What money can buy…
 

John Travolta & Kelly Preston’s Florida home featured in architectural digest. Wow, this is quite the spread, can you image having your own private airport! I couldn’t even guess what it costs to maintain and fuel those jets.

Sorry I couldn’t copy the text, if someone is a subscriber and wants to post it, it would be appreciated.




http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/7...avolta13fw.jpg

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3...avolta29ju.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/123...avolta30pc.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/146...avolta41lz.jpg

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7...avolta51sw.jpg

I know what it can't buy,

taste.

Well said...

I don't necessarily see what's so distasteful about it.

Personally, I think that's a pretty cool way to spend your money. I'd do it. That's a pretty neat setup they have.

Dude, that's an old issue of architectural digest. If my issue wasn't buried in the storeroom, I'd post the text.

I think that, all things considered, this is one of the more tasteful houses I've seen in AD. The actual house is very nicely decorated. I just think he likes to fly, so he built his house around flying- no different than liking to sail and buying a ten million dollar sailboat to live on. At least he's not got an arsenal of Pimped out cars in the back and is wearing gold teeth and chains. There are less tasteful ways to spend money.

Yeah...but are they happy? ... of course they are!

And that's what counts... Spend whatever money you have
on enjoying life! Who cares if anyone else thinks what you're
buying is 'distasteful'... Be as happy as you can possibly be.
If you have tens of millions to spend on your ideal home, then
go for it! ...This ain't a rehearsal.

Heck even if they werent I would rather cry on a private jet then a bus.


Why is it distasteful? Because that house looks like an office building. It's boxy, sterile and looks too functional. Now if you excuse me I am off to get a pedicure.

Well... at least you'd know when one of your family members was arriving home... cue loud engine noise ;)

sweetpea

Those planes look so out of place parked in the driveway.

That's just... too much stuff. If it were me and I liked flying, maybe I'd own a jet. But all that other stuff? I'd be happier using the cash to fund scholarships for poor ghetto kids. But most people who manage to get as rich as Travolta, don't think that way.

There was an article in the paper by some sociologist who studied the very rich and their houses. He found that many of these people had several absolutely huge homes, but used most of them infrequently. What he found out was that for a lot of these people, the "fun" was creating the house: planning it, building it, decorating it, all that. But then, when that was over... they lost interest. The home wasn't really to live in, and in many cases was too huge to live in conveniently; things were just too far apart. And so, a year or two later... they'd start another house.

I live for the day when somebody turns these monuments to consumption into community college, ashrams, or something useful.

If I had that kind of money, I'd buy a helicopter and land it next to schools to suprise all the kids. That's what I'd do all day.

I can just see all the kids going "That dude's like the coolest, EVER!"

:D

I'm just laughing at the overhangs for the cockpit areas... is that so it doesn't get rain on the front of the plane? Is it so he can get into his plane without getting wet?

I can imagine seeing that plane flying with a funky-looking tan line on it because the nose never gets any sun while parked. lol

Really though, ignoring the ugly box-like appearance of the house, the planes are perfect for a man who loves to fly.

I've seen carports that look like that overhang-- maybe the designer was confused when he said he wanted an airport...

He's landing a pretty big jet there-- wouldn't he need a radio tower or something for air traffic control? Could anyone just land in his airport?

I don't think thats distasteful. The man likes to fly, and has the money to support it, so why not? It's not any different than people building a bigger garage for their car collection habit, or, on a much cheaper scale, but one that more people here might relate to, computer building/tinkering/modding. It's his hobby. At least he isn't putting gold trim along the cieling or some of the other shit you'll see on an episode of Cribs. That's distasteful.

But I bet his neighbors love the sound of a jet taking off in their backyard... :D

To quote Weird Al, If money can't buy happiness, I guess I'll have to rent it.

It is his money, he likes to fly, good for them.

It's a fly in community. He didn't just decide to build a runway in his backyard, he bought a house (or built a house) that was next to a runway. They are private runways, and they have their own radio frequency. I'm pretty sure you can only land there if you're a resident too. Those types of communities are getting relatively popular nowadays.

EDIT: I don't particularly like the design of his house, but we have different tastes. I wouldn't turn it down though.

EDIT^2: I've actually flown by that community. It's definitely got a nice little runway.

I thought so too that the overhangs were to protect them from rain, however I think it might be to keep direct sun out of the cockpit - it is in Florida after all. And unless he has a ground crew, someone is going to have to board the plane after its been backed out of the 'gate' Since there's no reverse on planes, someone would have to use a garden tractor or whatever to pull them back so the plane would be pointed forward, towards the runway. I'll bet no one boards the planes until its been pulled away from the overhang and repositioned towards the runway.

I bet people such as JT, who have vast amounts of
money, probably give a shit load of cash to charity. When
someone has that much money they can afford to do so
and still have enough to buy all that stuff above. I know I
would, but people would still say 'he should do more for charity'.

isn't he supposed to be giving a portion of his money to the church of scientology? Wonder how CoS feels about this display of wealth :)

Isn't that violating the First Rule of Finance?

"1. If it flies, floats, or fucks - rent it, don't buy it."

Although I wouldn't mind taking a ride in that.
(O.K. - enough about Kelly Preston . . . . . )

my best friend's father lives in a simliar type community. He has a hangar, a few planes, he's a retired Continental pilot.

Nah, it's not that. It's just, well -- what does he have to do to take care of all that? I guess he hires somebody to manage it; then _they_ hire people to do the work, pay the bills, repair the plane, clean, take care of the grounds, cater, do the laundry, handle the payroll, service the planes and keep the maintenance logs, lawyers, worker's comp, lawsuits, employee reviews -- just to maintain that establishment. I guess if you pay enough, it can run itself -- as long as everybody's honest.

Me, if I was that rich, I'd rather just be fancy-free with money in my pocket. Rent or lease what I needed when I needed it, and not let possessions weigh me down. If I wanted somebody to take care of me, I'd have a full-service condo or live in a luxury hotel. Just pay one bill and let someone else handle the details.

And I'd give a ton of money to charity -- probably most of it. Because it only takes about 10 or 20 million to live a truly luxurious lifestyle. Anything above that is just excess, which is why some rich people spend to excess. Me, I'd make my excess pay off for somebody else, and have a lot of fun doing it. There are a lot more creative things to do with money.

This country's attitudes are so fucked up it's not even funny. On the one hand we embrace capitalism. TV shouts at us all day to consume consume consume! And the richer you are the more respect you get. But then if you get TOO rich, you're expected to switch over to socialism and give it all away, or you're stingy.

It's his money. He should be able to do with it what he pleases without being bitched at to give to charity. Hell if I had that kind of money I'd have a Leno garage AND a few airplanes sitting around. Sure I'd give to charity too, but I'm not obligated to just because I made a few more bucks than most people.

If we REALLY think that the rich have too much money and should give it away, then we REALLY think our economic system should switch to communism/socialism.

What actually interests me most about Travolta's house/planes is that he's a scientologist. Those guys want you to give your money to THEM, not the airplane dealership ;)

My father used to fly privately and he and my mother lived in an airport community for quite a while.

When they decided to sell Travolta apparently looked at the house as he was looking for a place in Chicago. This was before his rebirth as an actor so he only had 'money' instead of "MONEY", the the fact that the runway couldn't handle jets is why he didn't buy the house.

On a side note for the total rumor mill:
Lets say a very wealthy and well connected friend of a friend stated that Travoltas co-pilot and himself like to 'enjoy' each others company while they fly. He also said that amoung the insiders its known that Tom Cruise is in fact gay. I heard this after I saw South Park episode on Scientology and it made the whole Travolta in the closet with Tom Cruise thing make more sense.

You got it. It's a crock. It's impossible for 99 percent of us to be truly rich -- there's not enough wealth for everybody to have a mansion and two airplanes, even if they're all smart and driven and educated. The economy grades on the curve.

But the media keeps the dream alive in _everyone_ so we'll respect the rich instead of eating them (who, after all, controls the media?), and will spend a lot of $$$ to emulate them.

But again, it's not just about socialism. It's about the creative use of $$$. Pouring a lot of cash into a huge house is not creative. If I had huge money, I'd do something with it: help the poor, sure, but also pour a lot of cash into research of various types, fund the right venture capitalists, bring some cool technology in the world, and who knows, maybe end up ten times richer than I was. There's more ways of helping the world than just giving $$$ to help get homeless kids off the street. Though that's pretty important, too.

If a crazy rich guy like Travolta builds a house like that, who gets the money he just spent?

The Gates house, Hearst Castle, Winchester House are all quite creative in my opinion.

I agree 100%. That place is an eyesore.

Holy shit, that's a huge plane & airport. If I had as much money as Travolta I would buy all that plus some more cool stuff. And he shouldn't be expected to give to charity, infact no rich person should, it's their money, they can use it how they want to.

Contractors who work on the house. Groundskeepers/maids/butlers/cooks who work in the house. Property taxes go to the government. The house lets him have his 707, so airline mechanics get money. Lots of money is generated by a house like that.

Goes back to the old argument over the productivity of defense spending. You build an a-bomb for deterrence, and it sits there for 20 years, deterring. Sure, money's spent guarding it, maintaining it, and moving it around, but it doesn't create or promote _new_ wealth.

Take that same money and build a bunch of industrial machinery, and you've created something that continually create things that can be sold or used or, even better, something that can create other machines to create more machines that create things that can be used productively. There's a breeder effect there.

A big 'ol house makes the rich man spent to build it and maintain it, with money he's obtained elsewhere. And there is some redistribution of wealth to others. But there's no breeder effect from the capital used to build the house that will create new wealth, for the rich man or for the economy.

Eh, I'm sounding kinda Marxist even to myself. And people should have their toys. But I continue to hold that the reason that some very rich people -- especially newly-rich people -- spent a lot of money on baubles and mansions is a lack of imagination. That's the only way they know how to enjoy that ungodly pile of cash they've somehow accumulated.

On the other hand, you've got somebody like Ted Turner who's bought his own prairie kingdom, hundreds of thousands of acres -- because he likes it out there, I guess -- and is trying to both preserve it and make it into some kind of eco-tourist attraction. And Paul Allen, Bill Gates' old partner, who sunk $20 million into building a (successful) suborbital manned spacecraft with Burt Rutan, and who used some of his considerable cash to buy another bauble he liked: the Portland Trailblazers! And there are other examples.

I'll accept that it's a lack of imagination if you can list something more .."imaginative." Money is material. It buys material things, period.

My only contribution to this thread is that you don't get lots of money by giving yours to other people who "need" it. In a perfectly capitalistic society I have no problem gathering and amassing huge fortune. In the real world, however, I'm swayed by empathy and human emotion, so I never 100% of what I should. But telling rich people they should donate to charity becuase thats your moral compunction is more distasteful than having an airplane, in my book.

ARRGH!

Come on, Rodney, you have no idea what was or was not created by John Travolta spending this money.

To argue that the money could have been better spent goes against the principle of a free economy! There are invisible hands at work. INVISIBLE. Adam Smith used that language on purpose. Those were back in the days when words were not cheap. We are not supposed to look at it, study it and criticise!!!!!

He should have spent his money curing disease and feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and teaching the ignorant.

My grandpa always said "And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped..."

Well, I edited my post above to add a couple of examples, before I saw your answer. So check up there for some blatherings about Ted Turner and Paul Allen. And it's not like they don't get anything -- there's money to be made, and in the meantime Turner gets to be lord of a vast domain, and Allen gets to run a sports team (which continuously generates money) and stand with the rocket guys on the platform on national TV, and apparently is getting a return on his investment to boot.

In my own neck of the woods, a rich former dot-commer built himself a rather large all-solar house (30,000 watts of solar on the roof) and shows it off as a solar demonstrator to anyone who wants to see. He also fought the power company on limitation on how much power home solar systems could feed back to the grid, and won some concessions. He's a flying buff and his wife is into nature photography. So, just for something to do, they took a chopper up and down the California coast twice in the last few years and photographed ever single bit of coastline and donated the info to universities and state agencies, who were very glad to get it. The photos show how erosion, development and other things are changing the coastline, and the only way of getting the "big picture," literally, is through projects like this, which nobody funds.

Two other dot-commers, Bezos of Amazon and another guy whose name I can't recall -- guy who founded Paypal -- are funding private rocket development programs -- because they like rockets. The Paypal guy's company, SpaceX, is close to launching a low-cost booster in the Marshalls.

And hell, go all the way back to Andrew Carnegie, who accumulated a fortune that today would be in the tens of billions, and used it to build libraries all over the world to encourage reading. And even Bill Gates has loosed his wallet, after building that house of his, to spend much, much more trying to fight disease and health problems in poor counties. I think getting married was good for him.

You find a lot of projects like these among rich dot-commers, successful tech entrepreuners, and other people who build their fortunes by, well, dreaming and creating new things. Once they've made their money, they don't stop dreaming and creating and doing; instead, they spend their own money to keep doing so, in ways which please them.

It doesn't matter if Travolta spends his money on planes or pills... as long as he earns money and spends it, it benefits the entire economy.

While I may find his taste, distasteful, I don't believe we should winge about how he spends his money.

Gee, I'm pissing off a lot of people today without being rude. What fun! But, back to work.

Why is it assumed Travolta doesn't spend massive amounts of his money on charities, research & development, etc.?

I'm sure that his accountant advises him to max out those contributions.

Fuck him and his 707. In fact, fuck all people with private jets, they are worse than the Hummer drivers. They waste 1000's of gallons of jet fuel so that they don't have to be inconvenienced.

/threadjack
I get so sick of celebrities that live in huge houses that consume massive amounts of energy, their cars that consume massive amounts of fuel and their private jets that consume even more fuel. Then they have the nerve to call themselves 'environmentalists' or 'environmentally concious' It's a load of shit. If they want to call themselves that they need to move out of the 20,000 sqf house and puchase something more reasonable.
/end threadjack