The New York Times takes us inside a pied-a-terre in the Osborne building on 57th Street. In the renovation of her two-bedroom apartment, novelist Elinor Lipman wanted to blend her family's modern taste with "the period flavor of the Osborne, which was built in 1883 to 1885."...






Her pied-a-terre is bigger than my full-time residence! Note to self: write several best-selling novels and marry a radiologist.
The lobby is amazing, but I don't see anything special about the decor. I can't believe it took two designers to come up with this.
view jooly's profile
BO-RINGGG
view swizz's profile
Zzzzzz...
view hejiranyc's profile
I'm going to have to say "boring" too. When I think of pre-war I think of high ceilings (are those high? I can't tell), more moldings, beautiful hardwood floors, etc. This just looks bland.
view suziegoombs's profile
Yes, I thought pied-a-terre was a SMALL place away from home. I'm surprised the comments have been so kind. I expect more from AT viewers. I have a 325 sq. ft. apartment and most of how I've done it up and gotten rid of things has been due to AT viewer's comments. I think the living room in this place is dreadful in that it's crowded, cramped and just plain boring. There's no colour. Yuck!
view sierraberra42's profile
yeah, I wasn't impressed with the decor or design either - but she did get the apartment for a steal (just over $600K for a 2 bedroom) in a posh building in a prime negihborhood.
view ndvheller's profile
I don't know why, but this place is so fug to me. It reminds me of the "modern" interior decorating from 1992 that is just super tacky now.
view pileofkittens's profile
Drab and Dull - what a waste of newspaper copy.
view bepsf's profile
yeah.. it's clean and new, but show me the prewar!
Without the article, I would have guessed this was a modern construction.
Renovated to death :(
view ce_pelle's profile
This is absolutely perfect! Perfect at showing how lame the New York Times is, that is. This is just further proof that the Times' obsession with poofy fluff pieces completely devoid of substance has reached an epic low.
Just like the sad fact that there is nothing special about this once great paper, there is absolutely nothing special about what was undoubtedly once a great apartment.
Frankly I'd expect more from AT. I saw the photo and thought it was a before shot! Sadly, no.
Snooze-city
view jmg920's profile
ew. just ew.
view Seaside's profile
i agree with pileofkittens. It is totally 1992-"modern".
This took two designers? I mean...i guess the throw pillows are pretty coordinated....I guess...
snore!
view inertia's profile
The interior renovation makes the place feel more contemporary than period. The furnishings only emphasize the contemporary nature of the upgrades. I really don't get the sense of any "blending" of periods.
For my money, no one blends period detail with contemporary furnishings better than Catherine Memmi. And some how she manages to do it without resorting to the Kelly Wearstler-style "glam" costuming that has been all the rage.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaileguevara/389950037/
view RichardinLA's profile
This is awful. It's like a cheezy hotel, and her comments in the Times article are so inane. Hooray for mediocrity. I can only imagine how mundane her writing must be. Snooze.
view odbray's profile