apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time


RainSky Showers by Dornbracht

md3992_210.jpgFrom AT LA, Alec has found the best pic yet of this shower system.

RainSky by Dornbracht is a stunning shower that comes in a variety of downward pours with names like RainSky, BigRain and JustRain.

The showers are integrated right into the ceiling so that there is no protruding showerhead.

While the website has a red letter warning about how "the showers are not yet able to meet any USA or Canadian building codes, product approvals or applicable law for use as a plumbing device...", it has to be only a matter of time, because let's face it, we Americans love our shower! Check them out. They look amazing!

 
 

Tags

faucets & hardware - kitchen & bath

Related Links

Share

Comments (18)

When I first saw pictures of this shower a few weeks back, I thought immediately of the 1967 Mario Bava comic-to-screen spy thriller "Danger: Diabolik" (starring John Phillip Law in the title role). There is a scene in which Diabolik and his partner-in-crime (and in bed) Eva enter his underground lair.

It's a prolonged sequence that is all about the set design. Each area of the lair looks like Verner Panton on steroids--boldly striped carport/turnatable with an overhead light fixture with a photo print of the surface of the moon, rotating multi-level round bed, geometric light installations, slick surfaces and finishes. And the his-and-her showers? Each of them is equipped with a similar rainfall water shower feature. Each shower room is encased in glass, with a floating translucent plexiglass circle or square positioned at torso-level for peek-a-boo modesty. And the entire sequence is accompanied by a breathy Ennio Morricone composition called "Deep, Deep Down". Fab! [Footnote: Roman Coppola has an homage to this sequence--including the shower--in his film-within-a-film movie "CQ".

This cult movie was just released on DVD in July and is a must-see for fans of late 60s modern design.

posted by Enrique on 2005-09-15 15:35:49

I'd love it as a "water feature".

But am I the only one who doesn't dig the "all or nothing" placement of an overhead rainhead? I don't always want a face/head full of water, but with this kind of orientation, you're either in or out, no? Or, I suppose, one wall is outfitted with ridiculous amounts of body sprays like some personal carwash.

Sorry to be so practical and "half empty" on a post for something so beautiful.

posted by patrick (the other one) on 2005-09-15 15:50:24

i've seen that these systems cost more than $5,000.

http://www.luxuryhousingtrends.com/archives/2005/09/dornbracht_rain_1.php

posted by sean on 2005-09-15 16:06:08

Hmm, am I the only one who thinks this might be just a little bit *too* much water? I mean, there's wasting water and then there's just really irresponsibly wasting water... that stuff doesn't grow on trees you know!

posted by aq on 2005-09-15 16:25:39

P2, I too have been wondering how the downward pouring showerheads could possibly work well.

posted by Pixie on 2005-09-15 16:44:14

I don't see much reason for these to cost THAT much more that a large rainhead. It's just a square rainhead mounted flush in the ceiling. Seems you could have one custom made for a grand, plus intall labor.

posted by Jon B on 2005-09-15 17:42:24

It's gorgeous but you'd really need to install this in a wetroom as opposed to a standard shower stall to appreciate it's full beauty! You'd definitely need an alternate "traditional" shower or new fangled bodysprays so you didn't always have to get your hair wet. I can't really see them advertising this piece with someone wearing a shower cap! Not to mention you'd need a gazillion dollars since it's also ludicrously expensive.

Reef

posted by Reef on 2005-09-16 09:28:24

aq -- I'm with you. When I see these super showers, I just see wasted water, especially since I like to spend a good half hour in the bath and never figured out the whole "short shower" thing. This sort of thing screams "overconsumption" to me, not "luxury"...

posted by mary on 2005-09-16 09:43:41

"It's gorgeous," yes ... but one appreciates "its full beauty." "It's" is a contraction of "it is," but it's not a possessive! (Sorry, I'm an editor... I do this all day!)

:)

posted by Jane on 2005-09-16 10:32:26

here's a low-rent version that would probably use less water. each watertile cost $100-$200.

http://www.us.kohler.com/onlinecatalog/newproducts_detail.jsp?section=2&aid=1276

posted by sean on 2005-09-16 11:15:44

costs, not cost.

posted by sean on 2005-09-16 11:16:56

Yes Jane, I'm sorry. I only spend a couple of seconds typing these posts.

Reef

posted by Reef on 2005-09-16 13:18:57

Beam me up Scotty im clean is the first thing that comes to mind not to mention the annoyance if having to climb all the way up that ****er every time something goes wrong. Would be perfect for my next movie scene tough

posted by larry on 2005-09-20 16:05:02

This shower looks great. Jane "the editor" - get a life!

posted by George on 2006-05-06 12:13:21

Well i'm buying one for my house.

posted by tony Mckenty on 2006-10-05 07:54:18

Tony, did you buy one? It looks fabulous, but does it work the way they advertise? I would hate to spend that much and not have it be the absolute best.

posted by mary on 2007-01-17 11:19:04

I will buy one if I have to fly to Germany and carry home on my back.

As far as how it works, AFAIK, it is a system of holes through which water drops, at least the Rainsky M.

I suspect that a premier manufacturer in Germany can run water through holes ok.

Frank

posted by downtowner on August 28th 2007 at 10:14am
view downtowner's profile

Or there's the Hansgrohe Rainmaker, costs about £2,800 for a full system (about $5,600). Not that I can afford one.

posted by LydiaB on September 27th 2007 at 1:35am
view LydiaB's profile

Feeds

RSS icon New York

+ City Feeds