Page 1 of 2
Malibu, CA - Lautner's Segal house on the market
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:20 am
I found this link after hearing rumor that the Segal house by Lautner was being put on the market. It is one of my favorite Lautners, though I gess technically doesn't belong on these boards because it isn't mid-century. David Arquette and Courteney Cox, the current owners must have had a change of heart, she once said that she would never sell this place. Bought a few years back for about $10 million...wait until you see what it is going for now!
Note: this house is completely original, hasn't bee altered/touched since it was built, but very well maintained. I COULD NEVER LET THIS PLACE GO!
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:06 am
Thanks for the post, was unaware of this sale. So now it's worth $33.5 mil. ? This will be among the most expensive "Trophy" houses in LA. Will be curious to see who ends up buying, maybe Taschen wants a second Lautner house by the beach.
FISHING FOR THE BIG ONE...
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:00 am
Get real Courteney!
Paid $10,185,000 in March 2001, now asking $33,500,000?
A 330% increase in less than 6 years?
I really hope no one is gullible enough to accept paying such a ridiculous price.
Relatively speaking for us humans, that's the same as asking $2,500,000 for a house you'd have bought for roughly $750,000 (in top shape) in March 2001. Or asking $1,000,000 for a paid price of about $300,000.
This being said, there is a beautiful 10 page rendition of the fabulous shape the house was in (in 1999) in Alan Hess' book on Lautner...
Did Mrs. Cox-Arquette have a bomb shelter, submarine station and underground storage for her harrier jet & helicopter, complete with lifting pad, added since she acquired this house?
If anything, she screwed it up by "updating" the curved skylights with protuberant square ones, completely destroying the roof's lines & shape.
I also think that the original roof covering was copper. In any case, it looks as though she had the roof redone in an "oxidized copper" colored elastomere membrane.
Does anyone find that the price asked for this property is just outrageous?
And people with $33,5mil to spend on such a house... Doesn't that completely escape any common sense?
I should bring out the construction budget & land price from 1979 & actualize these to 2007 money, I'm pretty sure it would come down to less than 1/10th of what they're now asking for this.
What bugs me more is the fact that Lautner always made miracles with his clients' budgets, many times cutting back on his own fees, and making designs for people in search of space to live & grow in, space that would specifically fit their needs. Now, a dozen years after Lautner's passing, it feels like his architecture has become nothing more than a fad for ridiculously overpaid actors to speculate on.
Or according to "", maybe she's just trying to pay for her newer .
In any case, at that price, this house is probably the worst investment possible ever.
Unless the price of the land is worth that (not), then the house would actually be completely worthless, which would be even worse...
Here are the links:
http://www.sothebysrealty.com/PropertyD ... =100303447
http://assessormap.co.la.ca.us/mapping/ ... 4452002016
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2& ... ne=6966457
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=118.66343 ... 010121&t=h
Re: FISHING FOR THE BIG ONE...
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:15 pm
The sky is the limit!!!
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:59 pm
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:07 pm
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:11 pm
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:53 am
Re: Malibu, CA - Lautner's Segal house on the market
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:36 am
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:14 am
Re: Malibu, CA - Lautner's Segal house on the market
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:48 pm
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:37 pm
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:39 pm
Just a couple of things to add to this discussion:
MD2, you said the following:
"For comparison purposes, let me state that for a $13,5mil construction budget, including professionnal fees, you could get yourself an ultra luxurious residence of roughly 50,000sq.ft built... "
This is incorrect. Top of the line construction will run upwards of $500 per foot or more. So that $13.5 million will get you an ultra lux residence of closer to half your estimate. (13.5 million dividided by 500 = 27,000 square feet).
You also said this:
"I figue that the house alone, if it were built today, would require at an extreme upmost limit, a $2M construction budget. This still leaves well over $11,5M, solely for the Lautner nametag on the house... More than what Cox paid for the house & property 6 years ago... "
I belive you are forgetting the extremely valuable Malibu land that the house sits on, surely worth more than $12 million. Yes, the Lautner name may add value as well, but it's the land and what sits on it that really demand that kind of money.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:54 pm
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:24 am
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:07 pm
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:40 pm
I think some interesting points have been brought up. Lautner homes are hardly standard issue, and are much higher in cost to build than normal. MUCH higher. While I do believe that this house is a bit too steep, it's not like I'm personnally offended by it. If anything this ordeal will just bring more well deserved attention to the work of Lautner, who is, in my opinion, still mostly underrated.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:16 pm
hmmmm... actually - i think they should ask a nice round 50 mil for it.
welcome to capitalism 101.
who are we to decided what something is worth in another's eyes?
sure, if we were talking about a brown paper bag, that is one thing. but this is a one of a kind work of art and it is fully worth whatever the market will bear.
the house is only overpriced if no one will buy it for that price.
what i don't understand is why anyone should get upset about what someone else is asking/paying for something. isn't that the business of the people involved in the transaction?
if anything, high price tags for high-end architecture helps the long term cause of preservation.
when people who don't "get" architecture hear that high prices are being paid for architecture - even if they don't have a single aesthetic bone in their body - it makes 'em think twice before they butcher a piece of architecture.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:04 am
Let's see who's correct over or underpriced?
Let's look at this discussion a year from and see if it's still 'on the market'
with 'reduced price' or 'priced to sell' in the ad blurb or find in the LA Times under that stars homes or whatever it is that Cox just sold it to.....etc. above the asking price. Let's just hope we don't see... 'marketed as a teardown' or 'destroyed by storm' or destroyed by fire.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:53 am
Amen to the hopes that it is not teardown material, or destroyed!
No mudslides, fires, teardowns, etc please.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:08 am
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:26 pm
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:40 pm
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:15 am
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:12 am
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:10 am
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:16 am
I've been in Schwimmer and it's not one of my favorite houses. It certainly is big, and used up a lot of concrete, but not as interesting as others of that scale. Never have seen the Escher/Gunawardena master bedroom addition.
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:38 am
Schwimmer is covered in Lautner's own book (Lautner/Escher) so he must not have been too disappointed in the result. . .?
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:41 am
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:25 pm
You are distorting what I said, I did NOT say, "The final value of this house will be determined by the person (presumably with no skills or talent beyond being pretty) who decides that s/he must have it at any price."
I made two distinct statements:
"The final value of this house will be determined by the person who decides (as Cox did three years ago) that s/he must have it at any price."
"In a city where millions of dollars are routinely thrown at people with no skills or talent beyond being pretty one cannot really expect value of any sort to be assigned by means of a formula."
My intent was not to make a value judgement toward whoever may purchase this house nor imply that they had no talent or skills. I was merely agreeing with Futura that people with money will pay whatever price it takes to have what they want, despite the fact that others may think that they have "overpaid". Just about everyone thought Cox overpaid six years ago when she bought this house (which wasn't even on the market). People probably don't feel that way now.
The second statement was in support of notion that since there is a lot of easy money floating around LA that all the calculations being used to try to ascertain a "fair market value" for this house or others like it may not really pertain. For example, Brad Pitt earned $20,000,000 and Angelina Jolie got $10,000,000 for Mr. and Mrs. Smith, not even a year's worth of work. One gig and they are nearly at asking price. How do you really rationally determine a sense of value in the face of such salaries and such real estate?