Barker’s Hollywood home for sale

[Nick]

I’m just surprised that prior to clearing out the house, there was no estate sale.  I recall there being one at Betty White’s.

I wouldn’t rule out some sort of auction in the future

Would not the photos of the empty house be conclusive that it has already been cleared?

I suppose it's possible his assets are being held somewhere for auction at a future date (and no doubt to support some animal rights cause that was near and dear to him.  Come to think of it, what's the status of the DJ&T Foundation now?), though people with big houses who live to old ages tend to accumulate a lot of stuff (and did Barker not keep all of the gifts he was given by contestants over the years?).  I just don't see who would clear it out without it being a final disposal, if you will.  Warehouses cost money, and executors are (generally) interested in settling the will as quickly as possible.

Perhaps he specifically instructed how his assets were to be handled.  Maybe his friend Nancy got them, or Roger, the son he never had (though I hear he has a pretty full garage of his own).  Granted, an auction of "things that belonged to Bob Barker" might command a premium on some things, though he's been out of the regular public eye for so long that how many would really care?

[cmjb13]

DJ&T foundation has been closed for a while now.

[cmjb13]

I can't give a totally well-informed explanation here, but I can tell you these points...

When Fred Wostbrock died, the person who bought his house immediately tore it down and built a new house.
When Ann Cullen died, the person who bought his house immediately tore it down and built a new house.
When Betty White died, the person who bought his house immediately tore it down and built a new house.

It has something to do with tax incentives, I know that much. But all of the comments about the quality of the house are missing that point--whoever buys this house is buying it for the LAND. I promise you, this house is getting torn down as soon as it's sold.

As far as I'm aware, Barker sought out and received some sort of historical designation for the house that prohibits it being torn down.

The historical assignment plaque is dated 1999.
My gut says Barker only cared about the historical recognition for himself and really didn’t care what happens to the house after he’s gone.

Is it even possible to remove the historical reference to a particular property once it’s been assigned? It appears that historical assignment to a house does not guarantee 100% protection from demolition, but I suspect the city and neighbors will not make the process easy for a new owner if that’s the route they want to take.

The house I grew up in was torn down about 20 years ago. The land was big enough where the new owner (realtor) could have built 2 houses on it. Instead, he built a house twice as big as the one that was torn down. It’s a real eye sore on a street with relatively small houses. I can see a new owner wanting to build a much bigger house footprint both vertically and horizontally with the neighbors not going along with it.

There may have been some tax incentives to file this house as an historical candidate.

[BrandonFG]

Is it even possible to remove the historical reference to a particular property once it’s been assigned?

If one made a bunch of excessive upgrades, like remove all the historic features. Something similar happened with Soldier Field when they renovated the place in the early-2000s.

[Nick]

My gut says Barker only cared about the historical recognition for himself and really didn’t care what happens to the house after he’s gone... There may have been some tax incentives to file this house as an historical candidate.

Most likely yes, for what other reason would there be to get your house designated as an historical site if you didn't get tax breaks or funding for the upkeep?  You're then stuck with being unable to make significant changes to it.

The house I grew up in was torn down about 20 years ago. The land was big enough where the new owner (realtor) could have built 2 houses on it. Instead, he built a house twice as big as the one that was torn down. It’s a real eye sore on a street with relatively small houses.

Considering the new housing these days is unaffordable cookie-cutter duplexes squished together with virtually no lawn to yell at kids to get off of, I like this story.

[Mr. Brown]

Regarding the HCM designation, an owner is not prevented from demolishing or renovating the home, however, any demolition or substantial renovation has to be approved by the HCM board. If you don't get approval from the board, they can delay a demolition or substantial renovation by up to one year, but they cannot stop it.

And this doesn't take into account any other sort of zoning that might affect the property, such as limitations on square footage, etc.

So, ultimately, whoever buys this could tear it down and build a cookie cutter monstrosity (honestly, this isn't a bad price for LA), but they'd have to hold on to it for a year.

[cmjb13]

Sold for 3.8 million

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/bob-barkers-historic-hollywood-hills-estate-sells

Buyer plans to build a screening room “adorned with cherished Bob Barker artifacts”

[Neumms]

Buyer plans to build a screening room “adorned with cherished Bob Barker artifacts”

It'd be cool if one were Barker's Box from Truth or Consequences. (Miraculous, too.)