Best Ultra-wealthy Neighborhood in the World

Kensington Gardens:

PAC Heights:

Paris 16th

Holland Park

Oud-Zuid?

Not sure if it’s the best but it’s certainly expensive and pretty.

San Francisco owns this thread

Greenwich, Connecticut.

Sydney - Lots of posh suburbs, but if I could choose it would be Birchgrove Actually (Sydneysider joke...."I live in Balmain, well, Birchgrove Actually".) It's a small peninsula that runs off the Balmain peninsula right into the heart of the harbour. You could pretty much row to the Opera House and Harbour Bridge.

See below for the Tasteful Friends edition

Dahlem or one of those suburbs on the lakes surrounding Berlin. Posh yet so comfy. The Germans must have a word for it.

I don't understand the categories. You want cities? Or neighborhoods in cities only? Not suburbs? Not small towns? I mean really.

Mayfair in London is filled with ultra-wealthy people. I lived with a billionaire family in their townhouse a few months a year. Very civilized quiet neighborhood and lovely in the summer. London has wonderful summer weather. IT IS NOT HOT.

The hills above Cannes are filled with billionaires. I prefer it to LA's enclaves, where people are less rich, too. Hamptons is amazing for the extreme displays, if you truly with the ultra-rich.

One of the wealthiest "neighborhoods" is the tiny suburb of Cologny in tiny Genève. Another nice place in the summer.

Zug is a bore but lovely.

I hate all Dubai but I don't mind ultra luxury Riyadh.

OneOcean Port Vell Barcelona and Port Vauban Antibes are superyacht marinas. In the summer, one could consider the Superyachts of Mediterranean a sort of floating neighborhood and I would consider it the most unusual and among the best experiences of life of the ultra-wealthy.

Sloane Square/Chelsea in London.

R10 Many German cities have outskirt neighborhoods with that luxe/comfy vibe. Blankenese in Hamburg with all those mini estates.

Point Piper, Sydney AUS

Sydney is just too isolated and cut off from the world, It's like a less sophisticated LA.

@r11 the question is about neighborhoods in cities. So no, not towns, NOT suburbs @r9, not exurbs, but wealthy URBAN neighborhoods as the title says.

R15 It’s nearer to Asia than Europe or America

I'm American but I think London is really the center of the world. It's a fantastic city and in the center of everything. Travel is amazing and inexpensive.

London is ugly

Honolulu is a gay paradise.

R1 and R6 both answered with Kensington Palace Gardens, a half-life long stretch lined with billionaires' houses. The street is private and gated, open only to pass holder cars and Harrods' and other liveried carriages, delivering bags of pistachios or whatever it is that they deliver. Pedestrians and cyclists can can pass through, however. For it's clear devotion and obvious wealth, it's the first example I thought of as well.

I’ve lived in Paris, London, and HK, and of the three cities I’d say the one with the most amenities for UHNW individuals is London. The entire city is their playground, not just the WC and SW postcodes. Even as a comfortably well off, upper middle class professional going about his daily life in London, you are constantly reminded of the extreme wealth around you and the inevitable feelings of inadequacy ensues. Not so much in Paris, and strangely enough, not so much in HK either.

Rosedale, Toronto

LA is the outlier here as the city's wealthiest neighborhoods (Bel Air, Brentwood, Beverly Hills) are all decidedly suburban in feel,.

And Malibu, which our confused OP mentioned, is not part of LA proper

But hard to compare that to Paris, London or Manhattan

R10 gemütlich

Coziness a big deal to Germans

Our r24 forgot that Beverly Hills is not part of LA proper.

Dubai should be on that list, but I know is "too modern" for DL refined taste.

London is best if you want a townhouse.

Paris is best if you want a grand apartment.

New York is best if you want a penthouse.

Not super rich by any means, quite the opposite, but Buffalo has some of the best residential architecture out there. Take a look at the Buffalo House Porn for amazing interiors.

And this blog for great exteriors.

[quote] Dubai should be on that list, but I know is "too modern" for DL refined taste.

Show us a neighbourhood in Dubai that looks anything like Kensington and maybe we’ll consider it.

I think Ultra Wealthy implies Old Money and not things like tech CEO and Arab oil tycoons.

Yes R27, BH is not a part of the city of LA, but it's located in the heart of the west side and that flats is even semi-urban, while Malibu is a beach resort that is a good hour drive from the main part of the city.

(But you knew that.)

Sea Cliff in San Francisco

Shaughnessy, Vancouver

R32 ultra wealthy does not imply old money. There is old money and new money in the ultra wealthy.

Oil money is old money by the way, including the mid-east princelings. That is now old money.

Ah yes, the great cities of the world.

London ... Paris ... Rome ... Buffalo .... BUFFALO?

Not too long ago UES would be considered as "the" most ultra-wealthy neighborhood. My how the mighty have fallen.

(UES = Upper East Side, New York City)

I’m an outlier - I think LA ultra wealthy neighborhoods are the best. When I think of a place to live for $30 million, LA offers the most luxuriously decadent housing available. NY, London, Paris and SF are all variations of the high end townhome. And in London and SF, you are probably using a car to get around anyway - whether Regents Park or Pac Heights, the truly luxurious $30mm houses tend to be standalone outlying houses. Even in denser public transit oriented cities like NY and Paris, a billionaire likely uses a driver. The sheer luxury of housing, ideal climate and beauty of ocean and hills out every window makes LAs best housing superior IMO.

R38 Yep, it used to be the richest zipcode in the US... I think it's been replaced by places like Atherton in the Silicon Valley. Pacific Heights is how R39 describes it, but on the Peninsula - Atherton, Menlo Park, Los Altos Hills... there are some tasteful, beautiful estates. Lots of them.

Mmmm, Moscow...

Has nobody learned anything in the last 20 years about the super rich? All of these people are awful and they exist to the detriment of the society so by virtue of the wealth requirements of living in one of these areas, they are all inherently trash. The worst kind of trash. And gushing over them is just so intellectually bereft (R21 is the best example of this), and shows a real lack of understanding of real beauty. Real achievements in beauty are improved when there is an acknowledgment of constraints, doing something pretty when you have an unlimited budget just isn’t very impressive.

That's funny because in Philadelphia, the neighborhood Kensington is infamous for being horrible and is the heroine capital of THE WORLD

THE WORLD!

I am with you R39 on LA, but that's because if limited to a single house in a single location, the suburban style house on an acre or two that I would have in LA would be fare nicer than apartments and townhouses elsewhere, if for no other reason that it I could use the outdoor space most of the year.

I do suspect this will quickly turn into one of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many DL threads where Flyoverstani shopbottoms and interior decorators harangue each other over "old money" and "new money", as defined by black and white movies they've seen on TMC, the Preppy Handbook and other detritus of the mid-20th century without any vague acknowledgement that we are currently two decades into the 21st century.

^^far nicer

Looking at the original story linked to in the article, I think we can all agree it is not Los Altos

R42 You have a point but it's narrow. Many of the .001% may be trash and create trashy luxury. OP only asked about "gorgeousness". In a Robin Leach kind of way. There is room to get a kick out of that kind of display. The Azzam is both vulgar and immoral AND sublime, an engineering marvel, and offers a lifestyle that is dreamlike. You people with your binaries - a person or creation can be only one thing. LE SNORE

R46 Los Altos Hills

Knightsbridge

R43 Female superheroes come from there?

Nothing beats the UES for me. 60th-96, 5th-Lex. Stunning.

R44 enjoyed your comment.

R47 we’re talking about wealthy neighbourhoods not follies. Follies I can appreciate in their uniqueness and ‘hero quality’ if it applies but that’s not what’s in discussion. I agree with you re the yacht. But that’s outside the parameters. OP asked about what is the best neighborhood ‘filled with gorgeous architecture, billionaires and millionaires’ as if a person possessing enormous wealth has an inherent value to it that is in some way aspirational in relation to objective beauty. And it’s not. That way of thinking is (or should be) a relic of the past. Capiche?

Hey don't forget about me...

10 Richest Towns In The U.S.

November 26, 2020 • Page 2 of 12

9. Winnetka, Ill.

$353,700

This village sits on the shore of Lake Michigan, just 17 miles north of Chicago. Its website lauds the tree-lined streets, sandy beaches and well-regarded schools in Winnetka—a name derived from a Native American phrase believed to mean “beautiful land.” The Chicago Tribune says downtown Winnetka has aspects that mimic New York’s Hamptons, but without the celebrities.

Mansions behind gates is not a 'neighborhood' in my opinion. I don't find many extremely wealthy areas very appealing because there is so little interaction among its residents or street life.

Downtown Zurich, especially Bahnhofstrasse.

No one's mentioned Fisher Island in Miami, which is cited in OP's article and with good reason.

I'm very familiar with it as my great-aunt and uncle lived there for many years, first part-time and then full-time.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but it's a planned condo community and looks like many other planned condo communities in South Florida, albeit with water views from most apartments and a lot more amenities along with the security features of a private island that is no accessible to outsiders. Unless it's changed, the deal was you could only get there by boat or helicopter--there are no roads--and there's a ferry you can take your car on, but you need to either live there or you need to show proof that someone has invited you there (IIRC, they had to put your name on some sort of list.)

The residents are mostly affluent retired Jews from the Northeast and affluent South Americans who like having a place in Miami "just in case." Plus Russians who are also investing in Miami. Meaning there aren't a whole lot of full time residents and the vibe is more resort hotel than neighborhood.

R54 I think that's the clarification. So places like Greenwich, CT, the Hamptons, or anyplace in CA other than Pacific Heights - and any number of posh suburbs - are disqualified from this conversation.

OP made the mistake of not matching the poll they posted to the article, hence the confusion.

Though the article, which randomly includes Fishers Island (Miami) and the very suburban Los Altos is intended to be clickbait, not an actual well thought out article.

To wit, it describes Los Altos as being "on the border of San Francisco and the edge of Silicon Valley" which is untrue on both accounts: Los Altos is midway down the peninsula, so nowhere near the "border" of San Francisco and it's the heart of Silicon Valley (it borders on Palo Alto, Cupertino and Sunnyvale) not the "edge".

But as noted the author is likely someone is a developing country with non-native English skills who is paid $20 US to crank out clickbait articles like these.

Bradbury, CA. (I'll bet most of you have never heard of it.)

[quote] That's funny because in Philadelphia, the neighborhood Kensington is infamous for being horrible and is the heroine capital of THE WORLD

Which heroine? Joan of Arc? Amelia Earhart? Martina Navratilova? Liza Minnelli? Miyoshi Umeki? Marie Curie?

Yes - Silicon Valley always wins richest. But honestly, would anyone CHOOSE to live there if they didn’t have to work in tech? It’s such an odd anomaly - purely driven by where Silicon Valley happened to start. Sure, Atherton, Los Altos Hills, etc are nice - but they are not world class neighborhoods like Pac Heights, Bel Air, UES, Belgravia. If one thinks of living a fantasy rich life without encumbrance, Silicon Valley would not be on the list.

I’d say London.

This thread has turned into a pissing contest.

I didn't even know there was a neighbourhood like that in Amsterdam ( though I've been there several times). It seems rather un-Dutch.

I get the impression r22 hasn't seen much of London.

[quote]in Philadelphia, the neighborhood Kensington is infamous for being horrible and is the heroine capital of THE WORLD

[quote]Which heroine? Joan of Arc? Amelia Earhart? Martina Navratilova? Liza Minnelli? Miyoshi Umeki? Marie Curie?

r43 r60 Lily, the heroine of CBS' [italic]Cold Case[/italic] , grew up in Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood.

[quote] the heroine capital of THE WORLD

Sorry but I’m pretty sure Paradise Island takes that prize

[quote] LA is the outlier here as the city's wealthiest neighborhoods (Bel Air, Brentwood, Beverly Hills) are all decidedly suburban in feel.

I grew up in this area, which are 3 communities next to each other. They are beautiful and the weather is great, but it's nothing like being in a proper city like London. In London, when you are UHNWI there is really amazing dining, shopping, art, trips. That's really what you do in London - shop, eat, drink, and travel.

Whoever said Sea Cliff is SF as a fantastic spot is spot on. It's absolutely gorgeous, although freezing most of the year. Though beautiful, it's similar to the 3 B's of LA - somewhat isolated and a but suburban feeling while still being 7 minutes from Pacific Heights.

I think we have to distill it further from urban/city living vs. just gorgeous suburbs.

Shepherd’s Bush.

Regarding Greenwich, CT. There are different parts of Greenwich. Cos Cob, Old Greenwich, Riverside, Mianus, Byram. Out of those which is the best?

R61 Stanford, wealth, history... there's a lot of possible reasons to desire to live on the Peninsula before the latest tech waves of wealth hit it. No World Class Neighborhood with historic wealth? Hillsborough? But as we've agreed, the search on this thread is NOT where the wealthy live, but rather an Urban Neighborhood for the ultra-wealthy. I'd even exclude Pacific Heights (how many residents walk from their houses to an urban setting? ). I think Paris, 16th, is probably the winner.

Hillsborough, for reference.

Shepherd's Bush has some sketchy areas. You would probably want to be in Holland Park (shout out to Edina Monsoon), which is right next to SB, but has a more grand feel.

In London, you never want to be on the other side of the Thames. SW3 and W1-8 are the best post codes. Add in some of the North London areas but they still don't have the prestige of an SW1-3

The other question is what are the metrics to these neighborhoods. Are we talking garish displays of wealth found in the middle east like Dubai, suburban-esque communities of SoCal, wealthy small towns like Greenwich? Summer spots like Hamptons, Kennebunkport, Martha's Vineyard, Marbella.

Is Monte Carlo the richest in the world?

Lol shepherd’s bush is gross

Peasants, all of you

In the US, in terms of wealthy communities outside of a major city or suburb, but perhaps a commuter city, the prestige of the country club at the center of it and the houses that dot those courses. Those are usually the wealthiest neighborhoods. Look at the most prestigious country clubs with waiting lists in the US and those will be the most exclusive neighborhoods. There are also some beautiful "resort: neighborhoods where there is a resort in the center that is has clubs, dining, etc and the homes that surround that.

R73 That's the pic you see in a dictionary when looking up "déclassé"

R59 is a great example of these sorts of clickbait articles.

HowStuffWorks is sort of known for that -- have someone in Bangladesh pull together some random research and add links to photos and with the right title "10 Most Expensive Zip Codes To Live In" it will get a lot of clicks and make them a lot of ad revenue.

I forgot. In terms of neighborhoods in Greenwich, Belle Haven. Diana Ross lives, or used to live there. Paul Tudor Jones, the hedge fund guy has a house there. Beautiful place.

If there is a country club, it is likely just rich not UHNW. Maybe Holmby Hills or Bel Air are near one but in general golf is quickly becoming a dated, irrelevant game - played by wealthy old men who worked in professional fields. Yes, CC are the “nice areas” of suburban areas, but neither urban or UHNW.

If there is a country club R78, it means it's in a suburban area, not an urban one, Los Angeles being the exception and said country clubs date back around 100 years and members don't necessarily live in the area.

Or are you talking about Flyoverstani Gated Communities where the existence of a "country club" (e.g. a golf course with a restaurant) is designed to assure the residents of the The Estates At Pheasant Grove that yes, they've made it.

"[R73] That's the pic you see in a dictionary when looking up "déclassé" "

It's Russia, if it weren't for "déclassé" there'd be no class at all

I think Parnassus heights in SF is even better than PAC heights. Much more understated with beautiful views and a gorgeous park.

Amsterdam!

More Amsterdam!

The Dutch historical wealth really shines through

^ Stop with the google, you don't know how to do it

Does the southern U.S. not have any rich people?

R77 Belle Haven pretty much, so few places can also boast being the locale of a Kennedy Murderer scene, which is a cache you just can’t buy everywhere.

The best ultra wealthy neighborhoods have access to peerless amenities and ultra high end shopping. The singing waiters at Max's Opera Café in the Stanford Shopping Center do not qualify.

[quote] access to peerless amenities and ultra high end shopping.

Why do so many DL posts sound like pretentious ad copy?

"Does the southern U.S. not have any rich people? "

Florida and Texas are pretty rich

Houston people here? What about that neighborhood where Bush Sr retired?

Past Holmby Hills resident . Had Michael Milkin with his 150 mil spread across the street and the Pritzkes with their at least 200 million spread in back of us.

Buckhead in Atlanta is quite fancy

Golf has not become passe at all. It's a game that can be played both young and old. You will find many UHNWI play golf and learn from a young age. It's a way to socialize and do business. You can hear many tech bros talking about it in an SF club as you can in Greenwich. This is where old money vs. new money come into play. In LA you have Bel Air, Riviera (Palisades), Brentwood. Social clubs are always part of wealth and I don't mean Soho House. The Bohemian Club/SF, Jonathan Club/LA, The University Club in NYC which requires coat and tie in public areas. You have to use the servers steps if you are in street clothes and go directly to your room. I think ultra wealthy means something different to each person, but there is a certain standard that I consider UHNW which is basically the 1% of the 1%.

It's funny R95, but we don't give nearly the amount of thought to you as you give to us.

Nor do we show off on message boards by using a somewhat obscure acronym common in the financial industry to impress a bunch of sales clerks and hairdressers.

R92 River Oaks is Houston's most wealthy neighborhood. Bush Sr actually lived at the Houstonian which is more Post Oak/Galleria area and not River Oaks.

I do love Amsterdam’s wealthy district - the inner canal belt. But it is definitely not a global UHNWI destination. More like Beacon Hill or Society Hill - beautiful historic architecture mainly inhabited by local wealth.

Recoleta, Buenoa Aires

Camps Bay, Cape Town

Leblon, Rio de Janeiro

Rublevka, Moscow

Salamanca, Madrid

Bloemendaal, the Netherlands

R11 You hate Dubai but don't mind Riyadh ?!

Denenchofu, Tokyo comes with an European touch in a Japanese size.

Thread quickly devolving into Dataloungers ticking off the affluent districts of cities around the world to.... what? Prove that they are aware of them? Give some props to their hometown?

WTF did you expect, twat R101?

[quote] ultra high end shopping

Make it stop! Cringetastic

R98 spot on.

Pac heights is unparalleled when it comes to combining urban layouts with mega mansions. I can’t think of another city that has such a large swath of uninterrupted urban palaces. Presidio heights is similar but feels a little quieter. Sea cliff feels like a suburb even though it’s in a bustling neighborhood.

Massive

Insane SF

Aesthetically not too pleasing, R107

Bit cramped.

Sydney seems nice. SF is too cold and not sure why people pay to live here. I am in SF and I dislike the chilly weather. LA is probably better, as it is year-round warm. Any city in the cold north is not worth it, as more than half the year is cold. If I were rich, I would choose the Caribbean islands or Florida or Brisbane or Perth which are warm and nice. Of course, I would love to live in free liberal democracies and not communist or semi-democratic countries where there are no judicial restraints on government taking one's wealth.

Palm Beach FL @ Mar-a-Lago with Trump & me.

River Oaks is the splashy rich neighborhood in Houston. Shadyside in the Museum District, just north of Rice, might be richer, it's certainly quieter; its streets are private. The Hobbys live there as does former Governor Mark White. The Senior Bushes lived in Tanglewood, which is very nice, a bit outside the loop.

While its inhabitants are nowhere near as wealthy as those cited elsewhere I have never seen an urban neighborhood more charming than Boston's Beacon Hill. It's intimate without being labyrinthine; the colors and materials work together beautifully - and it looks equally elegant in every season.

Definitely not London (Kensington) - cold, stiff, overpriced, shitty weather, extreme partying, and tons of empty mansions owned by Arab oil barons. If time machines existed, San Francisco(Seacliff, Knob Hill, Atherton, etc) before the tech bros and extreme homelessness descended on the area is the winner. NYC area has some nice enclaves but nothing beats the weather in the bay area.

@r113 I don’t think the mega wealthy people who live in those areas you list ever need to see homeless blight. There are no homeless anywhere near atherton. Sea Cliff and PAC heights don’t get any homeless people because one is on the edge of the city literally on a cliff, and the other is up a hill. Also, there’s still more “old money” than there are tech bros in pac heights, presidio heights and even sea cliff. I agree that San Francisco definitely takes the cake, huge areas of the region are built by and for the very wealthy. Where else do billionaires have the option to own in a world class wine country (Napa/Sonoma), the beach (half moon bay/Stinson beach/Santa Cruz), city (San Francisco/Piedmont), suburbs (atherton/ Ross/ tiburon/ Hillsborough), sunny islands (Belvedere), Italian stile hill communities (Sausalito), horse country (woodside, Petaluma, bodega bay, Sonoma), or acres of open estate land (redwood (think Neil young’s estate))? There’s modern architecture, old money palatial mansions, mid century craftsmen, Victorian, and basically any architectural style a super rich person could dream of.

R114 LA could give you as much variety, although with its own flavors.

I used to work in Burlingame (the "town" for Hillsborough), and standard practice for the police then when they found a homeless person - take them to CalTrain and buy them ticket, send them to SF.

@r115 mmmm, LA has some variety, but nothing near LA compares to the bay areas wine country. France, Italy and Napa are the three most important names in wine, Santa Barbara doesn’t compare. LA also doesn’t have an “urban mansion” option, all the wealthy neighborhoods are suburban/gated. SF also has much better skiing only 2 hours away. The one area LA beats the Bay Area in is beachfront communities because the water and weather is much warmer.

The best wealthy enclave in New York is West Village IMO, I like it better than UES or Tribeca.

It's where I would want to buy if I could afford it.

[quote] I don’t think the mega wealthy people who live in those areas you list ever need to see homeless blight.

Because they stay at home all the time and never leave their little corner of the city?

Sort of hard to miss otherwise.

Homelessness is not a problem for people that are housed. It’s a problem for people that are not housed. I know most of you are old but come on it isn’t the 50s.

@r118 idk where you live but I hope it’s not SF, because if so, you have got to venture out of your tiny corner of the city. Travel west of Van ness, north of market, anywhere outside of like four core downtown neighborhoods and you will barely see any “homeless”. The only people who think the city is filled with more homeless than anywhere else are tourists who never leave fisherman’s wharf. Also, homeless people are just people, idk why their existence would be an issue for anyone, especially when homeless people are attracted to the best cities in the world, just like any person. If homeless people are really that much of a deterrent, move to the ‘wealthy’ suburbs of Kansas City or Omaha.

Montecito or Santa Ynez valley = Napa Urban mansions? Hancock Park - from houses like this you walk to great restaurants or to buy crack

Ohhhh, noooooo, R36 old money implies owning something veddy tangibly recognizably rich. Like a buggy whip company, or Gimbels or many shares of Proctor & Gamble.

@r121 Mintecito/ Santa Ynez are NOT comparable to Napa or Sonoma. Napa, once again, is top three wine regions in the world. The locations you mention are tertiary wine country in California alone, Paso Robles outranks, and it’s just as close to the bay as it is LA. There is no conversation to be had between NorCal and SoCal wine country. Napa is simply on a very different level.

As for Hancock Park, it’s a suburb comparable to suburban enclaves in sf like Saint Francis wood or presidio terrace. It’s not the same as ‘urban mansions’. There is nothing urban about it’s built environment. In fact, LA as a whole is really lacking in urban pedestrian infrastructure and city layout. It’s basically thousands of suburbs amalgamated.

Rumson, New Jersey.

Old Town, Geneva.

Romazzino Hill, Sardinia

Mayfair, London

Chemin De Ruth, Switzerland

[quote] Sea cliff feels like a suburb even though it’s in a bustling neighborhood.

IMO, Sea Cliff is not a bustling neighborhood. It’s mid-Richmond District or so. I do like Sea Cliff, though.

@r127 that’s true. Clement and Geary are walking distance and definitely count as high streets/thoroughfares, but sea cliff it’s self is sleepy. Basically I was referencing it’s proximity to real city life. It’s more interconnected with the city than, say, Bel Air is with LA.

R123 The quality of wine produced is irrelevant to this conversation. Homes in Montecito (or some places in Santa Ynez Valley) are at least as much aligned to the ultra-wealthy neighborhood criteria posited in this thread. But as for "walking" - people in Napa walk, like out to the garage or perhaps to hike.

No, Hancock Park isn't like the UES in terms of urban walking... but from Hancock Park (or even places in Pasadena) one can walk out to restaurants, shops - e.g. Larchmont Village

R114 Carmel, CA might be the nicest place in the world to live. Even if you live in Atherton or whatev, you still want to go to the Zoo, see a Giants game, go to the piers, Legion of Honor, etc. It's impossible to not see the blight of homelessness and drug addiction driving to those areas.

[quote] Carmel, CA might be the nicest place in the world to live.

Yes it’s very nice, but it’s not a neighbourhood.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Peak, Hong Kong.

The Barstow Riviera.

SEATTLE

R131 look at OP

Belvedere for sure