apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Wow! Red Hook is hot!

I wish I could get a tour. Just kidding, but wow. And in the Hoook!

Correction: Carroll Gardens South.

The original article said it was on 18th Street near Greenwood Cemetery, which would make it "Park Slope South" in realtor's terms.

I hope the owners don't like to walk around their house in naught but their birthday suits.

i can't wait till the day i can afford enough square footage to have an entire room of my house empty but for one eames LC chair.

seriously, this is like the 5th house i've seen on AT that had that.

and yeah, i see from the next photo that it's not an entire room, per se, but still. come up with a different way to prove you're rich.

that yellow tile in one of those bathrooms is amazing. i love it.

Like a fishbowl, but nice -- for safety, I'd want some type of window cover, particularly since it sits right on a street.

Wow! Look at the colored tile!

Too bad this is not something I could ever afford.

The opoponax--the place cost the owner $260k originally, and he expected to spend $75k to renovate. He had scraped together 10% down, took out a second mortgage for another 10%, and took out another loan to finance the reno. The guy is not "rich." He's a documentary filmmaker. He begged, borrowed, and probably had to steal a bit to get this done.

The pictures give an impression that the house is not practical . Chairs scattered all over the place. No place to Lounge or hang out.

Was it only built to put a roof over the owner's head? An expensive roof I must say.

Do they not have a couch or anything? Where do they sit to hang out?

I wish there were more of these built in Brooklyn . . .

After reading his expenditures to redo his home, perhaps he, at the moment, doesn't have the money for a couch that would fit into his design. He seems to have discriminating tastes, so I'd venture to guess he's saving up to purchase a really special couch, befitting his new digs or, perhaps, for the purpose of this photo shoot he took a couch out as it didn't go with the ambience. He's a young man who has accomplished much, at this point, I imagine he's pefectly happy to hang out on my bed until he can get just the right couch. That probably goes for the lack for window treatment.

"I imagine he's pefectly happy to hang out on my bed..." Freudian slips are funny. :)

Great house and at $260k a great value - even in Miami terms.

I see a lot of designy houses lately without couches. I wish I could tolerate that - couches are so visually heavy and ugly.

tom, $260k was the original price, estimated reno was $70k. Renovation became a soul-sucking nightmare, costs spiralling to $400k, it sounds like. so this place cost the guy upwards of $600k in the end, but the bank has recently reappraised at over 1 million. still, probably a bargain by NY standards.

ocgrl:) LOL!!!! HEHEHEHE -- one can only wish, since I'm way, way older than him! :)

opoponax wrote:
> come up with a different way to prove you're rich.

I don't think he'd qualify for most definitions of rich. You obviously didn't read the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/garden/06brooklyn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Also, that's not his chair! The first thing I noticed in these photos is, that the Architects "set" the front room differently for their shoot, than the owner has it for the shoot the New York Times did. I recommend checking out the Architect's website. It has more photos, especially nice ones of the bathroom.

i'm aware that the architect who is the subject of this thread didn't necessarily do the interiors.

Agostinho's work is very nice.

while $260,000 is 'cheap' for new york real estate, it's still a lot of money. it's a lot more money than most people in this country or this world have access to. furthermore, the ability to raise 400K for trendy renovations is extremely atypical. that is an INSANE amount of money. even the ability to go into that kind of debt is shocking. even the ability to "beg and borrow" that kind of money is astounding, it and implies that one comes from it.

also, i'm sorry, while i have nothing against high end furniture (and i really love the Eames' work), the more iconic eames chairs really do seem to be a status symbol of sorts. which is not to say that everyone who buys them is wealthy, just that it's something upwardly mobile people buy in order to show off to their guests that they can afford such things. especially when you see them all alone in an empty space far away from any other seating, the dining room table, etc. what that says to me is, "i can blow hundreds of dollars on a chair i don't even use!" not to mention that i've seen very few NYC homes that have that much unused space. while it's true that even someone on a budget could save up for one measly eames chair, i've seen this so many times that it has started to set off a 'status whore' red-alert in my mind, along with that flat-screen-over-the-mantle bullshit.

the fact that it's such a cliche doesn't help, either.

Somehow, I would have thought that taking on an extra $400k in debt -- when one doesn't have a steady job -- wouldn't qualify for the simple living-cum-"accepting poverty as cool" that was a thread topic just a few days ago. This project sure looks like a case of taking on huge debt in order to have all the stylish stuff now.

But I'm not sure about the new translation of "simple living" as "buy the high-end item" anyway.

After reading the article, I can't help but think: Didn't this jackass hire a competent inspector?

When you look at a bit shy of 700k to an APPRASIAL of over a million figure he probably coulda bought a place for 700k in the beginning and had the same appreciation without the headaches.

Happy it worked out for him, though.

Bobby

Wende-

I've noticed several of your posts recently and I couldn't agree more.

One of the reasons I visit AT on a daily basis and reccomend it to all of my renting friends is that at one point AT was focused on making living in crappy apartments more pleasurable through clever ideas, good design, sharing with others and a bit of DIY. As of late AT has drifted from what I believe to be the original thrust: "changing the world, one apartment at a time"

I love ultra high-end design, DWR, Eames objects of desire and super-slick architecture as much as the next guy and if I wanted that I could get it EVERYWHERE else. I love(ed) AT because it addressed the rest of us who work on a budget, RENT our places and generally exist in the liminal zone of comprimise.

It's a bit disappointing to load the site and constantly see half-million dollar homes, $5000 couches, $600 a galon paint and a slow but steady drift to a high-design blog.

Take a break AT, think about what it means to be a basic renter and returnt to what made the site so good.

Wonderful home, if not a bit too exposed to the busy street.

Can anyone provide me with the company or name of the book shelves they use down the legnth of their livingroom/diningroom. I'd love to purchase a similar system.

Thanks.

Most of the comments here fall into the "we hate everything above us" zone.

T.P. -- the shelves look like elfa or a similar system, with wood shelves instead of the white wire ones. i've seen that option available on the elfas at the container store. it's possible that the immitations available at Bed, Bath & Beyond, Ikea, and the like offer the same thing. either way, they should be pretty easy to find.

i do have to admit that this place is relatively well thought out (though for 400K i would expect at least that). this is the one Huge Wall Of Books that looks attractive and not like living in a Barnes & Noble.

opoponax: Why do you feel it necessary to speak in proclamations and place value judgements on anything that doesn't fit into your own personal parameters of taste or your value system? Do you really think that hiding behind the aptly-chosen opoponax moniker excuses the boorish tone of your comments? Listen, I'm all for a good debate or exchange of ideas. But your comments tend to be a bit one-note: negative and judgemental. Even your complimentary comments come off as back-handed or a concession. Why do you continue to begrudge others' good fortune or the fruits of their hard work? I'm really curious about this because there has to be more to you than the negative opinions you tend to post on the threads. I'd like to think that you exhibit more tact in real-life interactions, but maybe I'm assuming incorrectly?

On topic... I think the house is fantastic. I love the look of the exterior and airiness of the interior. I'd gladly live in a fishbowl if I had a house like this.

I love this house. I love it. I was so jealous when I read the article in the Times...and yet...what really bothered me was how much financial risk this guy took on. He maxed out credit cards; he hit up friends; even, as the article put it, convincing his mother to take another mortgage on her home.

I guess I am uncomfortable celebrating the risks someone was willing to make when more than his own interests were at stake. What if this story had ended differently? Who would have bailed him out? Who would have bailed his MOTHER out?

I don't mean to sound holier-than-thou, but isn't there another part of this story besides pant-panting over gorgeous real estate? The homeowner joked about how freaked out he was that buying a house meant he was really an adult -- um, I think part of being an adult means exercising some judgement about life choices. This guy got lucky that the limb he walked out on ended up being strong enough to hold him.

It is lovely, but I personally could not stand that much exposure (though all those windows are great in theory). But Bobby Jones is right (though I wouldn't call the owner a jackass). He ended up spending the price of a beautiful home in "lesser parts" of Brooklyn--though granted, he wouldn't have been able to customize. (But he also wouldn't have had to go through renovation.)

I also think JenDC has a point. This guy better thank his lucky stars that the market didn't tank while he was doing this, or that he somehow ruined his mother or whatever. I also think this is what opoponax is driving at, in part, and I also think her viewpoint is usually interesting, because there aren't many people who post "X is not not affordable for most people"--and a lot of what is posted here is not affordable for most people. Yes, this blog is about design, but it's important that the whole spectrum is celebrated here, imo.

I agree with JenDC. I read the story in the Times and cringed at the idea of this guy talking his mother into mortgaging her own house so he could build this palace of uber-hipdom. Yuk.

Maxxing out your credit cards for a discretionary house renovation? Borrowing thousands of dollars from friends? The final result is beautiful to look at but I think the choices it represents are ugly.

I'm seeing more and more of these stories about extravagant renovations requiring assumption of massive debt... and the tone of the articles usually is this kind of breezy "haha, oh well it all worked out in the end." Maybe sometimes it does, but I'd rather celebrate people who creatively live within their means and don't risk sending their elderly mother to the homeless shelter.

Joseph wrote:
> Most of the comments here fall into the
> "we hate everything above us" zone.

Yes, it seems to have turned into the class warfare thread.

How is it class warfare? The owner isn't rich, and he went into massive debt, asking his mother to mortgage her own home (with all the risks that can entail). I don't think anyone has anything against the rich or the poor; just massive debt that could have been avoided.

I was not referring to Rob's posting. I was referring to all the others, like...

...come up with a different way to prove you're rich.

...it's something upwardly mobile people buy in order to show off to their guests that they can afford such things.

...Was it only built to put a roof over the owner's head? An expensive roof I must say.

...I'm not sure about the new translation of "simple living" as "buy the high-end item" anyway.

...It's a bit disappointing to load the site and constantly see half-million dollar homes, $5000 couches, $600 a galon paint and a slow but steady drift to a high-design blog.

... those comments.

Right on, chris(nyc). For me, much of the commentary on this thread takes away from the achievement of the final product. Yes, the story behind the house makes for good copy and is ripe for debate. But there's no denying the beauty of the architecture. And whether the interiors are to your taste or not, this is a good example of this aesthetic.

$700,000, even in South Park Slope will buy a studio or a dumpy one-bedroom. This house was the smartest investment this guy could ever make.

Why poor people are sooo amère? And why do you comme here if it is painful for you to rejoyce of others people fortune/taste?

(dont start correcting my spelling/grammar unless your french is better than my english)

It's a bit disappointing to load the site and constantly see [snip] a slow but steady drift to a high-design blog.

***

Sadly, I agree with this comment. I've noticed AT becoming increasingly twee, increasingly focussed on the "aspirational" end of things to the exclusion of right-here, right-now solutions for working Janes and Joes on a budget. It's sad.

Wondering if the number of windows/design are for "solar gain" to reduce winter fuel costs? And, in taking another look, it appears on the backside of the home the upper windows have a mirror film as the trees in the backyard are reflected. In the architects photos, simple window shades have been added to provide privacy.

RE FINANCING: the house can now be sold at a huge profit. My quess is that he was willing to obtain aggressive financing because it's for the short-term, in that he intends to turn this house around for the purpose of a huge proft.

Like I said, I think the house is lovely. But given the inspector thread the other day, I've got to think that the guy was not smart to not get an inspection. I mean, hello, there was no foundation! I'm sorry, but I think it's fair that that factors into the discussion.

He basically made a huge mistake and had to rectify it through "aggressive financing" that was not part of the original plan. And yes, you can buy a house in close-by Windsor Terrace (and a few other areas), at least, for $700k or even less. I have no idea about South Park Slope, but I did google and find houses for $700k.

I don't think it's about class or income, but given the site's slant on "simple living/high design," people are questioning if this really fulfills the simple living part, because there is a lot of debt involved. It DOES fulfill the high design part.

Plus, I don't think other posters should tell people what they can and can't post about. JMO.

Julian -

I agree with you 100% - as I have said in earlier posts, I was initially drawn to this site because it dealt with living well in space spaces (The article on Maxwell alerted me to AT) and we have come soooo far from that.

However, the house is lovely. And, if given to me, would not turn it down.

The guy did get an inspection--however, considering the inspector missed the red flag of the hand dug foundation, one has to wonder how competent he was.


Nice to see others noticing the same change and attitude here on the site.

Watch it people, JEALOUSY is a bad emotion, which can cause CANCER! I'm reminded of a designer's statement I read in a magazine recently:

"I'm a collector and designer who loves a mix of things. I like super-high-end finds and super-low-end ones. But I don't like medium."

The best blogs are diverse.

Eddie -- I was thinking the exact same thing. He took on more risk than I could have ever lived with, but in the end he probably made at LEAST $300K over his initial investment.

This is a great site -- i look at it every day, find all kinds of great comments and somehow feel a bit more connected to my NY community.

That said -- some folks take this stuff and themselves WAY to seriously.

I wonder if the drift to high-end design blog can in part be blamed on posters who bitch about house tours that are full of dishes in the sink instead of Eames chairs in the living room.

T.P.
The bookshelves look very similar to those manufactured by ISS designs.

http://www.issdesigns.com/

Haha,

We're all so damn ornery. I propose no AT before morning coffee!

I think most of us really love to look a the cream of the crop- the designs are beautiful and elegant, the objects are sexy and lust-worthy etc... I believe the complaints arise out of a constant barage of the ultra-high end; stuff that's not practical for the rest of us or for that matter so far out of reach that it doesn't even exist in our worlds.

Often I am whiney and post about the uber-high end stuff, and part of that is because I'm jealous as hell that I can't afford a wonderful house (I asked my mother if she'd buy me a house- let's just say that I hung up the phone after the laughter continued well into the I'm-crying-it's-so-funny phase)

Perhaps AT needs to organize a bit and have "High-End-Friday" where the really fancy homes are showcased, and "DIY-Monday" where the homes are assembled by crafty solutioners, "Budget-Tuesday" where it's shown how a $20 Target trip can result in a super solution...

AT ought to be a source of inspiration (high end professional stuff) motivation (the DIY'ers) and of course a resource for ideas, discourse and sources...

Sorry fo the tangential post- I'm already on my 3rd cup o' joe; maybe there should be no posting AFTER 2 cups of coffee...ha!

HAPPY WEEKEND!

Now the thread gets interesting. I don't really see a pronounced editorial drift of this blog toward the high end. And even if there is more coverage of higher-end homes, products or services on any given day, I don't think it's intended or that it's contrary to the mission statement of AT. (It's not as if we're reading an online version of The Robb Report.) As someone pointed out to me last night, innovation tends to trickle down from the high-end to the low. So the reperesentation of high-end subject matter serves a good purpose on this site.

The aspirational is just as valid in the spectrum of design coverage, whether it's in the majority of this readership's price range or not. People can find inspiration everywhere. Why limit the inspirational sources on this site to just the lower-end or to DIY? I've learned a lot from this site over the past year and a half because of the wide spectrum represented here. A diversity of coverage increases the site's pool of ideas. As does a diversity of personalities and comments on the thread. And I do appreciate this full spectrum of ideas and opinions, despite what my occasional (ok, maybe frequent) sniping might indicate.

(And now for that first cup of coffee!)

Can anyone source the multi-bulbed, modern chandelier fixture in the bedroom (seen on the architect's website)? I've seen a lot of fixtures like this recently but not quite sure where it's available to the general public.

Thanks...Matt

Matt,
not a perfect match, but do any of these come close? (bulbs available in amber or frost)

http://www.formplusfunction.com/7650.htm
http://www.formplusfunction.com/7651.htm
http://www.formplusfunction.com/7649.htm

Class wars and editorial quality aside can't we all agree that this guy REALLY needs to get some remote control window shades?! Ehhhh? Ehhhhhh?! :) :)

"Grandma, so I'm going to need you to take out a mortgage too. Don't worry though, I'm totally good for it!"


The Coffee is ready!

I agree with Julian's sentiments and hope people at AT will think about weaving a bit more budget-conciousness back into their writing. It seems like most of the more financially-practical posts are reserved for the "Good/Difficult Questions" and "Scavenger" sections and some of us are just saying we wish there were more here that was truly attainable. I love Julian’s suggestions about reorganizing the site with new sections for people like me.

I love love love reading about high end design, and this blog would not be nearly as fun, interesting, or inspiring without the $70 dog bowls or million dollar homes. I think Julian and Enrique both have important POV's. There IS a trickle down effect in design and I think the trickle is happening faster now than ever before. Low-end retailers are seeing that people want practical, useful, affordable, and BEAUTIFUL products. So I think this Target-Ikea (and now, even Wal-Mart) trend makes it so much easier for a site like AT to be able to focus on the budget-concious reader without compromising its good taste.

It IS difficult for the low-end market to compete with the high-end one, as we saw with the winners of the Small, Cool contest. But it’s clear to me that a lot of fellow readers value the ability to design within challenges---whether they are spacial, or financial, or both. There are always going to be people on this site who wish it were more- or less- high end. Why not make the editorial spotlights more balanced, so we all have more choices? What about having an additional site: AT Practical Living, for those of us living beautifully within our means (maybe even with some spotlights on green living too)? Do we really want to get to that point, though? Segregating ourselves by class, values, or aspirations just to avoid conflict? Personally, this has been one of the more interesting threads I’ve read in a long time.

Oh, also: this house is pretty. :)

"I started with really low expectations," Mr. Petersen said. "I wanted level floors and a dry basement."

seriously?

i love the house too, its amazing. but i have to side with the opoponax and everyone else in that corner - whether or not the eames chair is his, its a status symbol and its a deliberate projection of an image one wants to present. fine by me. but lets please just call it as it is and stop with the false modesty. its not about jealousy, its just annoying to pretend that furniture like that is commonplace. the chair is just an example of the overall attitude i see in some of these posts. doesnt mean i dont like looking at it, but come on. it is what it is.

Is the architect's website not working for anyone else?

MEOW .... just an observation:

"squixan," who supports "opoponax" in the above statement, curiously, has the same, unusual, manner of writing as "opoponax", in that they both do not capitalize their sentences -- just found that of interest; maybe they are related? MEOW

megan: Such a coincidence you should mention the democratization of design ideas via the big-box retailers. I was talking offline with Jon (one of the AT:LA editors) about his wonderful blog Happy Mundane www.happymundane.com He covers a lot of this ground on this site. In fact, I've been trying to convince him to start up a regular feature on the LA site that would focus on specifc products or product lines from the big-box retailers. You're absolutely right--with the success of IKEA and Target in this arena, even mass-retailers WalMart is stepping up its home decor game. (Have you seen their '70s-inspired bold graphic beddings?) So, how about it, Jon? Big-Box Wednesday?

Also, Vanessa/Turquoise from the LA site often sources out mass-retailers and resale shops to work her design magic on a budget. She just recently posted a Craig's List find (a used IKEA sofa) that she reupholstered and now has in her living room.

And regarding green living, Gregory on the LA site addresses many of those concerns in his posts. (In fact, he's been bugging me to interview a friend who's on LA's council for community gardens--a very topical issue here in LA with the recent closing of the South Central Farm community garden.)

[End of shameless plug for the LA site.]

i speak for myself only in that the all lowercase style is a little something i like to call laziness. i'm okay with that. and also okay that you felt the need to go there. not sure how its relevant but its all good ;)

I want to apologize for my last post (the "meow" one) -- regret having made it. I failed to keep it all in perspective.

no need to apologize :)

have a great weekend

Oh, I love happymundane.com. (Although I don't know which I like best, the content or the great name!) I didn't know that Jon was the Jon of AT-LA. Thanks for the post, Enrique.

PS Did you all see Vanessa/Turquoise fab pad (and fab self) on SSBS? Neat to see an AT contest entrant in action!

Thanks ocgrl but those fixtures aren't quite what I'm looking for. The fixture on the architect's site has more bulbs and is more "compact" (for lack of a better description). These fixtures from F+F have more of a loose, spaghetti look...a little to dangly.

I'll keep looking--I know I've seen this piece somewhere. I tried emailing the architect as well but haven't heard back yet.

Matt

squixan is not me.

also, i'm fine with class war. maybe it's not on topic here, and that's ok -- if it's agreed that discourse on status/class/whatever is not relevant to this site, i will try to cut down on how much i talk about it here.

but this vein of conversation is one of the things that keeps me interested in AT. design for the home (much like fashion) is ALL ABOUT class and status and images one would like to project. and the cliche 'lonely eames chair' is a prime example of that.

i have to admit, though, that i am not a capitalist. i hate the fact that economic class structures exist in this country (and worldwide). i hate the fact that we can sit here talking about how a $700,000 home is "a bargain", and designer furniture is "an accesible splurge", while people all over the world starve. or to bring it on topic, while most americans rent nondescript white boxes and shop at walmart, of necessity.

i will disparage the well-off on all counts. most of all, though, for employing transparent and banal status-symbol decorating gimmicks. i mean, if you have the money and want to reward yourself for your hard work, fine. but if what that means is putting a huge flatscreen TV over the fireplace in the formal parlor you never use in your 4-story brownstone you occupy alone, i'm sorry, but that's wasteful, offensive, and bordering on immoral. and i'm going to call that as i see it.

perhaps others don't share my opinions, or are made nervous by them. but you know what's more carcinogenic than jealousy? guilt.

People, it's a freaking chair. Get over it. It's a chair, and it's very pretty, and it's quite popular. It stinks when people start attaching so much cultural and class baggage to a nice bit of design.

Now excuse me while I finish pimping my Barcelonas with 24" spinning gold plated rims. Once I'm done everyone will have to worship my bank account and acknowledge my modern design meets street cred.

From now on the site will be split into two DMZs:

Estate Therapy where you need to meet a minimum net worth as evaluated by the AT family bankers to log in.

And

The Peoples Republic of DIY where anyone paying more than $100 for any object will be publicly ridiculed as a counter revolutionary and exiled to Siberia.

I heard that zing all the way from the west coast Max :D

I don't disparage the wealthy. Wealth is fine. I will not turn down any wealth I can get my hands on by ethical means and/or buying lottery tickets.

I do find it interesting that on Monday, AT is promoting "simple living" in a thread that specifically called for being content with what one has and not going into debt to be aspirational -- and on Thursday, the feature is a guy who took on massive debts well beyond what's appropriate for his income (and persuaded his mother to take on debt she wasn't thrilled about) in order to have it all, right now.

Enrique: Thanks for pointing me over to AT:LA and Happy Mundane. It looks like there's a lot of great stuff going on over there and I'm looking forward to catching up on it all...

One thing I have to add about the debt issue. This guy had balls and took some risk. I'm sure by now he's refinanced with a nice mortgage and all the credit card debt is wiped away and his mother is paid back.

Now he's sitting on a pile of equity and has a mortgage.

If you think of his construction as a small business he did really well. He took some risk with creative financing to start the business, including investment by a parent (who took on debt to provide the capital). He didn't go out there and buy something that would depreciate with this money, he created a serious piece of capital.

People are going to stop posting pics of their renovations if every time they do someone jumps all over them for spending money on an emaes chair or sticking a plasma tv over their mantle.

Reef, I think people like AT because of the original design ideas that people see in other people's homes. In that respect, I can't quite blame them for jumping on those who display predictable, unoriginal, group-think type solutions to problems that most apartment-dwellers have. This is one reason I love the Shaker house pics that Maxwell posts--they're a lyrical antidote to all the carefully staged, uber matchy, house porn decor that dominates the sensibility here.

Hi Folks,

Someone sent me the link to this site, and I was surprised and more than a little mortified about the debate going on about my both private and public house.

To clarify a few facts regarding the class debate. In the architectural photographs, we didn't own any of the Eames chairs or other designer furniture, because frankly, we had both lived in tiny apartments and and didn't own any! The architects brought that in. Even in the Times story, some of the furniture was borrowed from friends who lent us chairs from storage.

Secondly, I bought the house, because it looked like the only thing I could afford. Even with the inspector's bleak report, the place seemed, with a modest renovation, like a good deal and would cost less than my rent, if I had a roommate. The inspector could not have known that the foundation wasn't sound without tearing apart the walls.

Lastly, I'm glad that AT and the Times featured the house, because it really is something that artists can own, though I would council them on ways to do it differently. I don't come from family money, and every dime I put into the house came through hard labor. By the time I borrowed money from my mother, I felt sure that even if the market crashed, I would always be able to at least break even and pay her back. In retrospect, I see ways to do it more responsibly -- getting a construction loan instead of asking family or relying on credit cards, but this was all I knew from my experience in finishing documentaries. Having struggled to gather the last money for films to premiere at Sundance, I can say that a house proves a safer bet for financial success.

I don't want to turn the house around and sell it for profit, because where would we live? We just want a stable home, while subletting a room to keep the mortgage manageable, and not worry about rent hikes, like every New Yorker. It took two and a half years of Hell, because we didn't have the financial means, but I had an indefatigable will, a few creative ideas, and a vision of the finished house.

We're looking forward to the day, when we can afford a couch. In the meantime, it’s a happy coincidence that the minimalism makes the place look so nice.

Best Wishes,
David

P.S. We also have shades, bought at Ikea.

wende, this posting of the architects pictures sounds like a very simple, innocent sequence of events that ppl are blowing way out of proportion when it comes to what AT represents.

Surely you must know that AT has always posted summaries of the H&H section? Thus if Maxwell gets an email with more pics from the architect of a featured home should he refuse to publish them because some ppl on this forum want more DIY and cheaper stuff?
In the past I have posted numerous links to DIY and cheap stuff that never get much interest.

As to the Eames and Breuer stuff, and the foolhardy purchase and refinancing of this house by the owner, I can agree with what a lot of ppl are saying here. A very very lucky fellow with cliched taste. But I don't bedgrudge him anything. I'm thankful his mother didn't get screwed.

BTW, this post is really about a talented Brooklyn architect that could help some of us NYCers but no one seems to care.

Scratch that comment about cliched taste.

Thanks for the explanation David.

Isn't it funny that we all run off with wild theories, asuming the worst, and we find that nearly all of our assumptions are wrong once we get the simple explanations from the person we are judging?

David,

Thanks for braving the crowd and posting clarification! I was wondering about the high-end furniture, but I just figured it was part of the debt or something.

Kind of scary to realize that an inspector can't tell you if your house is in danger of falling down...I think I'm just going to block that thought out.

Good luck with the house! It really is beautiful, and at least a terrible situation turned out well for you.

jamie pup,
I care.

mortgage debt is good debt
It is seriously different than shoe and sushi debt

I was TERRIFIED when I got a mortgage
in much the same way the houseowner talks about
with that feeling of uh-oh *grown-up*
the fact is, he (and I) made a great investment
that skyrocketed in value
by paying what we'd have to pay in RENT
every month

I'm sure his mom made her own rational choices
she took out a mortgage for the house, not the films

David Peterson, I don't mean that in a disparaging way
I'm just familiar with indie filmmaking
Thanks for visiting AT and for putting your excellent place out there for others to see and hopefully emulate. And not getting defensive about it! You're a H'nH rock star!
Park Slope has mostly ugly clone-ish new construction, so we have extra appreciation around here for lovely renos.
Y'all did a GREAT job!

Tell all the people who have ARMs and have over-extended themselves that all mortgage debt is good debt when the interest rates go up again. Mortgage debt within your means is good debt.

Lola, if we are going to be putting words in peoples' mouths can we at least put some better ones in? How about "debt taken out by others to buy Max shoes and sushi is good debt." Or perhaps "Let's take up a collection to buy Max's wife thousands of dollars of La Perla lingerie."

No one said ALL mortgage debt is good debt.

David: Thanks for braving the crowd and posting your comment! Beautiful house. Congratulataions.

I love that he responded, especially to the comments about needing shades! :D

Fantastico!

Hi Matt -

Any luck identifying the bedroom light fixture?

just wanted to visit this one more time.

i think the fact that the eames chair doesn't even belong to David makes this whole thing even more bizarre and fucked up. and it underscores even more the idea of high end design furniture (especially certain iconic pieces) as status symbols. they are used in photos like these to make a certain point. something like, "i have more money than you." or, considering that the architecture firm takes these photos as a showcase of their work, and the times features them as a counterpoint to their advertising and 'cool stuff you should buy' columns, they're not only working on that level, but also as advertising. this smart, creative, wealthy guy has an eames chair. so should you. we design the kinds of homes you might want to decorate with that eames chair you just forked over $400 for at DWR. the whole thing becomes an incredibly complex artifact of exactly the kind of lifestyle i always thought AT was against. whether engineered by the homeowner or not.

also, nothing i ever said was meant to be insulting to David. my original post deplored the status gimmick itself and its use here. if the chair doesn't belong to David and he didn't put it there, then what i said doesn't apply to him.

as far as spending that kind of money on a house, well guess what. it's still out of the reach of most people. you can buy all the Ikea shades you want and a $700,000 house is still out of the reach of most people. if the $700,000 house appreciates in value to a $1 million house, a $700,000 house is still out of the reach of most people.

again, what i said about guilt.

Hi All,

I agree that all debt is not good debt, and mortgage debt can be the most perilous. I kept doing the math as I went, knowing that in the end, we'd have a rental space and if worst came to worst, I'd taken on several roomates. Now, with a rental in the basement, it will come to what I once paid in rent, maybe a little more.

I've never carried debt very long, even when finishing films, because I managed to recoup what I put in through whatever sales I could scrape together. In many ways, the house became an obsessive, monomaniacal art project that I believed in, despite the fear. I wouldn't do it again that way, but what did I know? I probably wouldn't make a film again if I cared about the pitfalls.

Thanks to everyone for their comments. Great site and debate.

Best Wishes,
David

julian wrote:
> Perhaps AT needs to organize a bit and
> have "High-End-Friday" where the really
> fancy homes are showcased, and "DIY-Monday"
> where the homes are assembled by crafty
> solutioners...

That's actually a really great idea.

So opoponax, if the chair isn't his but was placed in the photo by third parties for a photoshoot about building a house on a budget how can it be projecting wealth?

Who exactly is the person flashing the status of the "having more money than you?" At this point that would be like arguing that the mere existance of an object necessitates a complex social structure be built around it.

One might as well say that by including the Ikea shades he is showcasing an un-status symbol.

I think you are projecting your own views onto a piece of bent plywood.

Social constructs *are* built around objects -- that's why Design is such a big deal, also why Material Culture is a hot academic area lately.

If I understand Opo's point, someone felt the house did not convey the Right Image with the owner's furniture (or lack thereof) and therefore styled it with objects of desire precisely so that NYT readers would have the appropriate social constructs triggered. The house was staged to convey a certain image that was more saleable to readers.

Design and taste are all about constructing one's place in the social order. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- it makes for more social mobility than getting status from your family, for instance -- but it's disingenuous to stage a house high-end and then say the high-end accessories don't mean anything.

Sylvia,
Yes, I found it. I emailed the architect and found out that the fixture was made/sold by David Allen Gallery in Brooklyn (it's called the Atomic Chandelier).

Turns out, the gallery and the fixture were featured on AT about a couple years ago (AT did a little DIY feature on this chandelier--it's essentially made up of bulbs and electrical sockets). I tried to go to the gallery's website but it seems to be down. Also tried to call but the phone is out of order and no longer listed. I get the feeling they might have gone out of business.

I live in Chicago--anyone in NY know what happened to this place?

Matt

Matt,
I think I saw the Atomic at Matter,
also in Bklyn, also profiled on AT
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/park-slope/matter-solo-modern-design-store-000163

worth a shot, before you have to go DIY . .

Thanks for the lead, Guido. Looks like the Matter website is still under const. I'll call...maybe they know what happened to David Allen Gallery.

M

wende, you see my point exactly.

and max, if the eames chair was 'just a bit of bent ply', then why are people willing to pay so much for it? bent ply in and of itself is pretty cheap to produce. in fact, the reason the Eameses chose that medium (and their other materials) was because it was widely available and relatively easy to process, as well as lightweight to ship, etc. etc. all of their furniture that went into wide production was very cost effective to manufacture at the time (this is why La Chaise is such a big deal now -- it was too expensive to justify wide production, so very few were ever made). you can get bent ply furniture from Target for $20. Eames furniture is so expensive and sought-after precisely BECAUSE it's such a status symbol.

if it was 'just a bit of bent ply' people would have 8 or 10 around the dining room table and never think twice about it. they would very rarely be displayed in the entryway of a home or as occasional accent pieces.

i remember 7-8 years ago when i saw MCM in the windows of antique shops in new york for the first time. you know what my first thought was? that new yorkers were weird for thinking something my grandparents had a garage full of was so desirable. which isn't to say i didn't think it looked cool, i just had no idea why anybody would consider it a valuable antique. i saw the Eames LCM and considered it 'just a bit of bent ply'. others clearly didn't.

High End? An Eames chair may seem high end to some people, but seriously folks, that chair is a relatively reasonably-priced design icon. It will hold its value over time, as well.

um.

the eames ply dining chair runs $350 apeice -- that's 10 times your average side chair at Ikea, twice most of the West Elm inventory, at the upper end of Crate & Barrel. is it the most expensive side chair you can find? no. is it out of the reach of most people? yes. a set of four eames side chairs would cost more than most midrange couches. that's definitely 'high end' in my book.

the eames bent ply lounge chair (the one most people seem to favor for 'look at me' home exhibition) is $579. that's more than my monthly rent. and this thing isn't even upholstered! again, most expensive chair ever? no. ridiculously inaccesible for most people? yes.

i'm sorry, but about the last thing i'd call an eames chair of any stripe is "reasonably priced". if you think an eames chair is "reasonably priced", you need to get out of the meatpacking district and see how the other half lives. because i can tell you this: they can't afford your "reasonably priced" designer furniture.

opoponax, it's becoming clear to me that it's pointless to discuss this.

It's amazing to me that someone who apparently makes their living in the design space would actually state that an iconic piece of 20th century design is expensive because it is a status symbol.

It's expensive because it's a great design. The $20 bent ply furniture from Target looks nothing like it.

And that $20 piece from Target is equivalent to a months pay for many people in the world, so let's not get into the debate of "reasonable price."

I'm done posting here, but I would encourage you to leave your political agenda at the door.

Wow... opoponax, I get it. You seem very passionate about your ideals and sincere about your world view, but I find your "I'm not a capitalist" posture to be a bit disengenuous (not to mention unrealistic) and your battle cry to disparage the well-off "on all counts" to be overly confrontational. Though many of your observations are astute and have validity, your judgemental tone and stereotyping of those not closer to your current socio-economic situation is off-putting and myopic. Many of us have been in your situation: early-to-mid 20s, a few years out-of-school, struggling to make a living in the big city. But, my god, all this sturm and drang to what end?

Let me ask you this, why do you bother coming back to the site if you find so much of the content to be offensive to your sensibilities and value system? Yeah, I get that you personally benefitted from the Cure threads and others' contributions to your Good Questions thread. But this site casts a pretty wide demographic net and seeks to be all things to all people. And you, opoponax, are not the only person in the audience. Can't you just let the rest of us enjoy our piece of the Apartment Therapy pie?

To everyone else, I sincerely apologize that so many of my recent posts have taken on a similar tone to this one. I realize that they are way off-topic and aren't at all constructive to the core discussion. And I fully recognize my part in perpetuating the pissing match that this thread has become. It sucks that I feel I've contributed negatively and have also commented harshly. It's just that I see the overall tone of these comment threads changing shifting; and I'll be damned if I don't voice my dissatisfaction. At any rate, I promise to refrain from these kinds of posts in the future. I'm hanging up my policeman's hat and avoiding the fray. I've got too many other things to juggle in my life outside of AT.

PS to Max. Can we see some pics of the pimp'd out Barcelonas with spinners?

wow. i didn't realize this site was 'not for me' because i have a problem with conspicuous consumption and like to point out the existence of socio-economic class as it rears its head on this website.

i like the majority of the content here at AT. if i didn't, i wouldn't come here. for instance, i'm not wild about the product-focused content of design*sponge, so i generally stay away rather than go over and troll her about being a capitalist pig or somesuch. i'm not a troll. i just disagree with you, Enrique.

unlike wende, i don't agree with the idea that class should exist. this is what i mean by 'i'm not a capitalist'. others will come into threads like this and say, "look, i'm a capitalist, too," as a conciliatory gesture after pointing stuff like this out. i don't. because i DON'T approve. and i hate the way we're required to uphold this system of retail "status" purchases when, frankly, it's ridiculous.

i understand that capitalism is the current economic system in the US and that that isn't going to change anytime soon. i realize that worldwide attempts at complete socialism and abolition of economic class have been grossly unsuccessful. that doesn't mean i have to "stop worrying and love the bomb" so to speak.

and to state in an explanatory way that high-end furniture is expensive simply because it's aesthetically pleasing is disgusting. do you really believe that anyone who can't spend $350 on a side chair doesn't deserve good design?

also, i'd like to point out that my original post in this thread was perfectly polite and on-topic and acceptable within the vein of AT posts. i feel a bit guilty for being a thread hog here. but all i've been doing is explaining myself. perhaps i should have let y'all have the last word, been the bigger person, etc. but in this case, i didn't. i happened to have been feeling a bit argumentative and have had the time and all that over the past few days. in future i won't go into these drawn out discourses on random architecture posts, becuase it's kind of off topic and not really fair.

Enrique, check it out. Just got it back from the chromer's last night. You should have seen me cruisin' back home.



Just in case images aren't allowed, you can click my name to check out my pimped Barcelona. Mies 4 Life!

opoponax: Perhaps I've mistaken your passion and fervor for mean-spiritedness and spite. Regardless, my attack on you was harsh, overly defensive, and in bad form. So, my apologies to you for that. I never meant to imply that there wasn't a a place for you here.

Fiona: I think you've misinterpreted my posts. I've never stated that there wasn't a place for a multiplicity of views on this site or that I'm intolerant of differeing opinions. Far from it. So, I'm not sure what your exact criticism of is. But with regard to your reprimand of my behavior or TONE of intolerance, I hear you loud and clear. I believe my previous "last comment" addressed that and tried to apologize for it. If it wasn't made clear on that comment. Well here it is again: "To everyone else, I sincerely apologize that so many of my recent posts have taken on a similar tone to this one. I realize that they are way off-topic and aren't at all constructive to the core discussion. And I fully recognize my part in perpetuating the pissing match that this thread has become..."

It's almost impossible to post in a thread on ideology without sounding pissy. Nature of the beast; not notably your fault, Enrique.

Honestly, the more that's said about social injustice, the poor, global warming, and so on, the more I feel like devoting myself to a life of frivolity.

Max: Sweet! I got a guy in the San Gabriel Valley who can hook you up with a hydraulic lift kit...

Opoponax -- Actually, my saying "I'm a capitalist too" isn't a conciliatory gesture. I teach in an MBA program, do admittedly minor scholarly research on corporate communication, consult occasionally, and play the stock market. There is no doubt whatsoever that I'm a capitalist.

Many of my relatives came to this country recently enough that I know a little too much about the peasant ideal of simplicity in countries untainted by corporate capitalism. Playing peasant can be great fun if you get to go home to the medical/dental care, education, civil rights, and abundance of a developed nation.

I choose not to play certain status games that go with the American class structure, but the key word here is CHOICE. Playing the game is open to me. Back in the old country, I never would have been invited to play (and would probably have died in childbirth a decade ago).

i don't play at being a peasant or glorify developing-world lifestyles. i'm very happy i have food on my table and a college degree and a nominal level of civil rights. except for perhaps the civil rights, there have been plenty of times in my life when i did not have access to the things you listed. i know what it is to go without food and shelter. i know what it's like when your health insurance policy is "don't get sick". i count my blessings every day that i have what i have.

i'm just not a capitalist.

i don't think money is the answer to very many of the world's problems.

i don't think the free market is a smart way to run an economy.

i don't think it's fair for some people to have almost everything, while others have almost nothing.

i don't think "choice" really enters into it, as millions of poor people right here in the good ole capitalist US of A do not have those choices (or civil rights, medical/dental care, education, abundance, etc.).

i think that here in the US, running medical care on a free market system has created a situation in which only the middle and upper classes have access to it. and education isn't far off from that.

i think corporate inroads into the developing world are probably hurting more than they are helping.

i wasn't meaning to attack you with that comment. i also am not meaning to change anybody's mind or make anybody feel guilty for their political/economic opinions. this is what i believe, and what i have believed for some time (it FAR predates my twenties). and i have heard MANY people (most not MBAs) state that conciliatory, "i mean, look, i'm a capitalist just like the next guy..." in discussions like this. it's not that i think they're lying, it's just, well, why is that relevant at all? class structures suck. pricing good design over the heads of the poor just because you can, just out of spite, sucks. it sucks for all of us, regardless of our pet economic systems.

I think opoponax has an interesting point about the chair being part of the props used bring the house up to a certain design standard. (And I must say that David seems like an interesting person and a straightforward kind of a guy, so I think he's brave for exposing his life here. I'm not picking on him in any way!) Not that I don't get WHY the architect did that, but it does perpetuate the keeping-up-with-the-Jones mentality--even when the Jones don't REALLY have any sofa, let alone a high-end one.

You know that you are one of my favorite posters, Enrique, but I don't see why there isn't room for the high-end view AND the more affordable view for people who can't afford high-end or who choose to spend their money on other things.

I guess I don't really get why there is conflict over this. I see other new posters who I find to be more intolerant of differing views, but for now, I'm keeping my mouth shut.

I can't believe I'm back. This thread is like the last Ken Shamrock/Tito Ortiz fight. You know it's going to be kind of lame but you can't help but watch.

I do have to agree with Opoponax about the pricing for spite. I know for a fact that spite is a major factor in Herman Miller pricing. I'm not supposed to share this, but I am going to post the Herman Miller pricing equation:

((M*L)*1.25)*SI

Where M = material cost, L = labor cost multiplied by a 25% profit margin, all multiplied by the Spite Index (rich capitalists please check your secret market influencing handbook for the latest update).

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Spite Index, it's a floating number between 0 and 4 determined by a group of bankers in Zurich on a quarterly basis. I've found that it generally tracks the minimum wage and counters the price of caviar.

The point is not that there can't be both high-end and low-end in one place. It's comments that imply that anything high-end is somehow morally bankrupt and without real value. I've seen some great low-end design here, but I think it's safe to say there is a lot of great "pricy" stuff out there and a price tag doesn't invalidate its qualities.

Enrique,

I think *my* comment was misinterpreted! I don't think that you don't tolerate differing views, and I think your apology was very gracious. Sometimes, certain posts/posters just rub people the wrong way. While I can understand why opoponax can be seen as coming across as negative (sorry for bringing your name into this post, opoponax!), I think it probably is just her passion/fervor, as you put it. But it's all interpretation, anyway. (I know I had one day where I just apparently could not state my opinion in a way that was clear!)

I was actually talking more about not understanding the conflict in general. I don't want this to turn into, say, Urbanbaby.com, where someone will post, "I don't really see the need for an $800 stroller," and instead of someone saying, "Well, here are my reasons..." someone says something like, "That's because you are poor and jealous and you wish you could be married to an investment banker, like I am!!!"

And it kind of seems like some posters this blog (and not you, Enrique) are going that way if anyone dares question anything high-end. Of course, the simple answer is that what's worth $500 to one person may not be worth $500 to another. And that's fine, and not a personal insult.

All of you go do some work and stop bitching like 13 year old girls! You are a sad lot. I feel for Mr. Petersen and his chair.

What's all the fuzz about that chair, it isn't even an Eames.

People buy these items for their object value and not to show they are rich.
Most vintage design collectors aren't even close to be rich.

The house is done very nice, it's the result that counts. Great job, well done!