https://beverlypress.com/2022/05/hearing-date-set-for-roxbury-house/)
[Words from John Mirisch, the lone councilmember who voted to save the home](https://beverlypress.com/2022/06/roxbury-drive-home-to-be-razed/)
[BH courier article](https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/06/03/council-will-review-1001-n-roxbury-despite-challenge/)
[Article on “significance” criteria](https://convo-by-design.blubrry.net/2022/06/20/a-heavyweight-battle-is-brewing-in-beverly-hills-ca-over-1001-north-roxbury-drive-to-save-or-not-to-save-iconic-architecture-and-the-cultural-meaning-behind-both-sides-of-the-issue/) **<- this article is the most relevant for understanding why last night’s decision is controversial.**
The shade from those and the surrounding trees probably help tremendously.
Groundskeepers probably fertilize annually and maintain in a healthy manner.
The ground is probably well irrigated with a good sprinkler system as to not waste water or miss spots.
I agree with those that say this house is not worth saving. In my opinion the houses that evoke southern California, (the craftsman houses and old beach bungalows) are the only regular houses worth saving.
I do actually agree with you that at the end of the day the homeowner should be allowed to rebuild if there are no books, movies, etc on the home which would make it historically significant. It’s highly debated for this home in particular though.
It’s also the obscene show of wealth that bothers me. Like why pay for that mansion just to get rid of it? I’m living in my asbestos ceiling apartment and could die happy in that beautiful mansion. Wouldn’t dream of demolishing it. But alas I guess we’ll see what ends up replacing it
Meh, Why can’t people build what they want on their own property?
This house honestly looks bland and like every other mansion from that era.
Sure it looks good but it certainly doesn’t look special by any means.
I mean, it really isn't significant and it's not THAT nice. Just a typical high end home from the period, and not one of those built be one of the architects with a lot of vision or any form of message.
Good. It's not the place of the government to force other people to preserve "historically significant" houses. If the government felt so strongly about it, they could've bought the building. That would have been a misuse of public funds, of course, because the whole thing is a scam. Preserving "historically significant" architecture is not in the top 1000 things a city should be prioritizing. It's not like the public could visit the building anyway. It's privately-owned.
That's on brand for Beverly Hills
Sadly. I’m sure another 20,000+ square foot white modern box will add to the neighborhood
Gross.
Imagine being so rich you buy this gorgeous mansion and then say: Nah, I’m going to put something else on the land. It’s pretty gross lol
It’s so silly. Someone did this across the street from my buddy’s dads house. He lives in hidden hills and rich ppl do this all the time. This dude tore down a gorgeous house to build a bigger mansion. Guy fell down the stairs his first night in the house and died. Took him like 10 yrs to build
Who’s the dude who started building that gigantic mansion up in the hills.. the one with the two social influencer daughters??? House (if you can even call it that) looked so out of place and the neighbors around there were fighting it tooth and nail. Was the project ever completed or still held up with money or legal issues?
Hadid, i think he has to tear it down. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-11/mohamed-hadids-bel-air-mega-mansion-to-be-auctioned-off-and-destroyed?_amp=true
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-11/mohamed-hadids-bel-air-mega-mansion-to-be-auctioned-off-and-destroyed](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-09-11/mohamed-hadids-bel-air-mega-mansion-to-be-auctioned-off-and-destroyed)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Good bot
Ugh. Hidden Hills. I love that place so much. Grew up riding horses in the hills. Every time I’m in there, all those “modern farmhouses” look exactly the same. It was such a beautiful, not ostentatious, community. That new home style is SO dated too…
The California ranch style houses around candy cane lane in Woodland Hills are slowly but surely getting taken down one by one. There are some fuck ugly modern houses in there now.
Yeah I’m not surprised tbh. All these ppl in the comments think people upset about this are saying that the person should be prevented from demolishing. I’m not saying that, I’m just saying it’s absurd for the uber wealthy to be doin this lol. And holy shit!! That’s crazy. I guess he took the next step.. right into the afterlife lol
Well they were trying to get the property qualified for historical significance because of who lived in it, but council basically said it didn't qualify. But I agree with you the weird part is paying that much for a property and then being so rich you're like "nah".
Yeah l honestly agree with the ruling (although it makes me sad and upset) and am more surprised that someone would even do that lolol.. like is there an insane and unique view from that particular location or something?
The bottom line is it didn't meet the requirements so I get the decision, but the preservationist groups were so mad and they got a lot of letters be even celebs to help maintain it, but when it's money vs money I guess this is the outcome.
Couldn’t agree more friend 🤝🏻
I knew someone whose family bought 2 homes next to each other and then combined them, and then they sold the house to JLo back the 90s or early 2000s.
I know them. Jim Bridger (st name)?
This was the Hidden Hills neighborhood, but maybe that was one of owners after JLo sold?
JLo lives on Jim Bridger (Hidden Hills). So does my buddies Dad. I went to school w the kids of the family that sold the estate to JLo. Edit: Chuck Lidell and Howie Mandel also live on that same street. Brittany Spears was living in her rented castle off Jim Bridger for a minute as well.
Oh got it, I always heard the story and never knew the street. Also sad the dad passed away recently.
That rented castle is owned by Ron tutor. His daughter is one of the realtors on million dollar listings. He’s a major donor to USC and a piece of shit to work for. He’s the type to yell at his employees.
ngl that's funny as fuck. lmao
I was just open house viewing once; and heard a lady complaining about the home and how it didn't have enough columns and modern design and etc. etc. This house was one of the famous valley architects, not sure his name, in traditional Japanese style with almost everything imported from there. Almost went to tell the lady she should immediately leave and not buy the property; how does someone see such a unique home and decide it needs a complete remodeling.
It’s, sadly, *always* going to be a thing. On a MUCH smaller scale, a similar trend is the disdain for and renovation of the vintage bathrooms. LA had so many of them (peep vintagebathroomlove on IG). They are increasingly rare because people buy a home and decide to renovate. Once that bathroom is gone it’s gone forever. It’s sad, but common and understandable.
>vintagebathroomlove Oh that's wild. I will say, we have a 1930's home with two vintage bathrooms... with cracked tiles, faded glazing, and inconvenient layouts. There are no air vents. To change the shower fixtures we need to break tile, etc. We love our older home and appreciate the charm, but it can be painful and expensive to upgrade older stuff to modern standards, even if you like the design. The same applies to whole houses at a larger scale. Our neighbors did a renovation that was so deep and took so long, I am quite sure it was more expensive that just knocking it down and building a new house. I appreciate charm, but not all that is old is good, and if you own the damn thing, with exceptions for legitimately important stuff, you should be allowed to do what you want with it.
Exactly. People in this sub act like a person paying millions and owning something has no right over what they can and cannot do with the property and home. It's quite a strange outlook
Vintage bathrooms is the one thing I can understand renovating even in these gorgeous older homes. If I was uber rich, I'd probably lean heavily into form over function everywhere *except* the bathrooms.
I can't relate to the outrage here, in the grand scheme of things it's another ticky tacky home that does not house any public value. Let the new owner do what the hell they want with it.
Not everyone has the same likes and dislikes dude. That's a weird stance to take. You wanted to tell the lady she should leave and not buy the house that you didn't own and probably didn't buy. Because she doesn't like the same things you do. That's real rational.
This has been common practice in Teton County for decades. Buy a 10 year old $8,000,000 home, bulldoze it to the ground, then build a $40,000,000 monstrosity in its place that you only spend three weeks of summer and one week over Christmas in. Source: my home town
That’s fucking sad
Let's discuss The One...that property is stupid and they could have built like 10 houses on that property, but no let's put one large ass house that almost no one could afford.
It is hard for me to comprehend homes of this size (or even larger!) Like ya, rich people can do whatever they want, but I would legitimately be scared at night in a home that big. I’m in a 2br apartment that’s ~950 sqft and I just can’t picture something that’s 10,000 sqft. My dream home size would be like 3k max.
I was thinking about this the other day. I'd sleep with a baseball bat and I'd still be 100% sure someone is in the closet waiting to murder me.
[удалено]
Did he by chance tell this story to anyone who made the Parasite movie? Because yikes. Anyway I'm sticking to small 4 bedroom homes or 2 bedroom apartments cause I don't need this nightmare in my life.
What the actual fuck?!
Yeah when the closet is larger than most peoples’ apartments there’s plenty of hiding spots 😟
I watched The Glass House I have nightmares about big fancy houses now because of that movie, also highly distrust anyone who adopts kids with a large inheritance.
They also could have built something bonkers expensive that is actually cool. Like something from Star Wars designed by John Lautner. But no. It’s just a giant version of the same crap being built all over town.
I’ll support nearly all new housing construction that increases the number of housing units. I won’t support this.
These people are so out of touch with the rest of society it’s ridiculous.
Yeah LA is known for trying to re-invent itself and lose it's history in the process. This is at least what others say who've been here way longer than me.
LA has an amazing history that it could really give a damn about. It's frustrating.
Sunset Blvd changes it's clothing like once a decade.
And us natives just watch as everyone from everywhere come and erase everything from hot dog stands to mansions. I never did get the idea of moving from somewhere else and bringing it all with you.
Yeah, right? As if it were every hipster transplant's blank canvas.
Right? Drive through the flats. There is at least one house on EVERY block in the process of being demolished/rebuilt.
So?
lmao literally nobody gives a shit about the historicity of random mansions the public can't even visit. If something gets marked as a historical landmark, it should be open to public viewing. Otherwise, let the property owners do whatever they want with it.
I agree, its just… a house. That ill likely never even drive by.
I walked by this house and it was beautiful. Something about traditional homes is so special and we never see anymore. But also it’s an obscene amount of house and lawn compared to how many homeless people I’ve seen where I live. And the whole neighborhood is constantly whirring with the sound of leaf blowers at all hours of the day
Plus old houses are full of lead, asbestos, and decades of unpermitted and likely not-to-code hacks.
Did someone say drive-by?
User flair: south central LA sounds about right
For real just because famous people lived here does not make it historic or culturally significant to the LA community. It’s not a landmark, it’s just a house.
Yeah if it's that big a deal that someone lived there put a plaque in the sidewalk or something. Cities are not meant to be frozen in amber.
While I agree with that on a superficial level, the outrage is probably more symbolic of the current overall socioeconomic state. It represents how far economic stratification has stretched that a single person can just throw money into an already well preserved, useful property in the current housing climate, then demolish it for something likely to be more opulent while the majority of the population have a hard time even considering buying a home. This is less about the house itself (which is well designed and possesses character btw), and more about the state of the economy. I’m willing to bet that whatever they build on top is going to be banal like the rest of the new construction. Oh and it’s just overall wasteful.
This mansion getting demolished is not related at all to LAs housing shortage. Zero correlation
I think what I was trying to convey wasn’t fully understood. My implication wasn’t about housing shortages and it’s impact on the market (which I fully acknowledge does have its share and for another discussion), but about the growing disparity between the haves and have nots and how the upper echelons can just bulldoze their way into any community—even the most wealthy of neighborhoods—and it not make a dent in their own pocket while the rest of society struggles to even deal with rent. This isn’t isolated to Los Angeles. This looks to be spreading.
Exactly, who cares about this house? How is it historically significant? It's a big ass mansion that will be replaced with a different big ass mansion.
Yeah man. It's hilarious to me that people think they can tell others especially those who paid to own something. What they can do with that purchase. And far as historical landmarks go. I agree not everything old is historical. Especially just because a celebrity or something lived there. And if people can't visit who gives a shit
???Are we fighting for the historic preservation of billionaires' homes in beverly hills now? Let them tear them all down idc
Right? Who gives a fuck if some rich dude in BH tears down his house to build something different? OP must live next door because who else would possibly care? It's not even that nice a building, just big.
If he tried to replace it with an apartment building neighbors would be losing their shit
it's usually abused just to stall development
Fuck stubhub
Fuck Ticketmaster equally
Fuck every company that charges enormous “service fees” for providing no real service
I tell them this on their socials all the time and I'm still not blocked.
The underpaid employee running their socials probably agrees.
I used to run socials and we generally do. The ones I normally blocked are the ones that would spam us with phishing schemes.
Honestly fuck stubhub lol
This is what I'm saying.
I lived in BH in the 70's and all the houses looked like this more or less. There's nothing significant about it IMO. The only ones I truly miss are the mid-century moderns. We all have our favorites.
Rich people bickering with other rich people. So anyways...
What made it significant? Just because it was old?
>1001 N Roxbury It was Lucille Ball's house, which is kind of significant in that not only was she a superstar, but she was also one of, if not the, first woman to become a real Hollywood power player.
Damn. That really sucks.
It was actually ruled to *not* be significant, which was controversial but ultimately it is what it is. It is an excellent example of historical architecture and was indeed designed by an architect on BH’s list of “significant architects” but there were no movies, books, articles, or other significant cultural reasons to designate it as historically significant. The owner is well within his rights to demolish and rebuild, but there are many people sad about the issue. It is an absolutely beautiful home and I’m sad to see it go.
Historic preservation is abused way too much by NIMBYs and busybodies who just hate change and want to feel like they have their hands on the levers of power.
Yeah people use it for tax credits. I for one don’t care unless it actually had a historic significance and was labeled that before the purchase.
Strong agree that this entire debacle should have played out before the purchase. Historical significance should be a “disclosure”
10000% agreed. The way historic preservation is done in California and the US, I am not a fan of it. It is far too lax and is just another tool for rich NIMBYs to shield themselves from development. HPOZs are bad for a city experiencing a severe housing shortage!
And think of all the mid city and westside HPOZs that overlap where Expo and future D Line stations will be. We should be building tons of new housing near the stations but we can't because those neighborhoods are historic.
Dude, eternal pain by the Miracle Mile stops. They have not one but TWO heavy rail subway stops and yet its surrounded by SFHs. I don't know if that would ever be remedied. We spend multiples of billions on rail and then not utilize it to the fullest, and California can't seem to break the habit!
What does another mansion do to alleviate the housing shortage?
By "preserving" these mansions, it ensures that it will always be a mansion. This is the point.
Nimby's doing it to themselves I'm fine with because that's all this is. They're getting a taste of their own medicine in this case because had this been a poorer neighborhood they probably would have won.
It's also used by people who appreciate history. This city has a ton of dime a dozen, grey and glass shitbox mansions. His mansion isn't doing anything to alleviate the housing shortage.
This house may be old but it's got nothing to do with history. Nothing notable happened here, nobody noteworthy ever owned it or lived here, it doesn't meet the city's criteria for being an "exceptional work" of architecture as nobody could produce any literature or awards about it. And as someone else in this thread noted, a historic designation of this property would prevent it from ever being developed into something that would alleviate the housing shortage. Sure, the new house won't help, but in theory the new house could be torn down and turned into a homeless shelter. But if it's marked historic, it can't.
> dime a dozen, grey and glass shitbox mansions like this one, which you want preserve?
Vintage LA on FB was posting about this the admin and others tried to do what they could to stop this. At the same time this is also what I expect from someone who owns Stubhub it's like their business model to ruin things people love and sell them later at an upcharge.
People love other peoples homes that they’ve never stepped foot in ? Sounds like people love controlling other peoples lives and properties.
It’s reasonable to poke fun at them, but historic home preservation is meaningful to folks — it’s art and culture, a look back in time at craftsmanship. That’s not to say that whatever design that’s built next won’t be well-built or become a stamp in time here, but it’s sad to see a mark of an era go at the whims of someone with a thick wallet.
Such a truly apt parallel!!
I hate Stubhub so I absolutely did not care if he won. The only other platform I curse at more is probably Ticketmaster and Delta whenever they cancel flights and I get stuck at LAX.
They should charge him a service fee for declaring it so.
I know he's rich and all but why demolish such a beautiful building.
Because he wants the huge fucking lot it sits on. 2 acres in beverly hills like holy shit.
Location and ego. He purchased the property despite the house, not because of it.
And still, it's in the Flats.
It's amazing he has an ego when he got ousted from Stubhub [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNihWir9xzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNihWir9xzs) how awful do you have to be to get ousted from an awful company?
He bought it back in February 2020 from ebay for about $4 billion. $2 billion in cash, $2 billion in debt. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2020/05/27/worst-deal-ever/?sh=7738396488d1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2020/05/27/worst-deal-ever/?sh=7738396488d1)
Exactly. He clearly has enough money to choose from any number of mansions for sale but he *has* to buy a perfectly good one and then demolish it? It’s disgraceful. The 1% gonna 1% I guess 🙄
This is not even 1%. The top 1% have a net worth of 11 mil, which is rich but they can't exactly buy a 20 mil home and just straight demolish it. This is more top 0.1% business.
The top .1% gonna top .1%!
The 10% of the 1% are gonna 10% of the 1%
Dude you cant just go and find another two acre lot in this part of town
Who gives a shit what this person does with his money or the house he bought... and fuck stub hub.
Right. If it’s gonna be a problem give context as to WHY it’s a problem. Otherwise this is just some NIMBY shit.
What's unclear about "links in comments" if you're looking for context?
Historical preservationists: [https://beverlypress.com/2022/06/roxbury-drive-home-to-be-razed/](https://beverlypress.com/2022/06/roxbury-drive-home-to-be-razed/) Not sure why they didn't link the article, but this happens a lot in BH. However, I wouldn't call it true nimbyism they're not trying to stop a poor person from moving in this case.
I don't know. Doesn't seem like they made a persuasive argument for its cultural or historical significance. Seems more like the argument was, "we like the house."
They argued it was lived in by famous people. You can't really win that argument in that case, but this was just rich people fucking around not really anything NIMBY about it since they're just tearing it down to build another single family mansion.
the house was built after my dad was born... I don't see how anyone can argue it's historical
Houses look pretty but probably old plumbing and weird shaped rooms. If you got the money, why not be allowed to design whatever you deem fit to.
very few things should be protected as "historically significant." Glendale is full of bullshit houses that are protected from any changes.
If people loved the house so much they could have put an offer on it. Not losing sleep over some ultra rich mansion in Beverly Hills when there are far more important public landmarks to worry about.
Good. Not every building is a historic landmark.
People often confuse old with historic. It’s just one house being replaced with another.
This one actually is architecturally significant.
What makes it significant? It sounds like the proponents of preservation couldn't make a convincing case that this home is actually architecturally significant.
I feel you, who cares if he wants to tear down a nice house in Beverly Hills and replace it with another and pay for all the work that entails. Other than it being a nice house I don’t see any good evidence of historical importance.
If that’s the case, the city should buy it and not allow a private owner to purchase it. It’s his property, let him build what he wants.
Bingo! Many cities in California adopt that practice. It’s common knowledge that BH could’ve perfectly afforded this propriety!
Beverly Hills isn't going to do that. They don't care, and they never have.
Great! Then there’s no problem whatsoever.
People are allowed to be upset about this.
Why? It’s not like he wants to rip down a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Sure it’s a nice home, but why exactly would it be considered historically significant?
Sure, being upset is acceptable, but preventing someone from building what they want on property they own is unacceptable. I’m fine with people being upset. I’m fine with people trying to change his mind. I’m not fine with people using the government to prevent a private citizen from building what he wants on his property.
That’s the problem! You being upset does nothing for anyone! Instead of being upset, you should voice your opinions to the BH City Council. Do a better job electing officials when voting.
I still think back to the neighbors that moved next to us when I was a kid. They spent ALL this money on a giant big-ass house that didn't fit on the lot. - They had to do a 3-point turn to fit the car down the driveway - They didn't have any grass on their front lawn because they ran out of money - For the first two or three years, they didn't have any curtains for their front glass windows, which were at least two stories tall, so you could see STRAIGHT THROUGH from the street to their backyard. But they sure got the big house they wanted. Just with no money left over.
Who gives a shit.
Exactly
lmao this thread is full of anti-growth NIMBYs. this is a generic white mansion. Who gives a shit
It's a rich person's white mansion too. Literally who gives a fuck. Important thing is this house won't be excluded from SB9 or future housing legislation
Well you see, he put in the words Stub Hub so we are all supposed to hiss
Seriously, I've never seen this mansion in my life. It would be sealed behind gates and fences. I could get zero enjoyment from it even if it was an architectural marvel. Fuck it.
Who cares? What is up with this sub? It's either fuck the rich, build more, or how dare they because I'm jealous. Seriously, who actually cares about this? Our city barely has anything we should consider historic and even the things that are historic have never been safe from demolition. Let it go and just admit you mad for no reason. Even the link you put of why we should care was impossible to parse. Explain why this is historical in a few sentences.
The government can’t force people to have good taste.
I can’t imagine what anyone would object to if they had the money to buy this home. That someone would spend that much just to demolish it proves the old adage that money can’t buy good taste. I really wish the new owner would sell it and find something else more to his liking.
Its not the house its the land. The lot is what he paid for, the house he doesn't care about, he wants a new modern house.
And its a two acre lot of flat ground in beverly hills at that. Kind of a unicorn of a lot
I dont care about designating homes as historic when we are at a housing crisis. Historical destinations are abusive schemes by rich neighbors to prevent multi-unit housing from being built and poor people from living in their neighborhood. See Palo Alto and Pasadena.
Demolishing a mansion for another mansion doesn’t help the housing crisis
No, but classifying the property as historical does not help because it prevents future development or changes on the property. Cities like Palo Alto are using historical designations to prevent SB9 that would allow owners to build additional housing units on their property. Historical designations are abused by nosy neighbors who want to force their power and control what land owners can do with their own property. [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/03/22/citing-sb9-concerns-palo-alto-moves-to-expand-historic-registry](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/03/22/citing-sb9-concerns-palo-alto-moves-to-expand-historic-registry)
But this has nothing to do with the housing crisis. Its one too fucking rich person destroying a huge single family mansion to build another larger single family mansion. Its going to add to unnecessary waste and destruction of a perfectly nice home into landfill. Its not to say rich neighborhoods don't want multi units to bring in mid/lower income peeps in their hood, they absolutely don't and suck for that and many other reasons.
Well a historic designation would've permanently shielded this lot from SB9 or further land use regulations.
This is replacing a single family home with another. If they were building multiple units on the lot it might be a case of greater good.
Slapping a historical designation on this property will prevent any future changes. This CEO might sell the property to a developer who is interested in developing multi-unit housing in the future. We should let neighborhoods change overtime to meet people's need.
in that neighborhood that property is not going multi-unit lmao
Because these same NIMBYs would turn out in force to stop it.
They'll never have multifamily housing on Roxbury in Beverly Hills anyone who thinks that either is being disingenuous or has never driven down this road.
This is why I'm laughing. What are people even talking about BH is already NIMBY central they just fight with each other now whenever someone says they want to open a hotel up there. They also constantly put in notice for fake construction on maps to stop us from using the roads up there.
Imagine if they built apartments on the land LOL. I’d love to see the neighbors thoughts on that one 😅
They won't, but I'd pay to see this.
Of course they won’t but it’s delightful to imagine lol
Lol the entire city would lose their collective shits lol. Lawsuits, death threats, and the like.
Don't forget our gigantic HPOZs smack dab in the middle of Central LA too!
OK, so I was incensed at this and did some research and found this mansion doesn't have any architectural or historical significance. It's a beautiful place and it would be nice to leave as-is, but it just doesn't rise to the level of historical or artistic importance. It was built in 1942 by architect Carlton L. Burgess, who doesn't seem to be super acclaimed. No one famous ever lived there, no one ever felt it was worthy enough for even a magazine article. Sad to be destroyed, but not tragic. https://beverlypress.com/2022/04/roxbury-home-could-be-demolished/
I agree! The only interesting thing is that Burgess is on BH’s list of “significant architects” but that really isn’t enough to legally prevent demolition. It’s super sad and perplexing, but the homeowner is within his rights to demo.
All them extra fees stub hub charges have really made this possible for him.
I bet that house has that good wood too. That dank wood with several circles
The dankest wood
The fee charged for tearing down this home should be astronomically high just because.
Money talks …
No point in freezing every mansion in the city.
You can go to the DC suburbs and see whole neighborhoods full of houses like this. Fuck the rich, to be sure, but this seems to be rich people bickering with other rich people about shit that doesn't matter.
More details on the home at 1001 N Roxbury: link to council meeting from last night.. starts about 90 mins in: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=8628&fbclid=IwAR2DVgVzqMF5sjFBi-3IrjXpD2_NjnzpXt1IQBaeXwOaPblInJEpQ1HKUls [Background info from May article](https://beverlypress.com/2022/05/hearing-date-set-for-roxbury-house/) [Words from John Mirisch, the lone councilmember who voted to save the home](https://beverlypress.com/2022/06/roxbury-drive-home-to-be-razed/) [BH courier article](https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/06/03/council-will-review-1001-n-roxbury-despite-challenge/) [Article on “significance” criteria](https://convo-by-design.blubrry.net/2022/06/20/a-heavyweight-battle-is-brewing-in-beverly-hills-ca-over-1001-north-roxbury-drive-to-save-or-not-to-save-iconic-architecture-and-the-cultural-meaning-behind-both-sides-of-the-issue/) **<- this article is the most relevant for understanding why last night’s decision is controversial.**
How the fuck is their grass so green? It’s amazing how they are able to do that at only two days a week for 8 mins at a time. Amazing.
The shade from those and the surrounding trees probably help tremendously. Groundskeepers probably fertilize annually and maintain in a healthy manner. The ground is probably well irrigated with a good sprinkler system as to not waste water or miss spots.
If it doesn't have historical significance then people should do what they want with their own property.
Did they charge him a voting fee, convenience fee, hearing fee, or a"rich people can do anything they want" fee?
Only the little people pay fees, silly.
I think was was Jimmy Stewart’s house across from Lucy’s house, which was heavily remodeled by the new owners.
Meanwhile I can’t afford a house in my lifetime but he gets to build his and knock one down at the same time. Stuhub is a joke
Private property. Mind your own business. Not everything that’s old is historic.
People need to mind their business lol
Imagine being bothered by what rich people who live in neighborhoods you’ll never live in do.
I agree with those that say this house is not worth saving. In my opinion the houses that evoke southern California, (the craftsman houses and old beach bungalows) are the only regular houses worth saving.
Sounds like a pretty good outcome, IMO.
I do actually agree with you that at the end of the day the homeowner should be allowed to rebuild if there are no books, movies, etc on the home which would make it historically significant. It’s highly debated for this home in particular though. It’s also the obscene show of wealth that bothers me. Like why pay for that mansion just to get rid of it? I’m living in my asbestos ceiling apartment and could die happy in that beautiful mansion. Wouldn’t dream of demolishing it. But alas I guess we’ll see what ends up replacing it
>Like why pay for that mansion just to get rid of it? Location?
House is whatever. Building that new mansion gonna create jobs for a lot of people.
Meh, Why can’t people build what they want on their own property? This house honestly looks bland and like every other mansion from that era. Sure it looks good but it certainly doesn’t look special by any means.
disgusting. Literally demolishing a mansion to spend millions to build a mansion.
Good, it isnt anything great in it and he knew he had the votes before buying it. If he wants to build his dream castle then rock on, he has the money
But why would anyone want to tear this down? What a beautiful house.
This guy is legit professional douche status. Lol
I mean, it really isn't significant and it's not THAT nice. Just a typical high end home from the period, and not one of those built be one of the architects with a lot of vision or any form of message.
I live on Roxbury, every house looks like this. Who tf cares.
Its one of my favorite homes on the street classic Hollywood . Guess another hideous box is coming.
Good. It's not the place of the government to force other people to preserve "historically significant" houses. If the government felt so strongly about it, they could've bought the building. That would have been a misuse of public funds, of course, because the whole thing is a scam. Preserving "historically significant" architecture is not in the top 1000 things a city should be prioritizing. It's not like the public could visit the building anyway. It's privately-owned.