The Making of a $500M Mansion in L.A. | Hacker News Reader

The Making of a $500M Mansion in L.A.

details.com

34 pointsThevet28 comments

Was anyone else surprised that a $500mm house is still built with cheap plywood and such? I mean, I get that every penny counts, but surely it would only increase the cost of the building by 0.1% if they used nothing but first grade cabinet plywood everywhere or better still, didn't use any plywood.

For 500MM I'd want something that you could nuke from orbit and it would still be standing.

I represent a seller with a property in South America that might meet your needs. Are you in the market?

It'd probably have to be a monolithic dome

That was only the top part of it, below it was a much bigger part made of concrete.

Fair point, but in my mind for $500mm any wood should be at least 3" thick reclaimed teak or more expensive.

Javanese wooden houses are made of teak, which proved not to be terribly good in earthquakes.

Plywood, despite its low-brow demeanor, is far more suited to flexing than hard teak wood.

If we're talking boats, on the other hand, then teak is the clear winner.

Show me 100 year old (or 200 year old!) reclaimed plywood and you'll have made me a convert.

I'm not so worried about earthquake performance because as long as you way, way over engineer you should be fine. The 3" teak isn't for strength (that's what steel is for) it's just so that it looks very solid.

For $500mm I would expect a safety factor in the high single digits. I know that's not what this house is about so I know it's not there, but I can't help but be an engineer.

If you're just worried about looks then theres a lot that can be done around the plywood to make it looks better.

> Show me 100 year old (or 200 year old!) reclaimed plywood and you'll have made me a convert.

You can buy 200 year old teak. There are plenty of wooden buildings around the world that are multiple hundreds of years old.

When plywood is shown to last 500 years without breaking a sweat, then I'll believe it's a great building material full stop.

For $500mm it should be built to last a millenia. I know it's not, but again, engineer brain.

> When plywood is shown to last 500 years without breaking a sweat, then I'll believe it's a great building material full stop.

I think it's unlikely you'll need it to last that long.

To be fair, the internal frame of the upper structure is steel. http://i.imgur.com/JLIlRf3.jpg http://media.details.com/photos/5637e54e62b3b75f2bb3e531/mas...

Isn't it a little strange to be comparing plywood with 3" teak? Can you even get sheets of teak that aren't a veneer? Wouldn't LVLs or glulams be a more apt comparison?

My Italian friends and relatives are always a bit shocked by that, in the US. "Real" houses are made of bricks and mortar where they're from.

Plywood is a lot better than unreinforced masonry in an earthquake.

Yeah. I don't care too much one way or the other, myself. I do miss having a house heated by radiators rather than forced air, though.

Agreed - I was expecting something like poured cement for strength and insulation.

A large shed is only a palace when seen by the eyes of the pragmatic or by the eyes of the fool.

> The main thing to understand about L.A.'s growing crop of no-expense-spared spec homes is that they are not actually homes, in the usual sense of the word. Most buyers live on other continents and visit these properties for only a week or two each year, using them mainly as places to park their wealth.

No one is going to live in it. Like the most expensive art, the one-of-a-kind nature of this property is what makes it attractive (for investment purposes).

So just like Vancouver and London?

Honest question: what's wrong with plywood? Wouldn't it all be covered up by the end of it? Surely it's got some advantageous properties (lightweight, strong(?), earthquake resistant). Is the problem that it will wear down easier?

I noticed that as well. Simple stick framing and flat joists. If I was paying 0.5 Billion dollars for a house, that thing better be built with carbon fiber, titanium alloys, and gorilla glass.

https://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/

just stupid

That is the kind of tasteless shit architecture that only LA could produce.

Sadly, there is some truth to it.

Here, cleanse your palette with some architectural masterpieces that only LA could produce:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffith_Observatory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheats_Goldstein_Residence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_Building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stahl_House

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records_Building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Columbia_Building

To be fair all of the above were built before 1970s. There are a few modern buildings like "The Broad" that are quite interesting. But overwhelmingly LA architecture is now dominated by tasteless developers like the one described in the article.

Thanks for your feedback on the quality of the architecture. Are you suggesting that I try to come in with a starting offer of $350 and see if we can close somewhere just north of $400?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com