ks2048 3 days ago

I wonder if the price would be significantly different if it wasn't David Lynch's house.

dsr_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Looking at other houses in the neighborhood, it's probably about 10-15% because it's the Lynch residence, and the rest of it is the extent of the land, the number of houses, and, of course, the place where it is.

By way of contrast, this is listed for 2.5x the money on the other side of the canyon:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1851-N-Stanley-Ave-Los-An...

▲

smetj 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Beyond stunning, worth its asking price imo.

▲

arethuza 3 days ago | parent [-]

Just goes to show - I think that looks ghastly.

	▲	lionkor 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Looks great for people who don't want to pick and design their own home, pick furniture, design their living spaces.

▲

sgt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe that's also because it has a view, while the Lynch compound doesn't really have a view of the city. It has some views, all right.. beautiful trees and nature, and some valley. It's tucked away. Some people like that.

▲

CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'll bet the seller makes a hell of a Caucasian!

(Although I guess it isn't really Jackie Treehorn's place, given that the listing says it was built in 2023.)

▲

twalla 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Jackie Treehorn’s place is the Sheats-Goldstein residence. Both the residence and the owner are worth going down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

https://jamesfgoldstein.com/the-goldstein-residence/

	▲	CamperBob2 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Goldstein appears to be quite an interesting "dude." He's exactly what people mean when they point out that Lynch, while well-off compared to most, was not particularly wealthy by Hollywood standards.

▲

harmmonica 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/3zChgboCiqWuUD317?g_st=ipc

▲

csmoak 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i lived about a half mile from this house in the same neighborhood -- it could be a lot more expensive if it had the view some properties around there have.

note that mulholland dr is just up the street from the house. this overlook is worth a visit: https://maps.app.goo.gl/muMirzaSJsEt9YnR7

▲

sizzle 3 days ago | parent [-]

Do you have generational wealth? Seems like a paradise out there..

	▲	labcomputer 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		One of the oddities of California is that you frequently see shabby, cheaply constructed houses of no significance selling for millions of dollars. That is because some mid-century developer built it as middle-class housing. A middle-class family moved in and had kids. They continued to live there while property values soared. So the kids grew up in neighborhood where all the houses cost millions of dollars. I used to know an elderly coupled who lived in one of the nicer parts of Malibu. Both were school teachers. They bought the house when Malibu was cheap because of the "horrible" commute along scenic Highway 1 and the lack of sewers in Malibu. Before the fires, their house was probably worth over $10 million (thanks, prop 13!). When they passed, the kids couldn't afford to keep the house (even with the feudal property tax system in California, which allows inheritance of low property tax assessments like some kind of medieval title of nobility) because the kids were also just normal middle class people. So, to answer your question: In some sense, yes, almost by definition, the family of person you're responding to does have generational wealth (in the form of the house). But in a different sense, no, because it's quite likely that they have nowhere near the amount liquid assets implied by the phrase "generational wealth".

▲

inasio 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's also (partly) a Frank Lloyd Wright house, that alone would justify a very high price