6-Plus Percent of Bel Air Up For Sale For $125 Million
Bel Air used to be cheap to buy, it went up in price as people got priced out better parts of the Westside. Now the people think they are exclusive but many people even the 1990’s paid less then $500K. Looks what these home on sale now used to go for:
Only the big homes are what makes the area, the rest of the population are cast out and poors of the city walking their dogs like homeless people in the middle of the road.
What you are saying is that its possible to influence this decision! Its important that people know how effective they can be by making there voices heard.
And it sounds like Bill Crouch is a willing listener who needs our support for him to do his job. So we should all get with it and email him this weekend and see what happens!
I know this is an effective approach because the ucla and belair communities were able to forestall the sale of the japanese gardens in bel air by ucla.
Did a Modernist Master's Dream Home Just Sell as a Teardown?
Agree with @Thruthingest. Although many of the original mid century modern homes were destroyed in the 1961 Brentwood-Bel Air fire, and many others were subsequently torn down to build larger homes, there remain 14 homes that are designated Historic-Cultural Monuments by Los Angeles in the Crestwood Hills Community in Brentwood. They are as follows; 810 Bramble Way, 12404 Rochedale Lane, 12434 Rochedale Lane, 990 Hanley Avenue (the original Mutual Association Housing Office for Crestwood Hills), 907 Hanley Avenue, 860 Hanley Avenue , 900 Stonehill Lane, 947 Stonehill Lane, 12401 W. Deerbrook Lane, 12420 W. Rochedale Roadd, 12256 Canna Road, 968 Stonehill Lane, and 925 Stonehill Lane. Hopefully the Crestwood Hills Association will file an application to the Office of Historic Resourses who in turn
Survey Reveals: Santa Monica NIMBYs Mostly Old White People
What I am saying is – and I will say it slowly so that you will understand- the noise, the people, development, those things come with living in a city. A city which needs to build up. More dense housing, more extensive transit, those things are the only way forward. So what I am saying is the old guard – be they old rich Reaganites in Bel Air or old John Birchers in Encino or old hippes in Santa Monica- all resist projects that will lead to a more dense, transit reliant city. They resist for all kinds reasons but the one thing they have in common is their need to live in a SoCal, 1960’s fantasy world of quiet skies, clean views, crisp green lawns, smooth black pavement and lily white schools.
Mixed-Use Hotel Plaza La Reina Tops Off in Sluggish Westwood
@Chris Hamilton: Westwood should be for a college scene, the Bel Air/Holmby/Brentwood crowd has plenty of options for high-end shopping and dining. Westwood Boulevard used to be filled with high-end shopping, which died of course because there’s limited parking and lots of other options on the West Side. Why not cater to people who don’t have to drive into the Village?
When the Village Plan bans new QSR restaurants unless they take over an existing QSR-zoned space, when the Plan makes it impossible to open any sort of entertainment for college students, and yes, we’re talking alcohol (horrors!), then that’s a plan that is doomed to result in emptyness.
Instead, you have UCLA students getting into cars to drive to bars in Santa Monica and West Hollywood. That can’t be good for anyone.
Some people on here are so stupid! I sell real estate throughout the west side and I’ve had alot of buyers selling properties in Beverly Hills snd bel air to come move to calabasas. People that can afford to live in calabasas can more than afford to live on the west side but quite frankly they are just tired of the traffic and not to mention it’s not the greatest place to raise your children in. Yes you get alot more bang for your buck in calabasas and hidden hills but its still very expensive people want privacy they want large roads they want newer homes that are hard to come by on the west side. My point is I live in Beverly Hills I have no kids and I do most of my work in the west side, but if I did have children and I didn’t have to drive everyday to the west side I would move to calabasas.
Work Has Begun on the Beverly Hills Waldorf Astoria
Thompson (sorry; hit the wrong key) the Huntley, the Shade hotel in Manhattan Beach, the Sunset Tower, the Chateau Marmont, and the Maison 140, but any place with 100 rooms or more seems doomed to be generic, no matter how expensive it is. Why doesn’t LA deserve a classic grand hotel, in the manner of the Pierre, the Carlyle or even the Plaza, before Donald Trump got hold of it? Even the hotels that once embodied the unique LA vibe of laid-back elegance like the Bel Air and the Beverly hills Hotel have been re-decorated in ways that don’t honor their history, locale or character. They could be nice hotels anywhere in the world, not specifically in So Cal. With all of the talented interior designers in LA why can’t ridiculously expensive hotel hire Timothy Corrigan or Michael Smith or if you want to go Modernist, James Magni, to create a visually stunning, sensual, all-embracing retreat?
Economists: Bel Air and Surroundings Are the Second Most Desirable Neighborhood in the US
Economists scored the neighborhoods according to the standards of their academic discipline. I will grant you good schools are a plus, for people who have kids, but I would prefer to live in a less kid-friendly environment- can’t stand rug rats. Besides, if you live in Bel Air or Holmby Hills don’t you send your kids to prep school? A low crime rate is always a plus. However, as an aesthete, I would say the requirements for ultimate livability also involve beautiful architecture- no Mohammed Hadid monstrosities- art galleries, antique shops, artisan crafts boutiques (not everybody likes to shop at chain stores!), good restaurants, a good wine and cheese shop, walkability (got to walk the doggies) an easy-going friendly vibe and at least one real bookstore, and no; Barnes & Noble doesn’t count. It looks like we have a winner: Larchmont Village/Windsor Square.
"Wealthy homeowners benefit from a shortage of housing in their neighborhood."
This point needs to be refined. Are you suggesting wealthy homeowners limit development to maintain high property values? If so, I would argue this isn’t as important to them as maintaining the character of their single family dwelling neighborhoods.
If you think high value neighborhoods like Brentwood, Bel Air, Hancock Park, Larchmont Village, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silverlake, etc. are going to be suddenly filled with high density residential or multi use building, then I think you’re going to be disappointed.
More than likely, high density residential buildings will appear in under developed and blighted areas of LA like North Hollywood, DTLA, etc. where developers will find less resistance, tax benefits, and lower development costs.