Mel Gibson ain’t selling

But he’d like to. HookedonHouses.com has a great photospread of the unwanted mansion of the movie star (or the unwanted movie star’s mansion). Last time the poor lady dared post pictures of a Greenwich house, she got a cease and desist letter from Brendon J. O’Rourke, terror of the New Canaan intellectual property bar and I got a grievance from its sad and angry owner, Steven Braverman, the proud owner of 1038 Lake Avenue, 44 Close Road, and who knows what else? Anyway, follow the links to photo’s of Mel’s place but for heaven’s sake don’t post negative comments or Braverman may confuse himself for Braveheart and grieve you, too.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Mel Gibson ain’t selling

  1. Phil Grimm

    I love the Maxfield Parrish mural in the dining room!

  2. pulled up in OG

    They sure don’t build ’em like they used to. The staff quarters looks better than anything built in town the last few decades.

  3. Old School Grump

    What a house! I wish someone would write a compare-and-contrast magazine or blog article articulating how it is that builders of the “grand” houses of more recent vintage keep getting it so wrong so consistently. Yes I know they can’t hire crews of Italian stonemasons or import acres of mahogany like in the old days, but, beyond that, they get the proportions and details wrong in ways I can’t quite figure out.

  4. pulled up in OG

    $75 million for Helmsley’s house is a joke compared to this one at $30m.

    Helmsley house is ugly, and only 40 acres vs ~75.

    • christopherfountain

      In my humble opinion, Helmsley’s is a tear down, which means it should be valued at, say, 5 building lots at maybe $3 million each (maybe) so $15 million? Add a few million for general foolishness and you get to $18 million. But one on John Street sold for $30 million last year (the old Hirshorne – sp- place) so I obviously don’t understand the super rich or their tastes.