Was that location and type of house a big deal in 1969 LA? It looks nice, but isn't special by any modern standards of size, and mostly seems to be a generic "better" suburban style house, although it did have a nice pool.
The Polanski/Tate house seemed much nicer -- bigger lot, more privacy, long gated driveway, etc.
Its a great question. We can figure that most homes in the Hollywood hills were very expensive, but a fading TV star might end up buying a smaller home just to be in the location. Still, I'm guessing that Dalton's home cost more than most LA area homes, except those in the rich districts of Beverly Hills to the coast, and Pasadena.
shareCalifornia and LA were pretty cheap back in the 60s.
shareA house like that in that location would probably be around 80 to 100K in the '60s.
share$650k in inflation-adjusted price, but obviously nowhere near the $2-3 million it would probably run in the California market of today (well, maybe not COVID-19 today).
It's probably a reasonable number, but real estate prices have gotten so crazy it's hard to decide. There's a lot of shitty $650k McMansions and other overpriced junk here in the midwest which makes me think the price is somewhere between a bargain and reasonable, but at the same time somewhat overpriced for its weird driveway access, although I suspect in the hills that's somehwere between normal and better than many.