Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Who wants to pay to maintain Bob Hope's house?


Fedya
 Share

Recommended Posts

Apparently Bob Hope's Los Angeles house costs a bundle to keep up, so daughter Linda has decided to sell the house with the proceeds going to the Bob and Dolores Hope Foundation.

 

But Linda must have made some enemies along the way, because some city councillor has decided to try to get the place declared a historic landmark. Not that he has to pay one red cent of his own money for any of this. Either the owners will be stuck with a white elephant, or if the city were to buy it (not that that's likely), it would be the taxpayers funding this politico's vanity project.

 

Still, if you start turning Hollywood stars' houses into historical landmarks, pretty soon so much of the city is going to be a historical site that the city will become stultified. (In many ways, this is happening to places like Venice, Italy.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Bob Hope's Los Angeles house costs a bundle to keep up, so daughter Linda has decided to sell the house with the proceeds going to the Bob and Dolores Hope Foundation.

 

But Linda must have made some enemies along the way, because some city councillor has decided to try to get the place declared a historic landmark. Not that he has to pay one red cent of his own money for any of this. Either the owners will be stuck with a white elephant, or if the city were to buy it (not that that's likely), it would be the taxpayers funding this politico's vanity project.

 

Still, if you start turning Hollywood stars' houses into historical landmarks, pretty soon so much of the city is going to be a historical site that the city will become stultified. (In many ways, this is happening to places like Venice, Italy.)

 

One doesn't have to make enemies for L.A. politicians to try to use the power of the historic building commission to try to steal one's property.

 

There was a fuss made about a year ago when an apartment Marilyn Monroe stayed at for a very short time was torn down.   Oh, my the tragedy!    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fedya said: Either the owners will be stuck with a white elephant, or if the city were to buy it (not that that's likely), it would be the taxpayers funding this politico's vanity project.
Still, if you start turning Hollywood stars' houses into historical landmarks, pretty soon so much of the city is going to be a historical site that the city will become stultified.

 

I don't understand people's negative attitude against "historic landmark" status. Just how does that translate to "white elephant" and "stultified city"?

 

People have often said "Well then others can tell you what you can do & cannot do to your property. And what they WILL allow will cost you more."

Pffttt.

 

I think the house is stunning and truly unique-worth preserving!

 

Generally, anyone interested in a historic property purchases it because they love the historical aspect of it & want to preserve it. If they want to alter it in any way, they just have to make their case to the historical commission for review. Quite often, the board will agree the changes should be made, especially if it helps preserve the property.

 

I served on a city's historical commission and we were there for was preventing historic properties from being badly altered; like vinyl siding, pink paint on a log house or an 8 foot stockade fence around a Victorian home.

 

When property owners requested reasonable changes, it was always approved.

 

For example, the turn of the century City Hall wanted to replace it's 60's industrial metal doors with those more original & appropriate. No way could reproductions be built of oak with heavy ornamental hinges & carvings like the original doors. Fiberglass reproductions- although substandard- were approved because it was all that was truly affordable to keep the correct historical "look".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the house is stunning and truly unique-worth preserving!

Then buy it and preserve it yourself.

 

 

I served on a city's historical commission and we were there for was preventing historic properties from being badly altered; like vinyl siding, pink paint on a log house or an 8 foot stockade fence around a Victorian home.

Ah, so you were one of those people who got their rocks off bossing other people around. :P Seriously, "historic districts" are almost as bad as HOAs in trying to order people around in what to do with their houses. Trying to tell people what color they can paint their front door, for example. From Detroit, for example:

 

Window and/or door replacement, provided that the design and mate-rial(s) conforms with the original, and the color conforms to the Detroit Historic Districts Paint and Color Guidelines; where the existing door or window is not original to the structure, the replacement should be compatible with the architectural design of the structure.

President Truman learned the hard way that living in a historic home that you're trying to keep up with the times can be a nightmare. The White House was a mess when he got there, and matters hit a head when a leg of daughter Margaret's piano fell through a floor. It turned out the whole White House was in a parlous state, and they had to completely gut the interior and rebuild the insides.

 

I suppose the movie that might fit here is George Washington Slept Here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FEDYA:

 

I think that Detroit ordinance likely applies to the more "upscale" historical districts like INDIAN VILLAGE and the BOSTON-EDISON neighborhoods.  In the area I lived in(Southwest)  NOBODY, not even the CITY gives a hoot about "historical preservation" or even CODES.

 

Other placs in Detroit, like where SMOKEY ROBINSON used to live, or other MOTOWN stars and the like get paid extra attention, but only if it's expedient.  for instance, DIANA ROSS and the rest of the SUPREMES grew up in the city's old BREWSTER PROJECTS, which were torn down recently to make way for some newer structure of some kind.

 

Preserving the BIRTHPLACE of some city's historical figure makes more sense to me than spending huge wads of cash to upkeep some house someone lived in for a reletively short time.  For all WE know, Hope might not have LIKED the house all that much.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Bob Hope's Los Angeles house costs a bundle to keep up, so daughter Linda has decided to sell the house with the proceeds going to the Bob and Dolores Hope Foundation.

 

But Linda must have made some enemies along the way, because some city councillor has decided to try to get the place declared a historic landmark. Not that he has to pay one red cent of his own money for any of this. Either the owners will be stuck with a white elephant, or if the city were to buy it (not that that's likely), it would be the taxpayers funding this politico's vanity project.

 

Still, if you start turning Hollywood stars' houses into historical landmarks, pretty soon so much of the city is going to be a historical site that the city will become stultified. (In many ways, this is happening to places like Venice, Italy.)

 

Worked with a guy at LAX who grew up in Toluca Lake. Rudy's father was a dance teacher with his own studio, and often worked with some of the Hollywood stars.

 

His father was also a very good golfer, and as a kid, Rudy would caddy for many of the biggest names at the nearby golf course. Hope and Crosby were just some of them. Gable was another he said.

 

(...this just came to mind after reading that the estate in question was Hope's Toluca Lake residence)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fedya said: Either the owners will be stuck with a white elephant, or if the city were to buy it (not that that's likely), it would be the taxpayers funding this politico's vanity project.

Still, if you start turning Hollywood stars' houses into historical landmarks, pretty soon so much of the city is going to be a historical site that the city will become stultified.

 

I don't understand people's negative attitude against "historic landmark" status. Just how does that translate to "white elephant" and "stultified city"?

 

People have often said "Well then others can tell you what you can do & cannot do to your property. And what they WILL allow will cost you more."

Pffttt.

 

I think the house is stunning and truly unique-worth preserving!

 

Generally, anyone interested in a historic property purchases it because they love the historical aspect of it & want to preserve it. If they want to alter it in any way, they just have to make their case to the historical commission for review. Quite often, the board will agree the changes should be made, especially if it helps preserve the property.

 

I served on a city's historical commission and we were there for was preventing historic properties from being badly altered; like vinyl siding, pink paint on a log house or an 8 foot stockade fence around a Victorian home.

 

When property owners requested reasonable changes, it was always approved.

 

For example, the turn of the century City Hall wanted to replace it's 60's industrial metal doors with those more original & appropriate. No way could reproductions be built of oak with heavy ornamental hinges & carvings like the original doors. Fiberglass reproductions- although substandard- were approved because it was all that was truly affordable to keep the correct historical "look".

 

The L.A. historical commission has done some very underhanded things as it relates to controlling citizen's private property rights.

 

E.g. someone purchases property with the goal of redeveloping it.  They follow the process and get the permits for the development.   A few don't wish the development to move forward (typically for political reasons that have nothing to do with the historical nature of the property) so they get the property deemed 'historical' and the development can't move forward where it can remain in legal limbo for years.

 

If a city really believes a property is historically important enough to preserve it should purchase the property,  maintain it and open it to the public with an admission fee.    But they don't do that since it would lose money.   Instead they want the owner to pay to maintain it and lose money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only in California, that market is going to crash someday.

 

Whaddaya mean "SOMEday" here, dude?

 

Hell, California real estate "crashes" about every two decades!

 

(...and then REBOUNDS quicker than just about ANY place in this country, like say where people freeze their freakin' butts off half the year OR where it's so freakin' HUMID half the year that once you step out of the shower and attempt to dry off, you're already wet all over again within minutes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only they could get the heirs of all the women Hope screwed

while he was married to contribute $100 a piece they might raise

a good chunk of dough.

Vautrin-- That's an excellent suggestion.

 

For a guy who never spent Christmas at home and spent so much time "on the road", I'm surprised that he even had a house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fedya said: Ah, so you were one of those people who got their rocks off bossing other people around.

 

See? That is the popular perception of "historical landmark" status and those who assist them. People site "underhanded politics" and "controlling private property" on both sides.

 

I can site the example of a dentist office in Springfield Mass that razed Dr Suess' home on Mulberry Street "overnight" to pave the space for additional parking. I know of several historic properties (and a 200 year old tree) that were removed literally at night without permit. After they're gone, there's no collective option-developers are happy to just pay the fine and proceed.

 

How about those who purposely purchase a FL Wright house only to remove & sell the stained glass windows for profit, with no intention of keeping it whole? Buildings are somewhat "public" property, you have to maintain the appearance, you can't have garbage on your lawn or allow peeling paint. Some properties belong to the public just a bit more because of their place in common history.

 

Rest assured, no one on a historical commission "bosses around" or "controls" property owners. It's often a tough balance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elvis Presley's "Shotgun" house that he was born in and spent some of his childhood in Tupelo Miss. is still there and kept up.  Looks like NEW, from what I've heard.  And since GRACELAND was some kind of "landmark" when he bought IT, and as his fans are more RABID than HOPE'S fans were, it too, is kept up and does well as a tourist attraction.

 

Nobody knows much if anything, about his Memphis residence where he lived BEFORE he became famous.

 

But, I've got a suggestion for Hope's place.....

 

Considering all he did in terms of going around the globe and even into dangerous locations to entertain servicemen during various wars, maybe the PENTAGON should step in and do something.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion regarding all this would be in THIS case and a case of a "nice" home having little other of note about it except it having once been owned by a celebrity and a case of its architecture having little if any distinguishing or groundbreaking stylistic features, I see no reason for it being placed in some sort of "historic" category and thus subject to some of sort of community or governmental oversight.

 

(...but that's just my opinion...yours may vary)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope's Modernist 23,366-square-foot (2,171 m2) home, built to resemble a volcano, was designed in 1973 by John Lautner. Located above Palm Springs, it has panoramic views of the Coachella Valley and the San Jacinto Mountains. The house was placed on the market for the first time in February 2013 with an asking price of $50 million.[118]

 

Hope also owned a home which had been custom built for him in 1939 on an 87,000-square-foot (8,083 m2) lot in Toluca Lake. The house was placed on the market in late 2012.[119]

Bob Hope's house, located at 2466 Southridge Dr., Palm Springs, CA 92264, was recently sold (November 2016) to investor Ron Burkle for $13,000,000, much less than the initial $50,000,000 asking price tag a few years earlier in 2013.

 

********************************************************

 

With that one going for $13 million, I doubt they get close to what they want for Toluca Lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an interesting situation in a city near here. A house on the Historical Registry had a minor fire. Inspectors for the city found the fire resulted from a variety of things which made the house unsafe and they condemned it. It could have been rehabilitated to remove the condemnation order. The council which oversees the Historical Registry refused to allow the rehabilitation because the alterations to bring the building up to code would be extensive. They feel the result would be counter to their cause because the interior would only look period but would contain very little original material. The years since have taken their toll on the house. Fire and Code Compliance departments of the city now demand that the house be torn down and are attempting to levy fines against the owner for each day that it is standing. The council for the Historical Registry have gained court injunctions against the house being torn down and the owner could go to jail if they tore it down.

 

It is now a sad little house. It has been wrapped in chain-link fencing to prevent intruders and squatters. A tall chain-link fence surrounds the lot also. There has been no care for the lawn or shrubs except for mowing required by city statute to prevent weed propagation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an interesting situation in a city near here. A house on the Historical Registry had a minor fire. Inspectors for the city found the fire resulted from a variety of things which made the house unsafe and they condemned it. It could have been rehabilitated to remove the condemnation order. The council which oversees the Historical Registry refused to allow the rehabilitation because the alterations to bring the building up to code would be extensive. They feel the result would be counter to their cause because the interior would only look period but would contain very little original material. The years since have taken their toll on the house. Fire and Code Compliance departments of the city now demand that the house be torn down and are attempting to levy fines against the owner for each day that it is standing. The council for the Historical Registry have gained court injunctions against the house being torn down and the owner could go to jail if they tore it down.

 

It is now a sad little house. It has been wrapped in chain-link fencing to prevent intruders and squatters. A tall chain-link fence surrounds the lot also. There has been no care for the lawn or shrubs except for mowing required by city statute to prevent weed propagation. 

 

That is a sad story alright, Sans. However, on the flip-side of such a sad story I'll now relay to you and the others here a story with a happier ending.

 

There's this estate just about a quarter mile up the road from my place here in Sedona. It was designed by a prominent local architect and built by a Texas oilman in 1980 and just after my neighborhood here had been subdivided.

 

Here's a shot of the place...

20140528135711803551000000-o.jpg

 

The owner died in the early-2000s and it sat vacant and in an increasing state of disrepair due to a probate squabble which would ensure between the man's heirs and his last wife.

 

This legal squabble would finally be settled about three years ago, and so it was placed on the market. It sold about a year later for $1M.

 

Now, some in our neighborhood were worried that whoever purchased this 3.2 acre estate might have purchased it with the intent to raze it and then re-subdivide it into the original four separate lots the original owner had purchased it for to build this beautiful but in very sad shape Spanish Hacienda style home, and then build four separate new homes. It would seem the financially wise thing to do.

 

I was a member of our community's architectural committee during this time, and when the new owner presented us with her plans to not only restore it to its original glory but also to add some tastefully conceived and congruous upgrades to it, all of us on that committee became quite glad to hear it.

 

It presently is nearing the end of its restoration, and from what I hear it has cost the new owner about $2M in addition to its purchase price

 

(...btw, and as a little side note here...word is that Texas oilman and his previous wife and the mother of his children would throw lavish parties within their home, and some of the people who would attend would be some of the Hollywood stars of the past who also lived/retired to Sedona...it is said when Ann Miller and Donald O'Connor attended them, they would occasionally perform a little song and dance routine)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fedya said: My property does not belong to you, thank you very much. 

 

Correct. But as a property owner, you are responsible for maintaining it not only for safety, but also for "public view".

 

The outside of your building & the land that surrounds it, is part of the street-scape. Just like the interior must meet certain safety codes, so does the outside. You cannot leave trash or debris on your lawn so not to become an eyesore to your neighbors. 

 

Just like noise. Once the noise reaches outside, to your neighbors, it becomes a protected, enforceable issue.

 

Many who own historic properties, get angry when those interested take photos of the outside of their building or home. There is no law against this, as the outside of your property falls within the public realm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can go along with that to a degree.  Like keeping the lawn mowed and other "general upkeep" situations, but as to anything else, like some "homeowner associations" that snobbishly try to dictate things like color of siding,  paint, what kind of shrubbery to plant and stuff like that, I say, offer to  take over my mortgage payments, taxes, and foot the bill for what YOU want MY house to look like, and we'll talk..  Otherwise...

 

B U G G E R  OFF!

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fedya said: My property does not belong to you, thank you very much. 

 

Correct. But as a property owner, you are responsible for maintaining it not only for safety, but also for "public view".

 

The outside of your building & the land that surrounds it, is part of the street-scape. Just like the interior must meet certain safety codes, so does the outside. You cannot leave trash or debris on your lawn so not to become an eyesore to your neighbors. 

 

Just like noise. Once the noise reaches outside, to your neighbors, it becomes a protected, enforceable issue.

 

Many who own historic properties, get angry when those interested take photos of the outside of their building or home. There is no law against this, as the outside of your property falls within the public realm.

 

Well of course one has to maintain their private property to meet building codes etc...  In L.A. when a building is deemed historical by the commission there are additional requirements and restrictions.    That is the heart of the disagreement with government interference.

 

Note that the best way to ensure an old building meets CURRENT building code standards is to tear it down and rebuild.   (L.A.  has earthquake building code standards and there are thousands of building that either need to be retrofitted or torn down).    Tearing down a building not up to current code standards is what occurs most of the time but not with buildings tagged as historical.

 

Hey,  I can see SOME building tagged as historical;  say the home of the President of the USA.   But an actor's home or an old fast food joint????   Not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fedya said: My property does not belong to you, thank you very much. 

 

Correct. But as a property owner, you are responsible for maintaining it not only for safety, but also for "public view".

 

The outside of your building & the land that surrounds it, is part of the street-scape. Just like the interior must meet certain safety codes, so does the outside. You cannot leave trash or debris on your lawn so not to become an eyesore to your neighbors. 

 

Just like noise. Once the noise reaches outside, to your neighbors, it becomes a protected, enforceable issue.

 

Many who own historic properties, get angry when those interested take photos of the outside of their building or home. There is no law against this, as the outside of your property falls within the public realm.

shure would B good 2 have U as neigbor tiki!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJG said: Hey,  I can see SOME building tagged as historical;  say the home of the President of the USA.   But an actor's home or an old fast food joint????   Not!

 

I think the house in question has more historic value due to it's unique design, than who lived in it. Although the fact that Hope commissioned the house certainly adds to it's caché.

 

But most certainly, humble "birthplace" homes of entertainers like Elvis, Johnny Cash & Michael Jackson are just as interesting American history as George Eastman or Abraham Lincoln's birthplace homes. (all of which I've visited) I'd venture to say, even more since most visitors have a personal connection with them.

 

Historic diners and movie theaters are part of "commercial archeology" and often reflect society taste and design, my specialty actually. I have even been part of preservation of a gas station, some were designed by notables such as Teague or Wright.

 

One of the biggest problems preserving historic commercial buildings is adapting them for handicapped acessability. Typically, you can create new doorway entrances without destroying the visual integrity of the original doors. In a diner, the front door was often a rather narrow stainless steel sliding pocket door!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJG said: Hey,  I can see SOME building tagged as historical;  say the home of the President of the USA.   But an actor's home or an old fast food joint????   Not!

 

I think the house in question has more historic value due to it's unique design, than who lived in it. Although the fact that Hope commissioned the house certainly adds to it's caché.

 

But most certainly, humble "birthplace" homes of entertainers like Elvis, Johnny Cash & Michael Jackson are just as interesting American history as George Eastman or Abraham Lincoln's birthplace homes. (all of which I've visited) I'd venture to say, even more since most visitors have a personal connection with them.

 

Historic diners and movie theaters are part of "commercial archeology" and often reflect society taste and design, my specialty actually. I have even been part of preservation of a gas station, some were designed by notables such as Teague or Wright.

 

One of the biggest problems preserving historic commercial buildings is adapting them for handicapped acessability. Typically, you can create new doorway entrances without destroying the visual integrity of the original doors. In a diner, the front door was often a rather narrow stainless steel sliding pocket door!

 

Like I said (as well as others),  if there are visitors that have an interest in these properties the city \ county can purchase said property at a fair market price and set the property up as a tourist attraction as a way to recoup the money spent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...