The New Robins Nest

[J.J. Walters]

Looks pretty spacious!

[Rembrandt's Girl]

I'm curious to see how they portray this new Robin's Nest......will it be 200 acres from mountains to the sea. Also it will be interesting to see if they use multiple locations to piece that look together.
We know of 51 Kaikea Pl. ....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EsIjc7JEkc which RG found and then RG also mentioned the dogs being used at the Banyan House in the Diamond Head area which was initially puzzling http://www.banyanhousehawaii.com/
Fast forward to the 1:05 mark of the trailer ....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADAeeJclFIU and you see Jay running away from the dogs and towards what they are possibly portraying as the main house and what looks to be a "guest house" to the left.
The dogs were only used at the estate in the original so assuming they are not chasing Jay around on his case, then they are really building R.N. into a very grand compound and supporting it with visuals from the various locations. All a guess, based on the trailer etc.....time will tell. Anyone else have a theory?

Hi Kenji!

Looks like a lot of the scenes from the trailer are at the Banyan House.

[Vxc961]

I’m in Hawaii for RIMPAC and visited the new estate. It’s in a modest (by Kailua standards) neighborhood and you can’t see much from the street. As I pulled my car in to take a selfie, the neighbors to the right came out and watched me...I hopped in my car and headed out as they opened the gate and headed in.

I don’t want to bother anyone, but I’m hoping to find decent parking (tough!) and walk up the beach to see it from the beach side.

I have to thank this site—I’ve done the paradise helicopter tour, seen the old RM estate front and back, and King Kamehameha Club all thanks to this forum.

[erock308]

Peter Lenkov mentioned that the new show will be full of "Easter Eggs" I think this is one...

[erock308]

Hollywood "Easter Eggs" A bit of bad taste if you ask me.

[Steve]

Peter Lenkov mentioned that the new show will be full of "Easter Eggs" I think this is one...

I find the use of Pahonu for the new Robins Nest a slap in the face, not an easter egg............Does Lenkov even know what the name means and the history of the OG Estate????? I have been holding out on my judgement on the reboot until I see it but this, is beyond the pale!

[erock308]

Peter Lenkov mentioned that the new show will be full of "Easter Eggs" I think this is one...

I find the use of Pahonu for the new Robins Nest a slap in the face, not an easter egg............Does Lenkov even know what the name means and the history of the OG Estate????? I have been holding out on my judgement on the reboot until I see it but this, is beyond the pale!

I agree 100% with you Steve, disrespectful to the one and only true Pahonu... still can't believe she is gone.... I remember so vividly my visit there in 2005, it felt so familiar, almost like returning home.

[Steve]

Yep!!!!

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I'm curious to see how they portray this new Robin's Nest......will it be 200 acres from mountains to the sea. Also it will be interesting to see if they use multiple locations to piece that look together.
We know of 51 Kaikea Pl. ....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EsIjc7JEkc which RG found and then RG also mentioned the dogs being used at the Banyan House in the Diamond Head area which was initially puzzling http://www.banyanhousehawaii.com/
Fast forward to the 1:05 mark of the trailer ....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADAeeJclFIU and you see Jay running away from the dogs and towards what they are possibly portraying as the main house and what looks to be a "guest house" to the left.
The dogs were only used at the estate in the original so assuming they are not chasing Jay around on his case, then they are really building R.N. into a very grand compound and supporting it with visuals from the various locations. All a guess, based on the trailer etc.....time will tell. Anyone else have a theory?

Hi Kenji!

Looks like a lot of the scenes from the trailer are at the Banyan House.

Hey RG, thanks to your historic aerials site I was able to confirm that the Banyan House was the location of 2 episodes of the classic Hawaii Five-O (season 1's "By the Numbers" and season 2's "The Joker's Wild, Man, Wild!"). Of course the property has totally changed since the late 60s/early 70s. About the only thing that still remains is that banyan tree in the front driveway. I suppose that's a "historic" tree so they gotta keep it (hence the name of the place). This complete renovation is fairly new as well because when I look at the 2005 aerial of the place it still looks largely like it did back in the day. The shape of the pool, the long narrow house, there was also a smaller house in the rear off to the side closer to the beach. Now the entire place is littered with what looks like fancy little cabanas instead of the one long house. I wonder if it was always a vacation rental or whether it became one after the complete overhaul.

[Rembrandt's Girl]

Hey RG, thanks to your historic aerials site I was able to confirm that the Banyan House was the location of 2 episodes of the classic Hawaii Five-O (season 1's "By the Numbers" and season 2's "The Joker's Wild, Man, Wild!"). Of course the property has totally changed since the late 60s/early 70s. About the only thing that still remains is that banyan tree in the front driveway. I suppose that's a "historic" tree so they gotta keep it (hence the name of the place). This complete renovation is fairly new as well because when I look at the 2005 aerial of the place it still looks largely like it did back in the day. The shape of the pool, the long narrow house, there was also a smaller house in the rear off to the side closer to the beach. Now the entire place is littered with what looks like fancy little cabanas instead of the one long house. I wonder if it was always a vacation rental or whether it became one after the complete overhaul.

Hi Ivan!

I did some research about the Banyan House (4369 Royal Place) and found a few small articles throughout the decades, in the society columns mostly, for gatherings there... teas, cocktail parties, fundraisers etc., or the owners were off to Europe for three months... you know, stuff that wealthy people do. It changed owners several times, and used to be called "Hale Aikane" which means "The Friendly House".

I didn't see anything to indicate it was ever a rental, until now of course. It looks like the most recent main house was demolished sometime between 1994-1998 however a small cottage along the shoreline remained, as well as the pool, until it was purchased by the current owner in 2004. You can see the cottage and pool in the 2005 aerial.

The current owner, Mark Gosselin, built the present day home and named it "Banyan House". He is the President/CEO of Property West Residential based in San Diego, CA. https://www.propertywestresidential.com/

Here's an interesting article about the building of Banyan House: https://robbreport.com/shelter/home-des ... me-234836/

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Hey RG, thanks to your historic aerials site I was able to confirm that the Banyan House was the location of 2 episodes of the classic Hawaii Five-O (season 1's "By the Numbers" and season 2's "The Joker's Wild, Man, Wild!"). Of course the property has totally changed since the late 60s/early 70s. About the only thing that still remains is that banyan tree in the front driveway. I suppose that's a "historic" tree so they gotta keep it (hence the name of the place). This complete renovation is fairly new as well because when I look at the 2005 aerial of the place it still looks largely like it did back in the day. The shape of the pool, the long narrow house, there was also a smaller house in the rear off to the side closer to the beach. Now the entire place is littered with what looks like fancy little cabanas instead of the one long house. I wonder if it was always a vacation rental or whether it became one after the complete overhaul.

Hi Ivan!

I did some research about the Banyan House (4369 Royal Place) and found a few small articles throughout the decades, in the society columns mostly, for gatherings there... teas, cocktail parties, fundraisers etc., or the owners were off to Europe for three months... you know, stuff that wealthy people do. It changed owners several times, and used to be called "Hale Aikane" which means "The Friendly House".

I didn't see anything to indicate it was ever a rental, until now of course. It looks like the most recent main house was demolished sometime between 1994-1998 however a small cottage along the shoreline remained, as well as the pool, until it was purchased by the current owner in 2004. You can see the cottage and pool in the 2005 aerial.

The current owner, Mark Gosselin, built the present day home and named it "Banyan House". He is the President/CEO of Property West Residential based in San Diego, CA. https://www.propertywestresidential.com/

Here's an interesting article about the building of Banyan House: https://robbreport.com/shelter/home-des ... me-234836/

Hey RG, yes the 2005 aerial still shows the pool and cottage by the beach but the main house does appear to be missing. I'm guessing what I'm seeing in its place is just dirt or sand. The 1996 aerial still shows the main house (or at least I see what looks like a long dark roof) in addition to the pool and cottage (actually I can't see the cottage too well but I assume it's there).

Thanks for the article on the building of the Banyan House. As Higgy-baby would say... "Extraordinary... simply fascinating". So it appears that Gosselin built the house for himself primarily, not as a vacation rental. But perhaps changed his mind somewhere along the way? Or maybe he did build it for himself according to his tastes but planned on making it a vacation rental all along? Assuming he wasn't going to be living there full time and would be dividing his time between his other homes on the mainland.

[Rembrandt's Girl]

Hey RG, yes the 2005 aerial still shows the pool and cottage by the beach but the main house does appear to be missing. I'm guessing what I'm seeing in its place is just dirt or sand. The 1996 aerial still shows the main house (or at least I see what looks like a long dark roof) in addition to the pool and cottage (actually I can't see the cottage too well but I assume it's there).

Just for grins, here's how I narrowed down the demolition, Ivan

In 1994 I found a small newspaper blurb that a fundraiser for the "Homeless Ohana" was held there, then in 1997 it was listed as abandoned property (weird, huh? I assume the home was still standing but who knows?), and then in 1998 when it was on the market it was being sold as "vacant land". Well, vacant except for the cottage & pool of course. Ha, vacant land? I would've loved to just live in that cottage!

Here are some old listing pics for the "vacant land", much better than the historic aerials

https://www.oahure.com/home/2400150/436 ... u-hi-96816

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Thanks, RG. I enjoyed viewing those pics from the 2004 listing. With the exception of the missing main house everything else about the property was similar to how it was shown on FIVE-O. Of course now it looks completely different which is why initially I had a hard time narrowing down exactly which one of those 2 or 3 addresses on that street (Royal Pl.) was the house I was looking for. Of course not knowing about historic aerials didn't help matters any.

What's puzzling is the "vacant land" sale. It certainly wasn't vacant, not with the cottage and pool still there (I agree the cottage would be enough for me, heck I'd even sleep on the pool diving board lol). If the intention was to sell just the "land" in order to build from scratch then why keep the cottage and pool in place? But then won't you get less for the property if all you're selling is the land? Which begs the question - why tear down the house to begin with? If you're planning to sell surely you can get more buck for the place if all the structures are still standing, right? I wonder if the house was in such terrible shape that it actually repelled potential buyers. Somehow I can't believe that. Anyhoo, just some of my musings. Carry on, lads...

[Kevster]

@Ivan,

They likely really used "Vacant Land" as a simile for "buildable site." In this case, keeping the cottage and pool would have allowed for some flexibility, but I'd almost bet that the property was marketed with a house already planned for the site. The buyer may have done something different than that plan, but there was probably a redevelopment plan that just didn't pan out for the seller in that deal.

Money issues, life changes, or development challenges could have caused the problem.

No matter the reason they sold it, it was UNDERdeveloped at the time of sale.