Talk:Updown Court

Untitled
Whoever helped me with this page, please come forward!!! your help is greatly appreciated! -Anonymous Dissident

What (or who) is Allen-Vercoe? The article throws this name around without any context or explanation. -- Mikeblas 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alan-Vercoe is a person.

Verification issue
The claim that this is the most expensive property in the world is dubious. The Times article linked calls the property the most expensive in London, not the world. Even taking the Businessweek March 2005 valuation of US$134mm (compared with the stated US$122mm in Jan 2007), this is lower than the US$135mm US single family residential property described in this article (which also describes another $125mm property) from August 2006 I'm sure there are even more expensive residences out there. I'm researching this to figure out where to take this article. Bwithh 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A $150 million home Bwithh 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the whole premise of this article is that a live market listing value of the property is used. Until someone actually buys the property, we don't know if the property is really worth as much the sellers are seeking. (note that the estimated value of the property as listed has apparently fallen from $134mm in 20005 to $122mm today - a greater relative drop once you factor in the weakening dollar in that time period). In addition the article is vague about what is meant by residence. Does this include high-end luxury apartment buildings (perhaps hotels?) and national palaces such as Buckingham Palace and the White House which are priceless residences? - Bwithh 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding palaces, during height of the 1980s Japanese property bubble, the Imperial Palace in Tokyo (official residence of the Emperor) was supposedly valued by some at equivalent to the value of all the real estate in the state of California Bwithh 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that even if this property sold tomorrow for the $122mm quoted in the article, this would not beat the world record for a single family home sale (as opposed to a valuation of a property on the market) set by another London home in 2004 which sold for $128mm during a period with a stronger dollar. Bwithh 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the claim about it being the most expensive property, even the Business Week article only says that it WOULD be the most expensive if it sold for that price. Wobblestar 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this section "Further update:- The property is now owned by Kayla Kardashian. This was a gift for all of her family to live in when the are in the country." as it is incorrect. The property was featured in a TV show where it was presented as the "celebrity's" own home: in a similar fashion to how the X-Factor's presenters "homes" are in fact rented or hotels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.133.194 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Guinness my aunt
There is a link from the page to Guinness World Records, but this appears to be BS. Searching at brings up zilch. Also, it is highly unlikely that Guinness would ever include such "records" as this. After all, I could advertise my flat in the daily paper for $1 billion, then claim the record. How would you verify, until the actual sale is made? This article is an advert, nothing more. It's a shame it made it to the Main Page. Freederick 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Freederick, are you for real? The record is not for how much its put on sale, put what its value, something that is assessed be experts, is. THink, its pretty obvious. Get it now? -Anonymous Dissident


 * In fairness, the Guinness website database appears to be broken or in a highly incomplete state. Searching for "property" and "house" brings up nothing either. Though you make a good point about being able to list a property for any value - an extension of a point I make above about no value being confirmed until a sale takes place Bwithh 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, errors in the main page DYK section seem to occur quite often Bwithh 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably because the DYK section links to the newest, freshly made pages. I still like DYK, though; As a matter of fact I like it even better because there is the thrill of risk ;-)  Freederick 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but its the people who choose the articles who should do basic checking - I've seenDYK articles with barely any references and inaccurate references that that appear on the main page Bwithh 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gates House
According to the article on Bill Gates' house, it was assessed at 125 million in 2005. Which is (a) higher than 122 million, (b) much more meaningful than a list price, (c) two years old, (d) and which almost certainly underestimates the value of the home. So thats one house, off the top of my head, which is more valuable. Still though sounds like a sweet pad.

Why delete?
I changed the advert template to spam-request for speedy deletion. This is completely non-notable, makes false "record" claims, and is a sales ad pure and simple. Freederick 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your concerns, but anything on the main page is not subject to deletion while its there to avoid red links on the front page. You can bring it up after its left the main page. See WP:CSK Bwithh 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ???? Well, I think it used to be on WP:CSK. there's a rule somewhere Bwithh 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, the fact that a blatant ad made it to the front page makes its speedy removal even more pressing; which is why I went the Speedy route (I am normally much more patient). However, I understand your point. Freederick 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the often repeated size comparison is rubbish
The claim about Hampton Court and Buckingham Palace is a complete fabrication dreamed up by some ignorant spiv estate agent. It has been much repeated (showing the credulity and unreliability of the mainstream media) but it is none the less ludicrous for that. This house has 103 rooms. Buckingham Palace has around 600 and Hampton Court is considerably larger than Buckingham Palace. 82.18.125.110 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Delete is Right!
I don't understand some people on wikipedia sometimes! I really don't! Instead of raving about destroying the article that I put actually alot of time and effort into, why don't you attempt to fix it. It is not a write off, it can be made into a very good article. It was a fine article until you all ripped it apart! Where is your information coming from? Many of you are saying these things off the top of your head! Please, before you go ahead and demolish my article, think about what I've said. It's not trash, and it was not an advertisement.The house is a very luxurious property, it cannot be denied, you cannot deny it. Which would you prefer - neutrality or truth. And anyway, they mean the same alot of time. I don't get how stating the obvious - that a 103 room house is luxurious - is advertising, especially since I never said anything even close to that anyway! Before you lot came along, a sysops looked at the article, and thought it was fine to go on main page! Thank you for all your contributions, but think before you do anything else,think! The article has all but been halved by you guys! -Anonymous Dissident


 * 1) The material that was removed was either demonstrably false (Guinness) or unverifiable.  Quote from Verifiability: Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.  I did check at Guinness, and there is no mention of Updown Court, nor of any Guinness Records having to do with real estate prices.  The claim of this being the most expensive residence is disproved by, among other things Bill Gates' house.  Other editors removed similar unverified data.
 * 2) After the article was cleaned up with regard to major inaccuracies, I did back off from my initial position that the article should be immediately removed.  It is still flagged as an advert, and in danger of deletion by the standard "slow" procedure, unless it is improved.  See Deletion policy.
 * 3) If you want to save the article, I suggest that you improve it so that it includes more than just sales pitch.  The article on Bill Gates' house might serve as a useful template;  I recommend that you include some historical perspective, a more substantial reference to architectural style, geolocation coordinates (to help resolve the question of commuting distance from London, among other things), and other verifiable data.
 * 4) The survival of this article (and any article on Wikipedia) hinges on the notability of its subject, and this notability should come from verifiable sources.  I suggest you consult Notability and Verifiability to see what is required. Freederick 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Freederick, it seem s that you have come to your senses and put some valid information on the table. But I do haven a verifiable source. GWR 2007, the book version. While Gates house may have been the most expensive in 2005, this house is more expensive according to this book, which was written in mid-2006. This property, between 2005 and mid - 06 has surpassed Gates' house. There is your source Now to the advertisement. I will not immediately shun this off, but it would be greatly appreciated if you could indicate the section/s that are like an advertisement, so I will know where to revert, if it comes to that. I would also like you to explain why you thought it was similar to an ad. And I think your last two issues 'hinges' on how well that I myself am able to fix this article to it's best potential, which I think will have to be required, apparently under enormous pressure. Waiting for your answer - Anonymous Dissident 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S to the unregistered user ( no offence, i just cant write your name ) I agree you are probably correct about the Buckingham palace and Hampton court. That fact did seem a little edgy to me.

Thanks.


 * After rereading the current article and comparing it with the Gates' house article, I removed the Advert template. While the article still resembles the sort of summary one would find in real estate ads, I suppose it would be difficult to summarize it differently; after all the building's claim to notability is mainly its price and luxurious appointments, rather than other factors (history, artistic value, connection with important people/events).
 * I still find it difficult to believe that Guinness could base a record on asking price; anybody can post an ad listing an arbitrary price for their house. If Guinness does list it (no mention online), they must have some other source, similar perhaps to the tax assessment quoted for Gates' house.  If you can track down that source, it would certainly be a legitimate reference.  Also, what specifically is the record for?  My guess is that it probably refers to residences currently on the market, since otherwise one would have too many unknowns (what is the Pontifical Palace worth, complete with the Sistine Chapel?  the Louvre? to name just two).  If that guess is correct (I do not have the book to check) then Gates' house does not qualify either, since he is not selling it—but then the nature of the record must be explicitly stated.  If you want to include the GWR, quote it with a reference to the book: page number, ISBN etc., and reinstate the Guinness link.

Freederick 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Freederick, Thank you for removing the ad tag. Now, you have been pressing what the actual record is. I will tell you the exact name guiness gives it, and what I believe its for: Most Expensive Residence. That's what the book says EXACTLY. And the record, according to the book EXACTLY is for how much the property is valued at, based on its size, assets, features etc, according to expert property-valuers. While it has not yet been sold, the record is that this house is worth the most. While it has not garnered the most or been sold for the most, it is worth, according to these property experts, more than any other residence in the world. The book does not state whether this includes royal residences; I remain unsure. I hope I've cleared that up. Thank you Anonymous Dissident 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The world's priciest home
There is a new article published in The Age. It seems that it's the most expensive home on the market as opposed to being the most expensive home. The article is available at http://www.theage.com.au/news/travel/the-worlds-priciest-home/2007/02/23/1171734003273.html

Maybe the article can be updated to reflect the news articles. Melbournian 13:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ty very much, will do. Anonymous Dissident 06:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Neighbors"
Windsor Castle is not anywhere NEAR Updown Court. Check out both on Google Earth. It would take more than an hour to DRIVE it, never mind walking. They are not neighbors.

Hi, I am Leslie Allen-Vercoe the builder of Updown Court and yes it did appear in the Guinness Book of Records page 124 (2007 edition) Most Expensive Residence. If anybody has any serious questions about Updown you can contact me via the website www.updowncourt.com 3rd August 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.180.62 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Significance of the Mansion, etc.
Whoever felt that the property "lacks notoriety" and "is not connected with important people/events," you might want to look into who actually owns this property now. It's the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. He's an extremely important Arabic ally for the West and an extraordinarily wealthy and powerful individual. I'd say that qualifies. ;)

I don't think that this ugly house has ever had an owner (besides the poor developer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.120.96 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Repossessed by Irish Government?
If a property goes on the market @ £70m, and 6 years later it hasn't sold then maybe the best thing the lenders can do is repossess it and put the price up to £75m.

If the story is true, and the plan works, then all publicity is good publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.156.243 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the house is in foreclosure - and I'm glad that the article doesn't contain the blatant lie that this house (as ugly as it is) is bigger than Buckingham Palace (this house is 50,000 square feet while the palace is 828,818 square feet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Still reads like a sales brochure
The test for me is what, in this article, would the vendor not be delighted to read, including the pointless bit about the Queen residing nearby. Other examples of pointless puffery - "property has been constructed using some of the rarest materials on Earth, notably marble from Italy" - is Italian marble that rare? "a customizable cinema with a 50 seat capacity" what on Earth does customizable mean here? "Bruce Willis and Demi Moore were said to have been interested..." Said by whom?

"Californian style"
Who calls the style of this house "Californian"? It is plainly not mission revival, nor ranch style, nor Googie, nor mid-century modern — styles that have specific association with California. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)