Front Exterior

LOCATION: 50 Beverly Park Way, Beverly Hills, California

SQUARE FOOTAGE: 56,000

BEDROOMS & BATHROOMS: 15 bedrooms & 12+ bathrooms

PRICE: $32,500,000 (land + plans)

This proposed French style mega mansion will be built at 50 Beverly Park Way in the guard-gated Beverly Park community in Beverly Hills, CA and situated on 2.5 acres of land. The plot of land is where Lisa Vanderpump’s (star of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills) former house used to be before it was sold and later caught on fire. 

It was designed by renowned architect Richard Landry and will feature up to 56,000 square feet of living space with 15 bedrooms, 12+ bathrooms, 2-story foyer with grand double staircase, second staircase, 2 elevators, formal living & dining rooms, wet bar, gourmet kitchen, separate service kitchen, 2 breakfast rooms, library, guest lounge, lower level lounge with wet bar, 20-seat home theater, bowling alley, gym, yoga studio, spa, hammam, salon, indoor swimming pool, 14-car subterranean garage and more.

Outdoor features will include a motor court with fountain, loggia with fireplace, terrace, balconies, patio, swimming pool, gardens and more.

It is listed at $32,500,000 for the land & plans.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LISTING

  • Stanley Bwire

    Exterior – absolutely beautiful , the interior could have been better with a more classic look to match the exterior




    0



    0
    • Synonymous Synonymous

      I completely agree with you. The exterior of the home is so beautiful. I was expecting a more classic, sophisticated approach to the common areas. The master bedroom was properly designed, I reckon. There is certainly room for improvement, but the home is well executed.
      Synonymouss.com




      0



      0
  • Pierre

    At least, the renders look good… but it probably won’t look as good in real life.




    0



    0
    • TrangleC

      They have improved lately, as it seems. I haven’t visited this site or any other luxury or architecture blog in 2 years or so and I remember how back then even the CGI renditions coming from big, top notch architecture firms still looked like shitty Playstation 2 graphics.




      0



      0
  • Teddee13

    I have never understood building uber-expensive mega-mansions in classic architectural styles only to deck out the interior in modern design. This one is worse than the others because I love the exterior, and I love the interior. But neither really belong together. I’m used to seeing this disconnect in London homes, not so much in the US. I do absolutely love that it’s classy without a gold leaf in sight. That’s an added plus. Also a plus is that it’s both extraordinarily grand AND liveable. Most homes of this magnitude seem to go out of their way to appear as unliveable as possible. As if sophistication and comfort can’t ever find a harmonious union. Kudos to them pulling that off here. Just a slightly more classic interior would probably make this estate quite close to perfection.




    0



    0
    • TrangleC

      I have the suspicion that most people who go for “classic” (meaning “old”) don’t do so because they really like it, but because it is the safe choice. You can’t embarrass yourself with vintage, classical stuff, so people who don’t have a taste of their own go that route.
      (I’m not accusing you personally of this, just talking in general.)

      To me this always was kind of a “The Emperor’s new clothes”-type of situation, where all the people swoon over classical designs and vintage furniture and all that and in secret most of them don’t even like that stuff.

      There are practical reasons for why old houses look the way they do. Small rooms were easier to heat, small windows, wallpaper and wooden floors were neccessities forced on to people by technological limitations.

      Now we can build better, with large windows, large rooms, concrete and many other options. To me it makes no sense to stick to a style that only existed because people didn’t have the abilities and options we have now. My guess is that if they would have had our technology 500 years ago, they would have used it and wouldn’t have bothered with all the stuff we consider classical now and pretend to find pretty.

      I grew up in old houses and around castles and stuff like that in southern Germany. My family has had a tiny castle of their own (which was turned into a military hospital during the war and then bombed by Allied bombers). I played in the ruins. My aunt lived in a 700 year old house, my grandmother in a 500 year old house and the main building of the elementary school I went to was over 1000 years old. We had to walk up and down the stairs on the sides because the middle of the huge stone slabs were worn and honed down by hundreds of generations of school children’s feet running up and down.

      The point being, I know “old” and I don’t like it very much.

      Being surrounded by it all and experiencing it as mundane and normal prevented me from developing much romantic illusions about it.




      0



      0
      • Teddee13

        I find your comment presumptuous, preachy and ridiculous. We have modern, contemporary style homes for a reason. If that’s the style that a homeowner likes, then by all means, let them have at it. But it begs the question that if it’s what they like why don’t they build a modern home instead of building a classic one then decking out the interior in a modern style. How preposterous is it to not realize that there’s a difference between classic and dated.

        The architecture is classical and it’s not dated, so why even make the claim that the interior design can’t be as well? Does that make ANY sense?

        We’re looking at a “old” French architecture with every conceivable modern element from energy efficient windows that block UV rays to preserve paintings and fabrics, to laser cut blocks and you really want to argue the point that because something LOOKS old it can’t also incorporate modern technological advancements? Again, how does that make any sense?

        I too grew up in and around estate homes so I have an abhorrence for dated and old fashioned where everything is dark and heavy and ornate. But that CLEARLY isn’t what we’re talking about here. We’re CLEARLY talking about a lack of continuum between exterior facade and interior design.

        It would have been equally preposterous had this been a modern style home with a classic interior. They don’t meld.

        It has nothing to do with what you don’t like, it has everything to do with understanding what the terms actually mean, what they represent in designing and knowing that disharmony is created when interior and exterior conflict. THAT’S what we’re discussing here.




        0



        0
        • TrangleC

          You just have to look through the commnents on this site to see what I’m talking about. They’re full of people calling everything that isn’t a emulation of 100+ year old stuff gaudy and tasteless, which I find ironic.
          To those people everything is either a Faberge Egg, or a Pink Plastic Flamingo and there is nothing in between.

          That is where my inspiration to write my “presumptuous, preachy and ridiculous” comment comes from.

          Oh, I do understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with it.
          To me the idea that the exterior and the interior have to be “matching” makes only sense on first glance, but not when you think about it a little deeper. What does that even really mean?
          It is a private residence, not a museum.
          People can like more than one style and think classical looks better from the outside, while wanting something different to actually live in. Or maybe they just went classical for the fasade to increase resell value for potential buyers from the “Faberge/Flamingo” crowd, I mentioned before.

          Look at modern luxury limousines. Rolls Royce, Maybach and Bentley all stick to a rather traditional, subdued design on the outside, while the inside is all LED mood lighting, computer screens and colorful leather.
          If that is “disharmony”, I’m clearly not the only weirdo who likes it.

          The thing is, you rarely see homes or cars from the outside and the inside at the same time, do you?
          So how is this going to clash?
          I’d agree with you if a house would be a monstrous chimera where one wing looks classical and another wing modern, but that is not the case.

          As far as I know there is no “rule” in design, art or architecture that says that the inside of something has to look like the outside.

          That is what I mean when I say this notion makes only sense without further consideration.

          Even if there were such a rule, it would clearly be one of those rules that are fun to break and designers and architects would still create exiting contrasts between outside expectation and inside secret.




          0



          0
        • TrangleC

          Where did my comment go?
          I didn’t write anything rude or inapropriate, so why was it deleted?




          0



          0
          • Kenny Michael Forder

            Didn’t delete anything!




            0



            0
      • ArchitectureAfficianado

        Excellently written TrangleC and while I’ve never been to Europe I can picture what you describe crystal clearly.




        0



        0
  • horselips

    Gorgeous eye-popping architecture, appropriate symmetry. But a few nitpicks nonetheless: First, the lot, at just 2.5 acres, is small for a palace like this. There are 15 bedrooms but only 12 bathrooms? In a mansion on this scale, at this price, there are bedrooms forced to share Jack’n’Jill bathrooms? Kidding me? A full bathroom takes up as little as 40 square feet. Hey, architect, try again to squeeze in a couple more baths. Thanks. The 14 car subterranean garage is pathetic – not for its capacity, but for its access. The problem with all tandem parking schemes like this is if you want to drive a car in back, you have to spend half an hour moving other cars around and back to get it out, or back in. Garages MUST be in a single row, with a door in front of EVERY space. The owner should NEVER have to mickey-mouse his fleet to get to any particular vehicle.

    Besides the magnificent foyer, all the other public rooms are very ordinary, with nothing memorable, innovative, or monumental in concept, size or shape. As I viewed the public rooms, my eyes stayed firmly in their sockets, and that’s truly sad. No conception of the library/office available, the inclusion of a hammam hints at a Muslim owner. No mention of an outdoor kitchen/bar. Despite the external glory, the garage, and the interior are just too much of a letdown to warrant more than 2 stars.




    0



    0
    • Kenny Michael Forder

      12+ bathrooms. It’s hard to really read the floor plans to count all of them




      0



      0
  • Christopher Boyd

    Ehwww. Gross.




    0



    0
  • Jody Harrison

    Landry classical houses, they all look the same.




    0



    0
  • ArchitectureAfficianado

    SIGHHHHHHHHHHH……..YET ANOTHER beyond vulgar, slavish worship of the worst of human greed, materialism, egomania and incomprehensible bad taste on a scale that defies description in any known language on earth. California is positively OVERFLOWING with them.




    0



    0