World's most desirable locations for multimillionaire second homes - Page 2

fflint · #21 Posted **Dec 28, 2014, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mello

Come on fflint we all know that you summer in Montenegro. Don't try to pretend you are just taking an RV down for a long weekend in Pismo Beach.

When considering the Balkans for one of my many luxurious junkets, I prefer to trundle the help and coterie to Dubrovnik, Croatia, thank you very much. Cretin!

chris08876 · #22 Posted **Dec 28, 2014, 1:02 PM**

Bikini Atoll is a good place for a home and for those who value privacy. Lots of exotic vegetation and radical species of fish live and reside within the area.

RaymondChandlerLives · #23 Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 1:22 AM**

The Hamptons is rock solid proof there's no accounting for taste.

10023 · #24 Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 8:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

The Hamptons is rock solid proof there's no accounting for taste.

Says the guy from Southern California.

Some of (well, a lot of) the new builds in the Hamptons are pretty atrocious. They need to put a stop to that or it's going to ruin places like Sagoponack in particular. But there are some very nice parts, and the area as a whole is like an idyllic grown up Disneyland. Personally I prefer Montauk, which is an actual beach town as opposed to the more suburban Hamptons. Most of the houses do need to be rebuilt or gut renovated though (not to be bigger, just better).

RaymondChandlerLives · #25 Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

Says the guy from Southern California.

.

Yeah, Southern California, with the beautiful Mediterranean climate prized all over the world. What about it?

10023 · #26 Posted **Dec 31, 2014, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Yeah, Southern California, with the beautiful Mediterranean climate prized all over the world. What about it?

Yes but have you seen some of the houses?

Double L · #27 Posted **Dec 31, 2014, 10:43 PM**

Hey, Houston has excellent architecture, what are you talking about?

Beedok · #28 Posted **Dec 31, 2014, 11:06 PM**

Paris is slacking. Honestly surprised cities like Berlin, Sao Paulo, or Mexico city aren't on it. I guess they've got lots of first homes, but not so many seconds.

mgj5021 · #29 Posted **Jan 1, 2015, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Longport and Mantoloking must be blue-collar as I haven't a clue where they are.

Mantoloking is anything but blue-collar. It's one of the wealthiest communities, if not the wealthiest, in New Jersey. The real estate there is very expensive, and the town is extremely exclusive, as it is very much an "old money" summer enclave.

You probably haven't heard of it because it is actually very small. The whole town is on a peninsula, only wide enough for about three houses between the ocean and the bay. It's a dream of mine to buy a summer house there one day.

It was hit very hard by Sandy in 2012, however.

599GTO · #30 Posted **Jan 1, 2015, 6:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Yeah, Southern California, with the beautiful Mediterranean climate prized all over the world. What about it?

These multimillionaires must have missed that memo as it seems L.A. isn't prized enough to pull out the pocketbook. To be honest, LA's mediterranean-lite image is not a valid selling point as upwardly mobile multimillionaires have the option of buying on the actual Mediterranean.

I feel that some people see L.A. as the backwater of global cities. Not exactly known for high-culture or taste. Just my observation from growing up around other multimillionaires.

uaarkson · #31 Posted **Jan 1, 2015, 8:37 AM**

No such thing as high taste. You live in a bubble.

chris08876 · #32 Posted **Jan 1, 2015, 12:46 PM**

This list really just lists the sheer amount of homes, but really, any location could be desirable for a 2nd home. All about personal taste. Some prefer the plains of Montana, others prefer the Victorian Homes of Detroit. I don't see it as a reason for one region being the epitome of luxury versus another.

Although it would be nice if Detroit could fix its crime problem. Prices are so cheap. I can buy a 10,000 square foot home, old Victorian, for cheap. Probably less than 400k. IDK what I would do with all of that room, but I would figure something out. One room could have a statue of me, the other, a statue of my pet, and the other a statue of anybody who will pay a donation. A house full of statues.

Something like this would be nice: http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...asks-300-k.php

Such a nice stock of Victorians in this city.

SLO · #33 Posted **Jan 2, 2015, 4:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO

These multimillionaires must have missed that memo as it seems L.A. isn't prized enough to pull out the pocketbook. To be honest, LA's mediterranean-lite image is not a valid selling point as upwardly mobile multimillionaires have the option of buying on the actual Mediterranean.

I feel that people see L.A. as the backwater of global cities. Not exactly known for high-culture or taste. Just my observation from growing up around other multimillionaires.

Easy there chief! As much as you want to get into a pissing contest, LA and SoCal in General is probably next on the list.

10023 · #34 Posted **Jan 2, 2015, 12:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO

These multimillionaires must have missed that memo as it seems L.A. isn't prized enough to pull out the pocketbook. To be honest, LA's mediterranean-lite image is not a valid selling point as upwardly mobile multimillionaires have the option of buying on the actual Mediterranean.

I feel that people see L.A. as the backwater of global cities. Not exactly known for high-culture or taste. Just my observation from growing up around other multimillionaires.

This is ridiculous.

LA isn't for me, but there's plenty of money there. Less so than New York or a handful of European and Asian cities, but then it's not a "capital".

McBane · #35 Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry King

I don't understand the appeal of the hamptons. You can't walk anywhere and most homes are quite a distance from the beach.

I suppose it's nice if you have a home right on the beach, otherwise meh. Classic nyc striver syndrome

I'll take longport, mantoloking, palm beach, sobe.. etc over hamptons anyday

Many folks who go to the Hamptons live in the city year round and so I can see how they perhaps might appreciate vacationing in a place that is quiet, rural, and not at all walkable.

Now say you're a super rich public figure who lives in high rise in Manhattan. In addition to enjoying all that comes with vacationing in a rural country setting, my guess is that they would prefer a private estate surrounded by greenery than a house right on a very public beach.

10023 · #36 Posted **Jan 6, 2015, 11:09 PM**

The Hamptons aren't really rural and quiet though. Maybe they once were, and there are still vistas and open spaces (north of the highway, or in Montauk which has a lot of protected forest land).

Londoners fan out on the weekends, in all directions, to country houses all over England (or weekend trips to Europe). The Hamptons on the other hand are a pretty unique situation, where certain people all go together during the season, and attend fundraisers (at the older, wealthier end of the spectrum), BBQs, parties and clubs (the younger set) with the same people they see in the city. It's part of the "social calendar" if you want to look at it that way. But to put it more simply and personally, I'm still more likely to run into somebody I know that I haven't seen in a while on a Saturday afternoon in July at Cyril's or a handful of places in Montauk than at any single bar in Manhattan.

Crawford · #37 Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 1:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McBane

Many folks who go to the Hamptons live in the city year round and so I can see how they perhaps might appreciate vacationing in a place that is quiet, rural, and not at all walkable.

Now say you're a super rich public figure who lives in high rise in Manhattan. In addition to enjoying all that comes with vacationing in a rural country setting, my guess is that they would prefer a private estate surrounded by greenery than a house right on a very public beach.

I agree with this, but the Hamptons has plenty of walkable areas. There are a half-dozen town centers that are quite pedestrian friendly. Sag Harbor, in particular, has a great city center, with luxury lofts, condos and lots of restaurants, then there's East Hampton and Southampton (both luxury retail centers), Montauk (nightlife), and Westhampton and Bridgehampton (yuppified small towns) all have good city centers.

Obviously the estate areas aren't walkable, but that's the whole point. They're multiacre zoned lots in a rural setting.

10023 · #38 Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 3:01 PM**

^ You do really need to avail yourself of taxis if you're in the Hamptons without a car, though. You could stay in the village of Montauk, and only go to restaurants along Main Street or the town beach, but then you'd be missing out on a lot.

Again, that's by design... the Surf Lodge can only have loud concerts because it is way down the road and not really "walkable" (not that many don't have to resort to this anyway, and not that they don't have plenty of issues with the East Hampton Town police).