One of Beverly Hills’ most anticipated new luxury hotel openings has been scrapped. Normally when hotel projects are canceled, it’s due to funding issues, or a property being resold. In this case it’s for a completely different reason…
In this post:
Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills was supposed to open in 2026
Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills was supposed to open in 2026. For those of you not familiar with Cheval Blanc, it’s a boutique uber-luxury hotel group that’s owned by LVMH (Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton). The brand currently has five locations, including in Courchevel, the Maldives, Paris, St-Barth, and St-Tropez.
I’ve stayed at Cheval Blanc Paris and Cheval Blanc Maldives, and these really are some spectacular properties, with amazing food and attention to detail. LVMH’s hotel strategy is interesting in general, as the company also owns luxury travel group Belmond, though Belmond and Cheval Blanc haven’t been integrated in any way.
There had been plans for Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills, which would have been a new 115-room property located on a 1.28-acre site on South Santa Monica Boulevard, between Rodeo Drive and Beverly Drive. The property would’ve also had a members-only club, restaurants, retail space, and a spa.
Voters cancel Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills project
In 2022, the Beverly Hills City Council approved plans for Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills. After all, Beverly Hills is no stranger to luxury brands, and the project would have also contributed nearly $800 million to Beverly Hills over the course of three decades. This would have included a 5% municipal surcharge paid to the city (in addition to the 14% transient occupancy tax), an arts and cultural contribution, a public benefit contribution, and more.
Despite that, the project faced some backlash, with Unite Here Local 11 and Residents Against Overdevelopment starting a campaign to stop the project. They had concerns that the construction would be an eyesore for the foreseeable future, and that this would make traffic in the city even worse. They managed to gather enough signatures for a special vote to take place.
Even though the city already approved these plans, the election posed two questions to voters:
- Whether they approved a zoning amendment that would allow the developer to build a substantially larger hotel than current rules would permit
- Whether they approved the city’s development agreement with LVMH
Turnout among voters was nearly 32%, and by a very narrow margin (around 51% to 49%), voters decided against both of these measures. That means that the Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills project has now been called off.
LVMH has confirmed that it will respect the outcome of the election, and won’t bring the hotel project back in any form. Now the question is what happens with the plot of land that was purchased.
Bottom line
Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills was supposed to open in 2026, and would have been the brand’s first property in North America. In what can only be described as a pretty rare move, there was enough opposition to this project so that a special election was held, and voters ended up rejecting this new hotel.
So there will no longer be a Cheval Blanc property coming to Beverly Hills. I’m curious to see what happens to this property next.
What do you make of Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills being called off?
I’m in Beverly Hills. The residents turned down the project because Bella Hadid is an antisemite and LVMH has her on payroll. That is the true story. You should update your article.
Lmao how did NIMBYS have this much power, they complain so much, no wonder infrastructure in this country sucks, rejecting airports, rejecting high-speed rails, rejecting metro expansion, rejecting power plants, and now rejecting a freaking hotel? No wonder this country is going in the backwards direction.
I suspect there is more to this, knowing how the BH community operates. Beverly Hills was Beverly Hills before the Dubais of the world, when Tehran, Caracas (Rio) and other places held sway with the global jetset.
Beverly Hills will always be Beverly Hills, but honestly, this hotel could open in West Hollywood or Santa Monica - and do gangbuster business, without the global cache of BH yesteryear fame.
As someone else mentioned, the...
I suspect there is more to this, knowing how the BH community operates. Beverly Hills was Beverly Hills before the Dubais of the world, when Tehran, Caracas (Rio) and other places held sway with the global jetset.
Beverly Hills will always be Beverly Hills, but honestly, this hotel could open in West Hollywood or Santa Monica - and do gangbuster business, without the global cache of BH yesteryear fame.
As someone else mentioned, the Waldorf took forever to be built, and disruption on SM Blvd was kept to a minimum. I suspect this hotel will get built once the local mafia Turks of BH and CC get their pockets lined enough.
Great Job! Scaring away businesses, smart plan!
A hotel union, Unite Here Local 11, leading the petition drive to vote against a new hotel................. why is the union leadership against a new hotel?
Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills took several years to get approved. They just need to keep trying.
It'd be beyond ironic if the next proposal is to tear it all down and build more retail. IIRC, that was the former site of the Luxe Hotel.
The Luxe hotel is further down Rodeo. LVMH purchased that recently. Currently vacant IIRC.
I suspect that the only reason voters rejected this plan is because only 32% of the electorate turned out to vote. These special elections regularly attract the most ardent supporters of the issue at hand who by their numbers in a small turnout can get something voted down that perhaps the electorate as a whole would have supported. Those who supported the project but didn’t bother to vote only have themselves to blame.
A tale as old as time... fringe wackjobs are the most ardent voters.
BH resident here. The yard signs were probably 80+% in favor and so were the community WhatsApp chats so I can only assume that it failed to pass due to a well organized opposition.
I would disagree with the NIMBY characterization. I would characterize it as exhaustion. I'm not saying I think the vote was the right decision but I understand the arguments. All of the public safety unions were for the project. Rodeo Drive (and the surrounding area) has been a construction yard for years. Chanel *just* finished a multi-year construction project that involved the demolition of a few structures, the raising of a behemoth new storefront, constant...
I would disagree with the NIMBY characterization. I would characterize it as exhaustion. I'm not saying I think the vote was the right decision but I understand the arguments. All of the public safety unions were for the project. Rodeo Drive (and the surrounding area) has been a construction yard for years. Chanel *just* finished a multi-year construction project that involved the demolition of a few structures, the raising of a behemoth new storefront, constant noise, and endless grit discharged into the air. Right across the street, Cartier *just* started a multi-year construction project that will be on par with the Chanel project. Then, there is the tenant improvement construction resulting from stores moving from one space to another. Easily, a dozen stores have moved in the past year or so.
Remember how they voted against the metro construction and spent millions campaigning against it on the grounds it was dangerous or only poor people use public transport who they don’t want, despite them cleaning their homes and working in retail and restaurants. Only to lose.
The “ purple line” is presently being built under Wilshire with stops at La Cienega and Rodeo.
@Kevin M, while that is definitely true, I don't think rejecting an ultra-luxury hotel that only the top 0.1% can afford to stay at is exactly comparable. It wouldn't have eased the housing crisis in any way (and in fact would take land away from a potential housing site).
That said, people should be able to build what they want to build within reason.
No way the intersection of Rodeo and Santa Monica would be anything but commercial. This is not a residential area to build housing on.
And even if it is zoned for residential, only the top 0.0001% will be able to afford a property there. Would be hilarious if they end up building social housing over there. Bet the residents would go bonkers!
Welcome to California, where NIMBYs hold sway over everything and are the reason the state finds itself in an epic housing crisis — due to a decades-long undersupply of market-rate homes/apartments.
Or in this case it’s more like BANANA: Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.
As a Los Angeles resident, I completely agree.
The NIMBY turnout is strong. With nothing but time, they come out in droves to block anything that's not single-family large lot development, increasing the need for cars in town.
It's a fascinating thing that you can't really understand until you get here. People would rather have vacant lots and undeveloped retail spaces than something that would help residents.