Which is a better place to live and raise a family...Hancock Park or Beverly Hills? (Highland: apartments, houses)

[mh77]

We are planning a move and are unsure as to which area is safer for our family. We have 3 kids and one on the way. I have heard that Hancock Park, while nice, is basically surrounded by the inner city. As for BH, I haven't heard much in terms of negatives for safety, but I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on living in those areas.
We have been shown via the internet, some great houses in both areas, but since we aren't from CA we don't really know much other than the basic info on the properties.
Our kids will be going to private schools so that's not an issue for us, and the budget is not a concern either. I would just like general opinions on what the feel of the neighborhoods are.
Any info about these two cities is much appreciated!

[ploopy]

i live near, around, and in la (its that kind of city) and used to get out that way quite a lot

my impressions:

hancock park is very nice. its more a "neighborhood district" then part of its own little city like BH. it s closer to "downtown." i think that is what appeals to many. gates around homes are common not just for desired security, but some would say necessary security.

from what i understand many in the "movie business" live there. not the "stars", exactly. but people who work the business, have kids and families, but don't want to feel too isolated from...the city. it is a very nice area, make no mistake. and secure and safe. but drive a few miles and you'd think you landed on the planet Ghetto. however, thats just the way los angeles is in a lot of areas. also, i'm pretty sure a lot of jewish people live in and around the area. when i used to pass through i would see a number of "orthodox jews" (if thats the correct term) walking about in hats and black suits. its part of "West L.A." its nice there, and not so nice

BH is a whole other ball game. that is a nice city. even the parts with apartments and low life drug scum. to the west is westwood which is a great district with UCLA right there in it. to the north east, the sunset strip. which is pretty damn cool. hollywood, BH itself. i am not made of money, but it never stopped me from going to "the strip" or having coffee with friends at the BH coffee bean

in fact come to think of it i've spent quite a bit of time down that way! its a blast. everything you'd expect and a kick in the pants. lets put it this way: while hancock park offers a secluded neighborhood feel near gritty los angeles, BH is really just about the good life and thats it. you have to deal with tourist on rodeo and sunset, but i would think you'd get used to it. santa monica beach is under 20 miles from sunset, and its one of the best drives in all of los angeles.

now actually living there, i can't say. but personally i'd prefer BH. however as your kids get older (don't know how old they are now) BH is so close to decadence (drugs, clubs, strippers...need i say more) and it is glamorized. beautiful people doing bad things. i know it sounds cliche, but its real for many. unfortunately

which is why i think some choose hancock park for the family. at no time will your kid be home and feel "tempted" by what might be outside the door. unless they want bagels at farmers market. or maybe they might get mugged? but The Hustler Store wouldn't be an everyday thing to pass by like it is in BH

so, thats my impression. also, if you want nice but a bit more wholesome, pasadena near the rosebowl is very nice. and other areas, too. sounds like you can afford it, and lots of people choose it as it still close to LA, but you don't actually have to be in LA too much

i hope others who actually have living experience in these areas will chime in soon. but thats my impression visiting them. hancock park is hard to "visit" because i don't know anyone there, and w/e is immediately around it isn't particularly noteworthy. its a neighborhood with a city around it. BH on the other hand is known all over the world and is very distinct

so, you get the picture

[BRinSM]

i actually find both areas quite similar. the main difference is that hancock park is probably the epitome of old money in LA. there are some amazing mansions in the area and it is close to hollywood and downtown. beverly hills is further west and better located if you'll be working on the westside (ie century city, westwood, beverly hills or santa monica). beverly hills has an old money aspect to it as well, but it also tends to be a place that people move to as a status symbol. hancock park doesn't have the panache that beverly hills does, so you'll probably have less of that crowd. also, both have large jewish populations, but there is quite a large persian jewish contingent in beverly hills. as far as family friendly, that varies street to street. you'll have to do some research with your realtor to find where will work best for you. also, depending on where you'll be working there are plenty of other neighborhoods to choose from throughout LA.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by ploopy

i hope others who actually have living experience in these areas will chime in soon. but thats my impression visiting them. hancock park is hard to "visit" because i don't know anyone there, and w/e is immediately around it isn't particularly noteworthy.

LACMA? The tar pits? Melrose Avenue? Larchmont Village?

All immediately around Hancock Park.

One big difference between Hancock Park and Beverly Hills is schools. Beverly Hills has a very good school system, while Hancock Park is in LAUSD, and the schools are quite awful.

If the schools issue doesn't bother you - if you can afford private schools - I'd personally choose Hancock Park, because it retains more of an oldtime L.A. vibe and doesn't have the ostentatious conspicuous consumption of BH. Also you might want to look into Los Feliz (the L.A. neighborhood most similar to Hancock Park) if Hancock Park appeals to you.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

the main difference is that hancock park is probably the epitome of old money in LA.

I agree with the old money description of Hancock Park. The streets there just have this elegant and established aura that you don't find as much in Beverly Hills, which feels a bit over-manicured and manufactured IMO.

[ploopy]

Originally Posted by majoun

LACMA? The tar pits? Melrose Avenue? Larchmont Village?

All immediately around Hancock Park.

One big difference between Hancock Park and Beverly Hills is schools. Beverly Hills has a very good school system, while Hancock Park is in LAUSD, and the schools are quite awful.

If the schools issue doesn't bother you - if you can afford private schools - I'd personally choose Hancock Park, because it retains more of an oldtime L.A. vibe and doesn't have the ostentatious conspicuous consumption of BH. Also you might want to look into Los Feliz (the L.A. neighborhood most similar to Hancock Park) if Hancock Park appeals to you.

yeah. you see i forgot about those places. i know they are there as part of mid city / west la but just how close to hancock park is not familiar geography to me. i am pretty sure Larchmont Village is also nearby, i remember driving "by" hancock park to get there. its a nice place. i suppose hancock is "mid-city / west la" situated. i never really went "into" hancock park because it does seem like an area with homes, and thats it. if you don't live there or aren't visiting anyone there, really is no reason to drive into or through it. all my experience there has been perimeter

i didn't mean to make it sound like its surrounded by ghettos. its not. but its closer to that sort of thing then BH.

as said, both places are nice. i have no living experience there, as i am from the SGV. you know, that place to the east

i should get out that way more. see what has changed, and what hasn't. music on a saturday night at The Grove. good times =]

[majoun]

Originally Posted by ploopy

yeah. you see i forgot about those places. i know they are there as part of mid city / west la but just how close to hancock park is not familiar geography to me. i am pretty sure Larchmont Village is also nearby, i remember driving "by" hancock park to get there. its a nice place. i suppose hancock is "mid-city / west la" situated. i never really went "into" hancock park because it does seem like an area with homes, and thats it. if you don't live there or aren't visiting anyone there, really is no reason to drive into or through it. all my experience there has been perimeter

Highland Ave. goes right through residential Hancock Park and is a major north-south street in L.A. Also Rossmore Blvd. which changes into Vine St. at Melrose is a major north-south street going through residential Hancock Park (some very beautiful Art Deco apartment buildings on it, btw).

Hancock Park also borders directly on Fairfax and West Hollywood on the west and northwest, and those areas certainly have their attractions.

i didn't mean to make it sound like its surrounded by ghettos. its not.

The eastern end of Hancock Park borders on some questionable neighborhoods.

[ploopy]

^ah. so thats probably the part i am most familiar with. idk the streets and what not, but can get around the city "blind" just fine

i am going to have to go back and refresh my memory of all this stuff. i was just talking about the tar pits with a friend the other day

this is a nice thread. i need more free time to get out and about these days

[smokingGun]

I've found the perfect home for you! It's in the gated Summit area of BH and it's got mega provenance: it's the former home of Ms. Britney Spears. All yours for the modest price of $5.495M (:

Actually it's a bargain considering it was previously listed at $6.49M a year ago lol

You can check it out on redfin: http://www.redfin.com/CA/Beverly-Hil...0/home/5258075

[ploopy]

^ does it include her stripper pole?

could be a deal maker or deal breaker