Related Articles

33 Comments

  1. 1

    Daniel

    It’d be a tough choice between 2 and 3. I think I’d go for Eddie’s but replace about 90% of the furniture. Stunning exterior though. I do like the little village feel of number 2. And the interior on that one I’d leave as-is for the most part. 1 looks like a temple and 4 is crammed on the lot – although the architecture is impressive. Since we’re on the topic of Beverly Park, I think Hablinski/Manion have the slight edge in terms of architecture. I ***love*** Villa Firenze – one of my all time favorite homes. Stunning layout and design:

    http://www.williamhablinski.com/project-details.php?id=59&p=r

    Back to Landry, I think the huge French compound is another stunner. The only asinine thing about this house is the fact that the foyer opens up into this tiny little alcove that serves absolutely no purpose. It should have been a two-story floor-to-ceiling window overlooking the gardens.

    landrydesigngroup.com/Classic/2/1.htm

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      Tony

      I agree, I think the Hablinski/Manion homes are better than the Landry homes. Not that the Landry homes are awful but they aren’t all that. The Hablinski and Manion homes are usually far superior to any Landry home I have seen.

      Reply
      1. 1.1.1

        Tony

        By the way the french home in the Landry link you posted isn’t one of the french homes that Kenny mentioned, not sure if you realize that or if I am just confused.

        Reply
  2. 2

    Chance

    I’d have to go 2,1,3,4 in that order, though my favorite property in Beverly Park is at 61 Beverly Park. It’s a Richard Landry house but the interior was recently renovated. It won a few CEDIA awards as I recall.

    Here’s a bit of the living room, there’s also a short vid of a part of the kitchen.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5DocGLPZms&feature=channel&list=UL

    Reply
    1. 2.1

      Tony

      61 Beverly Park is Haim Saban’s house. It looks kinda plain and boring in that link you posted. Just looks like plain white walls. Here’s a link that shows photos where the interior looks more detailed and intricate. Maybe they just put less craftmanship into that room that was shown in that youtube link. Anyway I sometimes get Haim Saban’s house mixed up with Avi Arad’s house but I think Avi Arad’s is better cause it is more detailed and intricate and has more quality.

      here’s a link to Haim Saban’s house at 61 Beverly Park:

      http://landrydesigngroup.com/Classic/2/3.htm

      Here’s a link to Avi Arad’s house:

      http://www.williamhablinski.com/project-details.php?id=37&p=c

      Reply
    2. 2.2

      Cem

      Haim’s house is great. I like theless detail more contempo reno. They gutted the entire house down the studs and started over a few years back

      Reply
      1. 2.2.1

        Tony

        Are saying that Haim Saban gutted the house or are you saying that someone else bought it from Haim and then the new owner gutted it?

        Reply
        1. 2.2.1.1

          Chance

          Not sure, but it was definitely gutted and completely redone. The interior in the link is how it looks now, the interior on the Landry site is how it originally looked. Here is the construction firm that did the remodel.

          http://www.forthill.com/projects/project7.html

          Reply
          1. 2.2.1.1.1

            Tony

            Thanks Chance

        2. 2.2.1.2

          zach cameron

          Haim Saban still owns the house. See the chapter in Richard Landry’s new book “Private Estates”. http://www.amazon.com/Private-Estates-Architecture-Landry-Design/dp/0982622651/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346095497&sr=1-1&keywords=private+estates
          Zach

          Reply
        3. 2.2.1.3

          Cem

          Haim gutted the house and the renovations were done to his wives taste 100%. I remember reading an article on it awhile back… he had nosay she picked what she wanted.

          Reply
          1. 2.2.1.3.1

            Tony

            I don’t think his wife did a good job with renovating it. Its just real plain and simple and contemporary looking with cheap looking plain white walls. The exterior looks like some classical palace type of look and the interior is some cheap and basic and white and plain. I think the original interior matched the exterior better.

  3. 3

    A.K

    Ofcourse it’s a tough choice between 2 and 3. But I too would pick Eddie’s, it’s the kind of Mediterranean style that really looks genuine. Love it!

    Reply
  4. 4

    BrysonT

    Definately mansion #4. Though my favoite Beverly Hills home is Lisa Vanderpump’s former estate on 50 Beverly Park…

    Reply
    1. 4.1

      Tony

      you know lisa vanderpump’s former home burned to the ground right?

      Reply
      1. 4.1.1

        Cem

        It hardly burned to the ground. Therw was a fire in the attic.

        Reply
        1. 4.1.1.1

          Tony

          oh my bad, when I saw it on the news it looked like it burned down

          Reply
  5. 5

    Grrrowler

    For me it would be #1 followed by #2. I’m not a fan of numbers 3 and 4 much at all. Although, given the choice of living in Beverly Park I’d choose not to.

    Reply
  6. 6

    Tony

    Hey Kenny, I thought it was reported that 40 Beverly Park had sold a while ago, how come its still listed with Mauricio? Had it never sold since it was previously listed? Also If I had to pick I’d chose the French chateau at 40 Beverly Park over the other homes. My second pick would be Eddie Murphy’s house, I don’t totally like the interior but I like the exterior for the most part and I like the resort look of it. Also I am not sure if Eddie’s house is really 40,000 square feet. I know the Finton site says it is 40,000 square feet but that would make it bigger than Fleur Dy Lys. It doesn’t look that big and some sites have said it is more like 20,000 square feet or less. These two sources say it is 18,000 square feet, but maybe when Eddie bought it he tore down the 18,000 square foot house and built a bigger one, not sure but it just doesn’t look like its bigger than Fluer Dy Lys to me.

    http://losangeles.blockshopper.com/property/4386014016/19_beverly_park

    http://www.city-data.com/los-angeles-county/B/Beverly-Park-Drive-2.html

    Reply
    1. 6.1

      Cem

      he tore down a house? are you kidding me? eddie’s house has a huge basement which gets it to the 40k sq.ft. like 12k of it is underground.

      Reply
      1. 6.1.1

        Tony

        well there is information online which I posted which states the house is only 18,000 square feet, you can read it for yourself. Its not unheard of for a very wealthy person to tear down a house a build a bigger one, there’s nothing farfetched about that at all. Also Eddie bought the house for only $10,000,000. I can’t see him buying a 40,000 square foot house for only $10,000,000. I kinda think maybe he bought an 18,000 square foot house for $10,000,000 and then tore it down and built a bigger one and since most of it is in the basement then that’s why it doesn’t look so big. That’s the only thing that would explain why the house is listed as only being 18,000 square feet.

        Reply
  7. 7

    Sam

    definitely #2 but i would have to see floor plans.

    Reply
  8. 8

    Tony

    Hey Kenny, I just noticed that you said house #4 sold in 2009. I had thought it sold already. So why is it listed on “The Agency” website? I thought it was an old listing from before it sold but I don’t think “The Agency” existed back in 2009. I think Mauricio was still with Hilton and Hyland back then. So did the people that bought the house in 2009 put it back on the market or what?

    UPDATE: Oops, I just realized it is listed as “sold” on “The Agency” website, but I didn’t think “The Agency” existed back in 2009 when this house sold so that’s kinda odd. (i used the edit feature to update this)

    Reply
  9. 9

    Tay

    I like Adrienne’s mansion a lot more than the Vanderpump one.

    Reply
  10. 10

    mak

    I pick #2. No, wait…#4. No, I meant #3. Yea, that’s right, #2. Of course, I could always go with #4 but then since I already changed my answer once, I should probably keep it #2, but # 4…what a pile!

    Eccept #2 is so nice, and it just makes me want to move out to CA and find a rich guy to buy it for me, but that # 3. Whew! Can you imagine living in that? Wow! I could totally see myself in that. So I would have to say #3.

    Wait. Can I change my mind? Would that be wrong? I know I said #2, and then #4, but I reallzy like #1.

    Reply
    1. 10.1

      mac22

      make up your mind already…..lol. I would flip a coin. How bad could living in a mega mansion be after all is said and done?

      Reply
  11. 11

    lambskin

    They are all beautiful-I would be happy with any of them.

    Reply
  12. 12

    Chris

    eh, I’d take the Stone Mansion over these any day of the week

    Reply
  13. 13

    mac22

    I agree with Mak, I am sure anyone on this blog could somehow get used to living in anyone of these behemoths, it would be a hrad choice narrowing it down, but I think #3 has the most authentic exterior and #1 is at least different from the rest and I like contemporary spaces.

    Aside from all that, I cant see the pleasure in living in a giant mega-mansion squeezed onto a postage stamp lot where all you see from the second floor windows are a dozen other gargantuan and fairly gaudy mansions. Whats the point. Its a billionaires ghetto.

    If anyone really looks at these homes and looks at the detailing and the proportions and scale and then still thinks they are great looking when compared to a classic late 19th or early 20th century Horace Trumbauer mansion like the Elms in Newport or the Duke mansion in NYC, or a classic mansion from John Russell Pope, Carrere and Hastings, Mckim Mead and White or Richard Morris Hunt, then you really need to adjust those glasses. These builders build high end and expensive mansions, but there is something just not right about the majority of them. The elegance and beautry is not there. They are showy, ostentatious, big, gilded, marble clad, but will never compare to the classic mansions built a century ago by someof the best architects.

    Reply
    1. 13.1

      mak

      I definitely agree with you on all your points, The elegance is missing, and that is truly sad.

      Reply
  14. 14

    Bella

    #3 is the only one for me.

    Reply
  15. 15

    andi

    I picked the modern house. All houses will eventually look dated and stale, but I’d not have a home that already looks this way the day the plans were drawn up let alone the day construction begins!

    Reply
  16. 16

    Ted

    number 1 for sure.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2014 Homes of the Rich - All Rights Reserved

css.php