'My Baby Can't Sleep' – Bill Gates Demolished A $43 Million Mansion To Create A Bachelor Pad— Neighbors Were Annoyed And Called It A 'Nuisance'
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.
Back in 2020, Bill and Melinda Gates purchased a $43 million oceanfront estate in Del Mar, California. The six-bedroom, 3.5-bath property was described in real estate listings as a "masterpiece" designed by architect Ken Ronchetti. But the view didn't last long.
Following their divorce announcement in 2021, Gates tore the property down. According to the New York Post, the Microsoft co-founder decided to rebuild the home from scratch, planning a modern "bachelor pad" loaded with custom tech upgrades. That decision didn't go over quietly—literally.
Don't Miss:
Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing —
Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target –
Construction reportedly began in early 2022 and quickly became a source of frustration for the surrounding community. Neighbors reportedly told the Post that Gates' crew caused constant noise and disruption. "It's been a nuisance," one neighbor said. Another added, "They make a lot of noise; my baby can't sleep. It's become a real hindrance on the whole neighborhood."
The teardown surprised some in the high-end real estate world. The original house was only a decade old and had been lauded for its clean lines, open design, and prime location just steps from the sand. But Gates—who also owns an expansive smart estate in Medina, Washington worth an estimated $130 million—opted to build something entirely new on the Del Mar lot, this time reportedly tailored to his post-divorce lifestyle.
Del Mar's building regulations are notoriously strict, with environmental and zoning hurdles that often stall projects for years. Even so, Gates secured the necessary permits and, according to neighbors quoted by the Post, made at least two visits to the property during construction. They recalled him arriving with a full security detail and a pair of bulletproof Suburbans—part of a process that, they said, disrupted the quiet neighborhood from the moment demolition began.
Trending: , which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum.
For real estate watchers, the episode raised questions about the tradeoff between modern redevelopment and community impact. Gates had the freedom—and budget—to start over. But for the neighbors, the construction was a four-letter word.
It's not clear how long the build took or whether Gates ever moved in. But one thing is certain: a billionaire's dream home can come at the cost of someone else's peace and quiet—especially when jackhammers replace ocean waves.
Although the Del Mar rebuild wrapped up years ago, Gates has remained active in the high-end real estate market. In March 2024, a midcentury modern home he owned in Medina quietly sold for $4.9 million just days after hitting the market.
For someone worth well over $100 billion, trading properties might seem like par for the course. But in Del Mar, it was a reminder that even the quietest beachfront paradise isn't immune to the noise of a billionaire renovation. One man's bachelor pad is another neighbor's sleep-deprived nightmare.
Read Next:
With Point, you can
Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can
Image: Shutterstock
This article 'My Baby Can't Sleep' – Bill Gates Demolished A $43 Million Mansion To Create A Bachelor Pad— Neighbors Were Annoyed And Called It A 'Nuisance' originally appeared on Benzinga.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Kroger: Fiscal Q1 Earnings Snapshot
CINCINNATI — CINCINNATI — Kroger Co. (KR) on Friday reported fiscal first-quarter net income of $866 million. On a per-share basis, the Cincinnati-based company said it had net income of $1.29. Earnings, adjusted for non-recurring costs and costs related to mergers and acquisitions, were $1.49 per share. The results beat Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of eight analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of $1.45 per share. The supermarket chain posted revenue of $45.12 billion in the period, which fell short of Street forecasts. Seven analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $45.38 billion. Kroger expects full-year earnings in the range of $4.60 to $4.80 per share. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on KR at
Wall Street Journal
13 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Oil Futures Diverge on U.S. Holiday Price Lag, Contract Expiration
Oil prices were mixed in European afternoon trade on Friday, with Brent crude down more than 2% to around $77 a barrel and West Texas Intermediate edging 0.7% higher to $74 a barrel. Brent futures fell after President Trump set a two-week deadline to decide whether the U.S. will strike Iran, easing fears of an imminent military intervention. The international oil benchmark had settled 2.8% higher on Thursday at $78.85, its highest close since January.
Fast Company
13 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The hidden cost of RTO: Why forcing choice is detrimental to your business
Like most CEOs, I've been watching the return-to-office (RTO) trend closely. It's yet another wrinkle for the talent acquisition function, which is difficult to begin with. After all, the quest to hire and retain qualified talent is discussed at every board meeting, every leadership team offsite, and every yearly planning event. Entire books, magazines, podcasts, and conferences focus on this topic. Whether called a talent gap, the war for talent, or skills-based hiring, the essence remains the same: It's a struggle for every organization. So, why have I been struck by the most recent exodus back to offices? Because when you force choices, the results don't always land in your favor. Don't get me wrong—here at Employ, we have a great headquarters facility in Denver. Employees enjoy coming to work and collaborating in person. But there's a line between RTO as a productivity gain and it being the reason you lose qualified talent. According to 2025 research by Lightcast, remote job postings are down over 27%, hybrid postings are down 20%, and in-person postings are up over 17%. At the same time, companies that have publicly committed to a five-day in-office workweek are losing talent to employers supporting remote and hybrid working arrangements. It's a double-edged sword. The cost of an open role has direct financial implications on an organization, as well as less apparent indirect consequences. Estimates place the average cost of replacing an employee to be six to nine months of their salary. Other financial costs range from the expense of recruiting qualified candidates to onboarding and training. If temporary workers are needed to backfill open roles, the financial loss escalates. And the longer roles go unfilled, business objectives are derailed and productivity falters. Unfilled positions wreak havoc on the existing workforce. Critical projects might be delayed, and workforce planning questioned. Employee morale and engagement stand to decline, especially if employees are overworked. When the topic of it being time to hire qualified talent becomes water-cooler conversation, rest assured that unfilled roles are being noticed. YOUR CURRENT (AND FUTURE) EMPLOYEES EXPECT YOUR TRUST Clearly, some jobs cannot be done remotely. A job candidate applying as a labor and delivery nurse knows they will work onsite in a hospital setting. A hospitality worker seeking flexible hours at a quick-serve restaurant understands it's in person. The job location is well defined in the job description, and the candidate chooses to work on site. For other roles, workplace flexibility isn't an optional perk—it's brand equity. Forcing a one-size-fits-all policy not only damages internal trust but dilutes the company's external talent brand, which is particularly damaging in an already tight labor market. In the case of roles that do not require an in-office presence, pressuring a return to an office can have cataclysmic effects. When teams have operated remotely with success, especially when a robust employment brand has been built on a work-from-anywhere culture, confidence in leadership erodes when a change is decreed versus suggested. The move from remote or hybrid working arrangements to return to office is perceived punitively. Researchers at Gartner have observed that high-performing employees react to a return-to-office mandate as a trust issue, resulting in a 16% lower intent to stay. 'High-performing employees are more easily able to pursue opportunities at organizations that offer hybrid or fully remote policies,' said Caitlin Duffy, a director in the Gartner HR Practice. 'Losing high performers to attrition costs organizations in terms of productivity, difficulty in backfilling the role, and the overall loss of high-quality talent available to fill critical positions.' THE REALITY OF THE WORKPLACE Speaking of losing valuable talent, the return-to-office mandate can be a deal-breaker for those balancing childcare, eldercare, or other requirements with their career. In many cases, this falls on women in the workplace; however, it can affect any worker at some stage in their career journey. Upwork's research said that nearly two-thirds (63%) of C-suite leaders whose companies have mandated an office return of some sort say the policy has led a disproportionate number of women to quit. Gartner's research also showed women's intent to stay at 11% lower with strict RTO mandates. It's a fact that retaining an employee is less costly and disruptive than losing them. Having flexible working policies can help counterbalance care responsibilities and ensure that valuable skills remain in the workforce. QUALITY OF LIFE, QUALITY OF HIRE Apart from those roles where being in person is required, hard-and-fast rules about returning to the office make it harder to recruit. From a technology standpoint, talent leaders are continually seeking to source new candidates and drive efficiencies in their hiring systems, such as using AI-powered interview intelligence to speed up time to hire. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor force participation is off by two million people from the February 2020 levels, impacting industries in every state. And, if you compel people to choose between their family and their career, the former will win every time. To be an employer of choice, offer choice. If you can't offer remote and hybrid work arrangements, offer flexibility. It will be the difference between engaged employees and those planning to leave.
