The World's Most Expensive Residential Street

[fashionkitten7]

actully the holme (one of the villas) has been estimated at 102 million pounds- pure silly money

from britain.tv
THE HOLME
Found in Regent's Park in London and is owned by Prince Khaled Al-Waleed with an approximate value of £101 million.
When the Holme, Decimus Burton’s grade I listed Regency villa in the middle of Regents Park was bought for up to £30 million the London property market was bustling. The house was built in 1817 and only four years ago the house was handed over for a meagre £5 million, which has a garage for nine cars.

The house is occupied by Prince Khaled al-Waleed who is said to only live in it a little over two weeks a year, is the son of the King of Saudi Arabia’s brother.

The gardens have flowing lawns, formal flower gardens, a waterfall, a stream and pool all of which look out on to Heron Island near to the Regents Park boating lake. All of which is set in four acres of garden. Set in its location of calm, means that it could be worth £102 million

So, it's even more expensive than that "most expensive one" in Kensington ? Oh, and I obviously confused something... The house I was talking about the price of which I know is located in Prime Rose Hill, which is not in the Regent Park itself...

 

[ollsrayk]

So, it's even more expensive than that "most expensive one" in Kensington ? Oh, and I obviously confused something... The house I was talking about the price of which I know is located in Prime Rose Hill, which is not in the Regent Park itself...

You mean Primrose Hill, right?

 

[fashionkitten7]

You mean Primrose Hill, right?

Well, that street near Regent Park with VERY expensive property... Known as a bohemian crowd area... Whatever it is called...

 

[travis_nw8]

^ primrose hill was nice in the early nineties- since sadie, jude, et al moved in it's become so smug!!

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Well, that street near Regent Park with VERY expensive property... Known as a bohemian crowd area... Whatever it is called...

There's nothing Bohemian about a £125 million mansion.

He's wasting his money, he could have bought a castle for that price, probably several in fact.

If he's passing by, I'd like this one please:

 

[PrinceOfCats]

How many can say their neighbor is the Royal Family of England?

The guy living in the shed behind Buck Palace who does the weeds?

 

[helena]

this story makes me sick.....I wonder if this guy ever feels the need to help some of the people in this world with NOTHING

 

[Ella]

this story makes me sick.....I wonder if this guy ever feels the need to help some of the people in this world with NOTHING

My thoughts exactly.

 

[fashionkitten7]

There's nothing Bohemian about a £125 million mansion.

He's wasting his money, he could have bought a castle for that price, probably several in fact.

I was referring to the way they are trying to present this area I was talking about (Primrose Hill), not the house that person bought, which is in a different area.

And, Yeah, I would also find some better property in a better place and still have a lot of money left to share with those less fortunate in the world...

 

[fashionkitten7]

this story makes me sick.....I wonder if this guy ever feels the need to help some of the people in this world with NOTHING

Well said, helena !!!

 

[travis_nw8]

^ we may judge someone for spending an obscene amount on a place to live, but this thread contains people who spend thousands on a few pieces of stiched leather they carry around ..so what's the problem?

 

[fashionkitten7]

^ Well, just to note, I don't spend too much on fashion items... And I wouldn't, even if I had a lot of money. However, I think spending on fashion is somewhat more personal than on property, if you know what I mean... Not always, obviously, there are plenty of exclusions to this...

I don't think I was judging him, I simply joined those who expressed a lack of understanding of what his motives behind this buy are... It's just that I always thought that those people who have the money and have always had them (which I believe is the case with this guy) differ from the general public in a way that they would spend on what they personally like and what's making them feel comfortable and NOT what will help them display their superiority, 'cause they don't need it as they don't understand how having a lot of money makes them any superior - they always had it. It is obviously very naive of me to think so, 'cause, in reality, I met plenty of people who were born rich, yet, they used every single opportunity to show that fact off. But I still think that "the norm" in this is what I explained above...

And, yes, I think that the fact that rich people don't feel the need to help those less fortunate in third world countries who often don't have the necessities for comfortable living IS A PROBLEM in the modern society.

 

[susie_bubble]

^Where do you draw the line though? If a property is a personal expression of yourself, seeing as you have to live in it, same as a Louis Vuitton bag can also be purchased with the purpose of showing status, what exactly is the difference?

And how do you know that the guy doesn't give back to society....he could be donating thousands a year to a heart foundation for all you know (it is more likely that the wealthy use charity as a status symbol...fundraising auctions, dinners, events etc. - nonetheless, the money is still going to some charitable cause).

Just as judging people who have no money is bad, judging people who have money is just as bad.

Furthermore, property on the whole in London is heading towards 'silly money' prices. You'd be hard pressed to find a decent one-bed apartment for less than 300k. A decent family home in the nicer parts of the suburbs is about a million to a million and a half. So a patch next to Buckingham Palace for 77 million is NOT so far fetched.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

I don't care if this guy gives half his fortune to charity, considering the operating practices of the Mittal Steel Company, his best service to the world would be to dissolve his company and put a bullet through his own head.

And what's wrong with judging the rich? Being wealthy is immoral, it's as simple as that.

 

[susie_bubble]

But you can't fault them for being rich if they were rich to begin with? And even with the self-made rich..... aspirations to leave a legacy and a security for their offspring? What is so wrong with that?

Shall we comfort outselves by being penniless and congratulate ourselves for escaping the sin of being better off? There is nothing wrong with aspirations of wealth as long as you don't make it the be all and end all of your existence.

Where do you propose all the money in the world should go to if you in fact believe that capitalist society can still exist (unless you don't.....in which case, that's a whole different argument altogether)?

 

[fashionkitten7]

^Where do you draw the line though? If a property is a personal expression of yourself, seeing as you have to live in it, same as a Louis Vuitton bag can also be purchased with the purpose of showing status, what exactly is the difference?

And how do you know that the guy doesn't give back to society....he could be donating thousands a year to a heart foundation for all you know (it is more likely that the wealthy use charity as a status symbol...fundraising auctions, dinners, events etc. - nonetheless, the money is still going to some charitable cause).

Just as judging people who have no money is bad, judging people who have money is just as bad.

Furthermore, property on the whole in London is heading towards 'silly money' prices. You'd be hard pressed to find a decent one-bed apartment for less than 300k. A decent family home in the nicer parts of the suburbs is about a million to a million and a half. So a patch next to Buckingham Palace for 77 million is NOT so far fetched.

Yeah, it is difficult to draw the line... It's difficult to do it correctly... Then it would be more fair of me to say that I don't approve of people wearing labels for status just as much... If it's not for status, however, the difference is that it still doesn't cost as much as property, which means that they may simply not have much to donate when he obviously does.

No, I don't know anything about him or his business and whether he donates or not. To be frank with you, I think that a person living in the world where people are dying of hunger every minute shouldn't buy THAT expensive property for the sake of... I don't know what to call it... not getting cynic or something... Especially since he could do with the property 10 times cheaper than that and still be content there (or even more content).

Just as judging people who have no money is bad, judging people who have money is just as bad.

I don't think I was judging him, I was saying that I don't approve. And not even him, but what seems to be his approach towards spending so much money. I hope you will agree there is a difference between judging and dissapproving...

And judging people who have no money is not bad, it is just awful.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it's ok to be well-off as long as the person stays within the society which defines their life style. Talking specifics, that would be: as there are areas in London and it's suburbs where property is posh and costs a few millions and there is a number of people living there, it is ok to join them. However, if a rich person wants to stand out, they should do so by other means than spending so much on something that is only for themselves. In other word, as long as you're "like other people", even if those others are a high society, you're fine. But being superior has to be to do with giving.

 

[susie_bubble]

^But what makes judging people without money worse than judging people with money? Yes, it is awful to judge people PERIOD (regardless of their financial background) It's almost like inverted prejudice.

 

[fashionkitten7]

I think what makes it worse is to do with the fact that money is overvalued in the modern society. Therefore, the people who have it are at the top of the social hierarchy and being aware of that they're less likely to get hurt by any judgements.
People with no money, on the other hand, are much less "important" in that society and therefore are more sensitive about whether the society approves of them.

Also, while being rich may be an achievement of a single person, poorness is the problem of the society. Therefore, not separate individuals who happened to be poor are to be blamed for that, but those who are responsible for that it doesn't happen - government, politicians, etc...

 

[susie_bubble]

I think what makes it worse is to do with the fact that money is overvalued in the modern society. Therefore, the people who have it are at the top of the social hierarchy and being aware of that they're less likely to get hurt by any judgements.
People with no money, on the other hand, are much less "important" in that society and therefore are more sensitive about whether the society approves of them.

Also, while being rich may be an achievement of a single person, poorness is the problem of the society. Therefore, not separate individuals who happened to be poor are to be blamed for that, but those who are responsible for that it doesn't happen - government, politicians, etc...

I think in a way, you are belittling the poor here and making them out to be in a worse state than they are. On paper, economically they are on the lower rungs of the pyramid but this does not mean that their position is necessarily diminished. Yes, they are a problem for the government but sadly especially in the UK, there are those who are quite happy to be poor in order to receive weekly benefits. I'm going to be controversial and say that sadly, an 'undeserving poor' exist whereby they declare to the government that they're receiving low income when they are actually frauding the benefits system and to gain council housing. This is not to say that this is what the state of the poor across the board but I think you are thinking of 'the poor' in a very simplistic view.

I am of course talking about the so called 'poor' people in Western countries. We all, have the third world on our conscience, you me, everyone, not just rich people. And the matter of fact is, as horrid as it sounds, it is precisely these kind of people who can afford 77 million pound houses who are more likely to make a difference to poverty stricken countries. Whilst, the majority of us barely can even stop in a street to donate 2 quid a month to these causes when those fundraisers call your name.

All I'm trying to say is, a judgement is a judgement. Someone calling me a 'rich b*tch' can hurt just as much as someone calling me 'a pauper's daughter'. It is all judgement. And someone being rich shouldn't be penalised for having more. They were either born with it or made it (in either case, it's not a sin).

 

[I love Caroline]

The guy living in the shed behind Buck Palace who does the weeds?

maybe