Celebs who lost houses in fire seem to be 90s/00s celebs; why no recent stars?
| Excitant scarlet office | 01/09/25 | | Aromatic costumed mother address | 01/09/25 | | bossy chartreuse stock car bawdyhouse | 01/09/25 | | Aromatic costumed mother address | 01/09/25 | | galvanic jew becky | 01/09/25 | | Aromatic costumed mother address | 01/09/25 | | Cheese-eating corner | 01/09/25 | | stirring seedy affirmative action ceo | 01/09/25 | | Cheese-eating corner | 01/09/25 | | Green mad cow disease | 01/09/25 | | Cordovan prole school | 01/09/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: January 9th, 2025 4:52 PM Author: bossy chartreuse stock car bawdyhouse
There's a certain amount of truth to this. Nice houses here are like $20 mm - only celebs with huge endorsement deals can afford that these days.
Old Hollywood lived in Beverly Hills. The stars of the 80s and 90s couldn't afford it so they went to the Palisades and the Hills.
Current stars can't afford that so they live in Silverlake and the valley.
It's sort of like the UES vs Soho vs Brooklyn in NYC.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5661649&forum_id=2).#48537445) |
|
|