Moving to Beverly Hills ? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: apartments, townhouses, neighborhood)

[Need_affordable_home]

Please check the Realtor site and do a search for it. I found 20 matches, the cheapest being half million I think. Theres a lot of over 1.5 acres for 3/4 million. I think one of the lots around half million is by a small hill but its suitable for building, the hill only occupies a small part of the land.


There is land left but not much. What a waste of a house being torn down, I would just make that house bigger, remodel it to add extensions. Much cheaper than demolation and starting from scratch!

[greggd]

I looked at the real estate section you mentioned and there are several lots for sale. some in beverly hills, some not.

All of those lots are under 1 mill are on very steep slopes and will be very expensive to build on. Were are talking about major engineering and pylons. Also, they are way, way up in the hills close to or off of mulholland hwy. Most of those homeowners drop down to the san fernando valley for services. Thats why its actually cheaper to find a teardown.

The website I check is: [mod cut - real estate listings]. This is where you can find whats available. The really good deals are not advertised. They are sold with a few phone calls by the realtor.

[Need_affordable_home]

Then your best bet is just to buy a few blocks away from Beverly hills. Youll be a one minute walk into Beverly hills and can save so much money. Teardowns are a waste of a house and money

[greggd]

Originally Posted by Need_affordable_home

Then your best bet is just to buy a few blocks away from Beverly hills. Youll be a one minute walk into Beverly hills and can save so much money. Teardowns are a waste of a house and money

Well, this is not what the original poster was looking for. He wants higher end in beverly hills, brand new.

You cant buy undeveloped land anywhere south, east, or west of beverly hills. The only land available is on the northern ends and those are the cliffs you see for sale under 1 mill. Flat land in west los angeles 99% of the time used to have a house on it.

Its not expensive to tear down a home. It takes about two days. In many cases, its a very small home/cottage built in the 30s or 40s on a larger lot.
several older homes have septic tanks underneath and by the time you upgrade everything, its cheaper to tear the old house down.

[Need_affordable_home]

Understood but we still dont know the OP's budget or if he will consider vacent land a couple blocks from Beverly hills, the money he saves on the land means he can build a bigger, nicer house


The thing is when you buy land with a house on it, you are paying for the house sitting on the land. I know that more than half the value is in the land but alot of the value is in the house thatll be wasted when you tear it down. This is why vacent land is much cheaper than land with an existing house. To give an analogy, its like buying a whole turkey and throwing away the drumsticks and wings and only eating the breast or white meat potion. You still pay for the whole bird but are only eating part of it.

I would never pay extra for a teardown house. If the seller is willing to sell a lot with a house sitting on it for "land value" only then it may be worth it. But then you could just leave the house be and live in it at a bargin because you paid for "land value" only. I have never seen any seller willing to do this with the exception if the house is severely damaged and unlivable, such as from a fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, vandalism, earthquake, etc. Even small, old cottages command a premium over vacent land, id say about $75k extra for a 2/1 1000 square foot cottage vs. vacent land in my neck of the woods. The premium would of course be much larger in CA, especially Beverly hills.

[greggd]

I understand exactly what you mean and where your coming from, but in the west los angeles area, there is a tremendous shortage of land and a very high demand for modern homes over 5,000 sq ft.

So, people who have the means, and there are many, are simply tearing down 1500-2500 sq ft home and rebuilding brand new 5,000 sq ft homes.

These home are minimum 1 million. The sellor would not change the price with or without the house on the lot. The sellor may even add the cost of the demolition to the vacant land price.

Is it wasteful, yes it can be, but its supply and demand.

You can pride yourself on not being an ego driven person bent on having a huge house with an AMG in the garage like so many around here.

[Need_affordable_home]

Originally Posted by greggd

I understand exactly what you mean and where your coming from, but in the west los angeles area, there is a tremendous shortage of land and a very high demand for modern homes over 5,000 sq ft.

So, people who have the means, and there are many, are simply tearing down 1500-2500 sq ft home and rebuilding brand new 5,000 sq ft homes.

These home are minimum 1 million. The sellor would not change the price with or without the house on the lot. The sellor may even add the cost of the demolition to the vacant land price.

Is it wasteful, yes it can be, but its supply and demand.

You can pride yourself on not being an ego driven person bent on having a huge house with an AMG in the garage like so many around here.

Some people have too much money! If I had a few million laying around, I would be buying a mansion(not in CA!) and retire for the rest of my life and enjoy high style living in my dream mansion! It would be a good location(not Oil city lol) where theres lots of fun attractions and low crime. If I wanted CA, I could fly there as often as I wanted, maybe buy a $250k 1/1 condo as a second home there whenever I vacation to CA If anyone is rich enough to be considering Beverly hills, their options are vitrually unlimited at this point!


If the seller wont discount just because the buyer wants to tear down then you are paying too much. You could be paying $2m for a Beverly hills lot with a 2000 square feet house on it but the land alone isnt worth $2m, its a package deal and your paying for a house you will tear down anyway?
Are some of those lots even big enough for a 5000 square feet house? Will those 5000 square feet houses become victim 50 years in the future as they get torn down and 15000 square feet houses are built in its place?

[LivingLikeAGradStudent]

Part of the charm of areas like Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades, San Marino and Hancock Park is that there are several types of homes in upscale areas. Newport or the western Valley would be fine for building large homes, but the neighborhoods would not resemble those in developed places. The choice, likely, would be between a huge new home and a charming neighborhood.

[parklifemedia]

I moved from the marina district of San Francisco to Beverly Hills last year and have been disappointed in the quality of life. Our house is just north of Sunset, but for the most part Beverly Hills is over run with decaying housing, and an ooze of a city on the decline, perhaps this will turn around, but even the shopping districts are dusty and old. If you're looking for Los Angeles lifestyle and not worried about public schools, there are many places better in "urban" LA.

[montevista1]

Beverly Hills, in decline.... This is hilarious. Why do not you drive up the 405N and exit Roscoe or Sherman Way!