apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Great article about the 9 mo cure. It was nice to see a summary of all the hard work, challenges, and successes that came from the renovation. I wish the happy family a lot of good years in the apartment.

Great coverage. Congratulations!

I loved the H&H article! The pictures of teh finished apt are great. I can't wait to see the full set of pictures.

I am flabbergasted that Maxwell and Sara Kate elected to stay in that tiny apartment.

Wow!

Looks beautiful, though.

The renovations are gorgeous. Congrats on the excellent article, your wonderful home, and your beautiful daughter!

In the story "Tiny Touches" I don't get the point of paying someone $500 to reassure you that you like your stuff the way have it.

Hey guys! Kitchen looks fantastic (i must say). As does everything else. Glad I could be part of your 9 month cure. Was nice seeing your pics and reading the article. All the best. Levi

Seeing you guys on the NYT homepage when I open it this morning was a wonderful way to start the day. The apartment looks great. Congratulations.

What a lovely article..... I must pick up the paper today!

The place positively glows in those photos.And a great article that really conveys both your personalities nicely. I can really hear you both saying those things!

And while I am not envious of your square footage, I *am* a tad envious of the rent!!!

The "ticking time bomb" comment... HILARIOUS.

Congrats! Bravo! Bellissimo!!!

Since I am sure this will bring even more eyes to AT, today I am officially "rebranding" myself as Mid-C Frank, since I have seen several impostors around here lately.

The AT blogger formerly know as Frank.

Love the article on you three! How exciting! Side bonus is the book mention and blog mention though I wonder whether the blog will be overrun from now on...probably. Good job, Maxwell and Sara Kate!

Wow, that's great! And more press coverage for Ursula, and she's only HOW old?! :)

Congratulations on the NY Times! This is definitely an inspiration. I absolutely love the kitchen, especially the wall-shelved wine rack.

Yay. Congrats on the great story--so cool to see the place in all its glowy glory. It makes no sense: I only know you guys by hanging around here for a couple of years, but I feel so proud and happy for you!

Congrats! The photos, apartment and article all look great! Enjoy it until that little time bomb goes off! ;-)

It looks fantastic. Congratulations!

How did you apply the felt to your doors? I think I must have missed that on your 9 month cure. Great pictures, can't wait to see them all!

I never noticed that the wine shelves are floating. What a great way to make them seem light and airy. Great article.

I know I may be a naive non-newyorker. But I have to ask...

how does one justify paying 30K to renovate something you don't own.

In theory, can't you lose it all tomorrow? what if we were to be ousted for some reason?

and at the very least...what about when that kid gows up? when you move out you leave it all behind, and get nothing for it.

maybe just stupid me...though I am sure many NY'ers will tell me exaclty why this is a non-issue.

the woman across from me on the subway this morning was reading the house and home page, which treated me to a lovely view of the G-R homestead for almost my whole commute.

the place and the babe are beautiful, and you both come across as nice and happy and together.

also, looking at these photos is a lesson in lighting -- i remember seeing everything very basically lit in the 9 month cure posts, and wondering "how is this going to come together?" seeing the whole place in order with the proper light really, um, illuminates things. pun totally intended.

congratulations on the great article and beautiful pix! am definitely stealing my co-worker's paper when he's done with it!

oh, and can i just say WTF about the 'Tweaker' woman?

i actually think it would be a cool service for a stylist to offer -- to come into your home and advise you about how to display books and art to greatest effect, how to pull off one of those surface vignettes without creating too much clutter, tricks for updating your look, etc. but the woman in the article just came off as mean.

The idea of some inane tweaky-weaky or whatever she calls herself coming into my home and handling my stuff is anathema to me.

And I can't believe Penelope Green compared this person's need for approval to Bill Clinton's! Talk about reaching for relevance. How decadent can the Style sections get.

Though I am still skeeved about Maxwell's plans to keep his rent-stabilized apartment forever, even when it is no longer his primary residence, I have to say that the pics and article are beautiful and inspiring. I have an even smaller (rent-stabilized) studio apartment, and it's a constant battle to keep it looking 1/10th as nice as the Gillingham-Ryan's place.

That is a nice place! It proves that pouring 100 million reno dollars into a 999,999 sq ft castle does not equal style or good taste. I would take endless naps your place, it looks so cozy and comfortable, like home.

I was looking back over the pictures and, like Carrie, I want to know more about these felt doors. They look great in the pictures. I have sound issues in my 720sf mansion, and I want to know the details.

Liberty, go back and reread the article.

i have to say i don't get the reluctance to spend money one "won't get back" on creating a comfortable home, whether one rents or owns.

first off, with the housing market acting like it currently is, homeowners are deluding themselves if they think a lot of the improvements on your home are really going to net much if/when they sell. you certainly won't "get back" every penny you spent on every renovation you ever did.

secondly, i can't think of any other area of life where we expect to get all our money back on the things we purchase. why is it so important that we profit on our homes, to the expense of our comfort in them?

as far as your critique of the rental situation in New York, what would you have them do? move every year so as to always be paying market rates? an end to rent control/stabilization, allowing landlords to completely shaft all tenants, all the time? all urban rental housing destroyed and a mass exodus to suburban sprawl?

you really think that if they gave up thier apartment and somehow the landlord could re-rent for maximum market value, it would somehow compel this same landlord to lower everyone else's rent - you know, to be FAIR?

i'm not angry you wrote that -- i just wonder how many times you yelled 'NOT FAIR!' in the sandbox growing up.

"as far as your critique of the rental situation in New York, what would you have them do? "

*I* would have them give up the apartment when they are ready to move on from it instead of keeping it (illegally and unfairly) as an office or guest quarters.

I think people are perplexed by the amount they spent is because if it's a place you can really only stay in one or two more years, why make such lavish improvements? But (and correct me if I'm wrong) the reason they spent as much as they did is because they plan on never giving it up, which sort of goes against the whole point of rent stabilization (you get cheap rent so you have somewhere to LIVE, not somewhere to stick vacationing relatives).

Big diff between rent control and rent stabilization.

"If it's a place you can really only stay in one or two more years, why make such lavish improvements?"

Perhaps it's a quality-of-life issue. When you live in such a petite space, you're using it all, so it may make sense to make it as comfortable as you require it to be.

It may also be a way of passing on a "thank you" to the landlord with whom they have a long relationship. Several of my NYC peeps have friendly/social relationships with their landlords, and thereby take a vested interest in the property that some of us apartment-surfers elsewhere would find baffling.

I like the opoponax's point: "i don't get the reluctance to spend money one "won't get back" on creating a comfortable home."

At the end of the day, it's not like the G-Rs spent OUR money on their place. They spent THEIR money on what they thought was important to them, and what presumably works for them.

This clamor over rent control has been going on forever, but it's not for the Gillingham-Ryans to fall on their sword so much as the state's responsibility to address the situation. I can only assume that the issue is too much of a political football to ever be resolved, but in truth I don't know anything about it. It would be interesting to hear from somebody who does.

Also, Steve's remark about not making money back explicitly refers to the likelihood that the G-Rs will hang on to their apartment, not to some aversion to art for art's sake.

"'If it's a place you can really only stay in one or two more years, why make such lavish improvements?'

Perhaps it's a quality-of-life issue."

My objections was not that they made improvements, or that the improvements were lavish. It's their money, of course they can spend it however they want. I was just explaining why some people might be confused about the amount spent versus time left in the apartment.

Personally, my only objection was that the improvements were particularly lavish *because* they want to cheat the system and keep the apartment as their non-primary residence. Rent-regulated tenants who abuse the laws that are in place to help everyone is one of the (many) reasons rent regulation is such a controversial issue (and why it is going away). Their choice to hold on to the apartment when it's no longer their primary residence DOES affect us all who rent in New York City, directly or indirectly.

So why would they "fall on their sword" and give up the apartment? I don't know, maybe because it's wrong and unethical not to? And maybe because if you've built your career and identity around living small, using less, purging what you don't absolutely need, it's kind of hypocritical not to.

But I don't want to get into a fight about this ... like I said, I think the pics are beautiful, they did a great job and the apartment is an inspiration to those of us in similar apartments. But I do get my britches in a wad when it comes to people abusing the rent laws in New York that were designed to help people who actually live here to survive (not benefit someone's brother-in-law who doesn't want to get a hotel room when he comes to visit).

i took the 'never seeing that money again' comment (and the many like it that have been made every time the topic comes up) to be about owning vs. renting.

i don't recall ever reading (either here or in the times article) that the G-Rs plan to literally never give up their apartment, even when they ultimately move. maybe this is something i missed? i have a feeling, though, that this is an assumption on the part of the expenditure-justifiers, i.e. the only way one could imagine spending thousands on a rental is if they will literally never give the place up. because holding onto your pennies by hook or by crook (no matter how wasteful or inconvenient) is more important than the prospect of not getting your money's worth.

which is not really an attitude i'd associated with Maxwell or Sara Kate.

Wow. Their apartment seems all the larger with all this projection! Sheeesh, how do you know they are going to keep the apartment forever and let relatives stay there? Or turn it into an office and live somewhere else? Or make poor Ursula live out the rest of her babydom in the sink?

Can't we all just focus our fury on the freakin' tweaker lady?! Surely we can agree on that.

opo, I believe Maxwell said somewhere that he intended to keep the apartment as a "lab". (That was a while back, however.) And again, I don't see how Steve could be any more explicit than this:

"Let me see if I get this straight. They don't want to incur debt, so they spend $20,000 fixing up a rental that they don't own? Could it be that because it is rent-controlled, they feel that they own the place, and are under no compunction to ever give it up?"

Monica, you are so irresistible in your righteous indignation that not only do I surrender but wish you massive (rent-controlled) square footage in the future.

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/9-month-cure/9-month-cure-the-money-009701

OK, I don't know if anyone put this into numbers anytime previously during the G-Rs' 9 month Cure, but I just did:

The article says the rent is $780/month and they spent $20K on these renos.

If you spread the cost of renos out over time, it looks like this:
$20K is $10K/year over 2 years or $833/month. $20K is $6667/year over 3 years or $556/month.

So, if they you compare the cost of rent plus the reno stretched out over how long they'll live there, this is the result (if my numbers are right and assuming no increase in rent, since I don't know what that would be, being in DC):

Stay 2 years:$780/mo rent+$833/mo reno=$1613/mo.
Stay 3 years:$780/mo rent+$556/mo reno=$1336/mo

How do those numbers compare with your New York rents? In this neighborhood, with this fine interior?

Congraduation on your baby. Just like to let you know that a very small space will cause your baby to be smaller when she(he) grows up. I hope you keep this in mind.

yipppeeeeeee! i got to see darling little ursula!
you are the most adorable family!
your place looks so chic!
that's a great bed for her to learn to crawl
+ climb up + down on the sides parts.
more people sleep with their babies than they admit + it's healthy "bonding" for you all. her little basket protects her + she can nap anywhere in it.
we had a 400 sq ft apt for my daughter's first 2 years. we were out strolling with her a lot. she went to 2-3 parks a day, plus walking morning noon + night. i'd take her on a 6-7am coffee walk every morning 365 days a year. you'll be out of the apartment a lot exposing her to everything :)
squeaky floors can be a problem in a small place when you're trying to get the baby to stay asleep, when they nap during the day. that's good you have a little side yard! when we moved to a bigger place, my daughter still slept with us for a year + every day for a year she'd say, "i want to go home to the apartment" she didn't mind it was small. she remembers the fun, love + neighborhood.

Add to Pixie's math the cost of moving, security deposit, possibly a broker's fee, and the reno makes even more sense as a short-term solution. They would not be able to find a decent two-bedroom in their neighborhood for anywhere near $1613 a month.

I see that old thread kicked off with a bit of jonathan-bashing. Where is the old bellyacher anyway I do miss him sometimes.

I love it. Congrats!

(I thought this was their primary residence and that they had a weekend place, but I literally care not one bit about this whole discussion. There are plenty of rent stabilized places in NYC if you want one you can dig one up. London Terrace for example. They are not the same as rent controlled)

I'm happy Steve shared his views. As to opoponax, yes, perhaps we do spend money on many things for which we will not get our money back - indeed anything we buy that is not real estate or stocks and bonds or an education. However, I can't see why anyone would fail to see the irony of spending a vast amount of money on renovations so as not to be in debt getting a larger apt - and also when you're living in the apt for only a few more years. What kind of investment is that?! If they were to live in their present apt for two more years, they're spending $10k/yr on renovations that they can't even take with them (or that they'll have to labor to remove and keep). So clearly there must be more to the picture (the rent control issue) or they must be completely nuts. $20k is on the way to a condo/house down payment. It also happens to be a good portion of a year's tuition at a private 4-yr university. Call it a quality of life issue, if you will, but how much is your q of l really worth?

And $500 for a tweaker?! Crazy. I suppose if you can capitalize on people's inability to shelve books, then go for it. And if you have that kind of money to burn, burn it. I once met an engineer who now "consults" clients on electronic devices, meaning they pay him k's to connect everything to a universal remote. Capitalism at it's finest.

Looking back at the thread cited above--good times. And where's jamie pup been lately?

Also, about this apartment reno- look back at the threads, all the naysayers, they said it couldn't be done!

It's absolutely gorgeous and so much fun to see first thing today. How do you always have that fabulous lighting?

pixie, those are really interesting numbers. even $1600 is a steal for a one-bedroom apartment in that neighborhood. not to mention that $20K is at least half, if not a quarter, of the average down payment on a 2-bedroom condo in the West Village or equivalent.

also, i'm not sure how exactly it is illegal (or even necessarily wasteful) to keep a rented apartment as a non-primary residence. plenty of suburbanites have pied a terres in the city, and i don't know that they're forced to pay market rents for them.

i also sort of think that "oh, we'll never give this place up" is more wishful thinking that cold hard realistic fact. Maxwell wrote that at a time when almost every aspect of their lives was changing. And I know i've said similar things at similar points in my life... "you'll always be my best friend", "i'll never get tired of living in a loft with 15 people", etc. it's important to be able to tell yourself that no matter what changes, certain things will stay the same. even though it's not always in our power to make it so. the ideas people have for their lives and the ultimate outcome don't always match. give these people a break!

opoponax, the deal with *rent-stabilized* apartments in NYC is, you can only have the apartment if it's your primary residence. This is the law. Plenty of people have pied a terres, but they are (or should be) market-rate apartments or co-ops/condos that people own.

Click on my name for more info.

I do hope you are right and that the G-Rs change their mind about keeping the apartment forever.

michelle et al,

Maxwell went thru the logic of renovation vs buying early on in the 9th Month Cure series. Maybe you could read that.

Also, $1mm is the avg price of an apt in Manhattan for the second year in a row. Most are co-ops (condos are more) and require a min of 20% and then after you pay that you need to show at least that much in liquid assets. So 200k down and 200k in the bank. For a lot of people, buying isn't an option. For people who think the market is turning, dropping 20K into a rental that makes you happy for a couple of years and hoping that you'll be able to buy that 1mm place for 800k in a couple of years is a bet they are making.

I hope Maxwell will share more detail about the felt curtains, such as hanging method. The combination of sound attenuation, along with style is very appealing.

How much is quality of life worth? It is priceless. I have an extensive art collection, hundreds of books (yes, I'm rethinking that as part of the "Cure"), hundreds of cds, and other things that I collect, including Teddy Bears (please, no remarks from design Nazis; I know they're not chic). I can never "get back" what I paid for them. But I don't ever have to give back all the pleasure they give me every day.

As for taking it with me, none of us can take it with us. All we have is today. A hurricane, tsunami, or earthquake could transform all my stuff to trash in a moment. Ditto with the house that I own: yes, it's insured and no, insurance won't come close to replacing it. And most builders will tell you that you will probably never get back the money you put into rennovations unless you are in an inflationary housing market.

I think Maxwell, Sara, and Ursula have a gorgeous space with a great return for each dollar invested: a happy, functional space for their first few years as a trio. They have also given many of us inspiration to create livable living spaces and I love them for it.

Steve, where are you getting all this? That this isn't where they live, that they can afford more and that they plan to live there forever? did you read the 9 month cure posts or the NY Times article we're discussing? Because if you did you'd know that none of that is true

Huh, this is what Maxwell wrote on their website in June: "Oh, and we are never going to give up our little apartment in the West Village. At the very least it will be an office and guest room for our in-laws when they come to town." You can click on the link that Monica posted above, then scroll down to read it for yourself. That is how I know they plan on hanging on to that apartment forever. Their plan is illegal because they will not use it as their primary residence.

I know they can afford more because they can afford to throw away 20K on improvements that will go to the landlord. If they can do that, they can afford a more expensive apartment. (See the financial analysis above:if they are only staying two more years, they can afford 10K more in rent.) I also suspect that they do not have a lot of debt to begin with because in the NYTimes article (which I read) they state that they are doing this to not get INTO debt. Look, it is obvious. They have money in the bank. They are keeping the place, which is why they are upgrading it. They did a beautiful job. And there are people who make less who could use the place when they are done with it. They will not let that happen.

1. There is defiently a time and a place for discussing the politics of urban housing. This is not one of them.

2. The purpose of this post (and all posts at AT for that matter) was to focus on design and decor choices. You are not allowed to critisize someone's personal lifestyle choices because:
a. this is not the appropriate forum
b. given the few details, it is mere speculation

ummm, Steve? Maxwell, Sarah Kate, and Ursula still live in this apartment.

they plan to stay in it for as long as they possibly can (i'm guessing they have, what, a 2-3 year framework?).

my understanding after reading months of posts about this renovation is not that they did all this work with the explicit goal in mind of turning it into a guesthouse the second they can afford to buy. "we'll keep it forever anyway" is NOT the G-Rs' chief rationale for this renovation, merely a minor side point he made in one post, months and months ago after listing about ten much more pertinent reasons (more along the lines of what ebrown and others have said).

i have to say i identify with them. i, too, pay lower than market rent. i'd be on the streets if i didn't have this deal. i, too, can't afford to buy anything anytime soon unless the market completely bottoms out. i, too, live in a neighborhood i love more than is probably reasonable and would do almost anything i could to keep a foot in the door here. so i don't really feel like i can begrudge them A SENTENCE in a BLOG POST from months ago, musing that ideally they would like to keep this apartment forever, even if not as their primary residence.

once upon a time when i had a blog, i said far more ridiculous and short-sighted things. things that have next to nothing to do with my life in the years since. and luckily nobody read that blog, so nobody came in and crapped all over the many sentiments i took seriously but which later turned out to be a tad idealistic.

Ok, I can't comment on the criticisms b/c I don't live in NYC...except to say that NON-rent control areas ARE a HUGE problem for renters. I live in an area where rent controls were abolished, and have done a lot of tenant's rights work through my non-profit job. Rents keep skyrocketing while fewer people are receiving cost of living increases (and/or are on fixed incomes, like pensioners). People are forced out of their rental homes when they can no longer afford them. Meanwhile, my community's vacancy rate hovers consistently at 0-1% and we have a constant rental housing shortage, while developers put all their effort into building monster houses and shopping centres. I've been one of those people who's had to leave a home because of rising rent, and I pray constantly that it does not happen here, in this apartment that I love and have spent a lot of time, energy, and money on.

That being said, I saw the article last night and wanted to comment on AT, but couldn't figure out where. Maxwell and Sara-Kate, CONGRATULATIONS! This is a WONDERFUL space and you've done an amazing job! What I really wanted to post last night is that I'M SO PROUD OF YOU! Really...it's amazing.

And I love that Maxwell is totally transfixed by Ursula in every pic of the G-R family. Hee!

Steve, if you think having 20K of disposable income over several months equals enough to either buy something or move to a bigger apartment in a nicer neighborhood, you are clearly not a New Yorker.

The place looks fantastic (I like a lot your idea of painting in 2 different whites) and it will a very nice work place if you move out. I would really love to go daily into an office that has this awesome kitchen!!
I wish you all the happiness in your "new" home.

olar

I have decided that Maxwell and Sara Kate have a 20x20 storage unit somewhere in Brooklyn.

And, I totally agree with ebrown.

Not to belabor this rent control discussion, but Steve, are you saying that everyone in NYC has to regularly be requalified on the basis of income to legally stay in their rent controlled apartment?

As far as I'm concerned the Gilligham-Ryans' intentions are their business. It's not clear whether their apartment is rent-controlled or rent-stabilized, but whatever it is and for some reason I can't quite fathom, I'm indifferent.

However, I'd point out to Iron Horse that when you are a celebrity and the New York Times runs a story on you, and you link to the piece on your hoppin' web site, well then such scrutiny is the price of fame.

Iron Horse,
Are you serious? "You are not allowed to critisize someone's personal lifestyle choices because:
a. this is not the appropriate forum
b. given the few details, it is mere speculation"

You cracked me up with that "not allowed" line. You're like the hall monitor from elementary school telling folks they're not allowed to run. It's the muthaf*ckin internet, kid. Maxwell put himself on front street, he's gonna get called out.
I'll play grammar police: You spelled criticize wrong.

That aisde, the space looks nice, but I'm worried about the baby's future. Couldn't that 20,000 have gone to Ursula's college tuition? Let's hope she lands herself a scholarship or that might be what puts them in debt instead. Good luck guys :)

Not to change the subject, but that shoe storage wheel thing looks like it came from some sort of Drag Queen Lotto.

i was just thinking about that...

actually it's the Drag Queen Ferris Wheel From Hell.

At the risk of violating the "Iron Horse Rules" about what we are allowed to discuss here (man, is that FUNNY), I'm going to respond. Opo,you cannot seriously believe that the G-R's sank that much money into an apartment they don't own, just for the 2-3 years they plan to be there, especially since they state they are trying to save money. They are investing in that the apartment because they practically own it, even though it doesn't belong to them. Maxwell admitted it months ago, and they are just putting their money where their mouths are. They are laying claim to that apartment ad infinitem.

And Opo, because I grew up and lived and worked in a very poor area in NYC, I know exactly how much money 20K is. Few of the tenants in my Section 8 building had Delonghi wall ovens and solid bamboo cabinets. Let's not make this personal: the G-R's are acting like rational economic beings. They were given an apartment at below market rates. They plan to keep the apartment as a "guest house" or an "office", extralegally. (If it's not their primary residence, it's not legal for them to benefit from below market rates. Please see Monica's link, above.)

True, 20K is not enough to move to a bigger apartment in a "nicer" neighborhood. That's exactly the point. The G-R's don't want to move down. So, they will subject themselves and and their baby daughter to a closet-sized apartment because they are "snobby" (Maxwell's language) and can't stand the designs of other apartments that are in their income range. With Dorian's post detailing how many people lose their homes due to rent increases, you can't really defend relatively "wealthy" people enjoying rent control benefits, can you?

All I'm saying is this: this behavior doesn't make the housing shortage any better...it makes it worse. If they are throwing away 20K to renovate a closet for their family to live in for 2 years,(unlikely) I do not think it is a wise financial decision. If they are investing in their apartment because they will never let it go, it is illegal and unfair to real poor people in NYC. I think the NYTimes could have at least recognized this, instead of praising them. Nothing personal against anyone on this site.

I appreciate your sentiment, but real poor people will not be living on Bedford Street no matter what happens to that apartment.

Well, I liked seeing the link on here, but when I opened up the PAPER version of the paper, I just about dropped my jaw, because the photos and the whole article were to-be-lived-for!

WHAT a gorgeous place they've turned it into, and seriously... they are going to place this thing by ear, I'm sure, and they're going to find this just as liveable as posisble for however long they can. AND... uh... the very act of doing such a gorgeous renovation got them HUGE press, which will yield more work, more money and they're going to be fine!

But let's pretend (thought it's none of our business) that the $20K they had was in the bank, and all they had in the bank at the time. Well, with banks and co-ops requiring you put 20% down, that means they could only afford something that cost $100K, and there's no such thing in the city anymore -- MUCH less something that 3 people would want to live with as long as one tends to live in something you buy (about 5 years at least).

I'm happy as a lark for them, and I think they did a fantastic job and are on the brink of something huge and fantastic.

And since when is New York real estate EVER pretend to be fair? Make your own luck and do the best you can with what you've got. It's a game that you have to figure out how to play with the cards you're dealt and with the cards you play well or ill.

Pixie:
Nicely done! I was waiting for someone to pull out the logic and math.

Maxwell and Sara Kate:
Congratulations. It looks beautiful and I am looking forward to seeing more pictures.

It's the landlord that's making out on this deal. They have said they have a great relationship with her, but if the building ever changes hands for whatever reason and they are using it as an office or space for relatives to stay, they'll be forced to leave in a New York minute. I agree with the whole 'not fair' argument going on here and I also wonder whether it was smart for them to talk turkey about the finances of it all in so many public forums.

Congrats to you both, love the article and the socks you're wearing seated on the chair with your daughter and Sara Kate are just great Maxwell! :)

Congratulations!!!!

Holly

Hmmm..Steve, you haven't answered my question:

Does everyone in NYC have to regularly be requalified on the basis of income to legally stay in their rent controlled (and I'll add rent-stablized to the question) apartment?

That article certainly made a mockery of the Tweaker and her work, but I bet her phone won't stop ringing with new clients as a result of that appearance in the Times.

I'd like to know more about that industrial felt on the doors...

For whoever was looking for a chandelier resembling the one at the Met Opera House, there's an item in H&H about reproductions, which start at $13K!

The Met's chandeliers! I will have to add that to my flickr.

Pixie, the answer is no. The rules are a little different for rent stabilized as opposed to rent controlled apartments. With rent stabilized apartments, once the rent reaches $2000 per month AND the resident's income is above a certain level (I think it is $150,000), the apartment can be taken out of stabilization and market rents can be charged.

Rent controlled apartments are a different story and I am not sure how the regulations are different, but I know they are. I think their apartment is rent controlled, not rent stabilized. All I do know is that landlords are eager to get apartments out of rent control or rent stabilization, and they are legally allowed to get an apartment out of rent control if the original tenant moves or dies, or if the tenant is violating the rent control laws (which they would be if they were not using the apartment as a primary residence.)

"She’s going to need room. We know we can’t stay here for long."

directly quoted from Sara Kate herself in that article - so was the renovation of this apartment just a publicity stunt to gain coverage for the blog/the book/the company he runs... discuss...

Pixie, no, they do not.

and i can't tell you how many stories i've heard about people who got a dirt cheap apartment in the 70's or 80's and held on to it FOREVER even after their incomes went through the roof. it's sort of what one 'does' here if they want to stay in the city for the long term -- find a good deal in a neighborhood you like and hold on!

there are no laws about income-to-rent ratios (in that direction, at least) unless you live in subsidized housing. and even then i'm not sure you can be evicted if you get a promotion or dig yourself out of welfare or whatever.

Oh and in the UK Margaret Thatcher brought the Community charge in some years ago to replace domestic rates - it all fell to pieces but the one good thing about it was that for second homes (i.e. anywhere you owned that wasn't a primary residence) the charge was double what it would have been if you lived there - help the government claw back some revenue for people like this with multiple houses...

Whoa there Violetsrose. If you read Maxwell's post detailing why he and Sara Kate decided to renovate instead of move you will see that publicity had nothing to do with it. Be fair; these people aren't crass.

also, what matilda said.

doing a bit of research, it looks like the primary difference between rent control and rent stabilized has to do with the age of the building and the occupancy details. for a unit to be rent controlled, the building must be pre-war and the occupant (or an immediate family member) must have been living there since 1971. i couldn't find the specifics of pricing differences and the fine print about primary residences, etc. i imagine they work roughly the same.

there are over a million rent stabilized units in the city, so imagine there are a lot of illegally stabilized pied-a-terres and such in the city.

there are also MANY other reasons the G-R apartment could have a below market rent. i pay far below market and my unit isn't stabilized/controlled at all. the fact that they have such a good relationship with the landlady indicates that maybe she just hasn't raised it on them.

Violetsrose -- Check out all the blog posts on why the G-Rs chose to renovate and stay in the tiny apartment. Without being a Crazed Forensic Accountant-Wannabe Stalker and doing a full spreadsheet, I'm still 90% certain that with the rent plus costs of renovation, they come out way ahead, financially, compared to buying a two-bedroom space in the current market.

Don't assume S-K was quoted accurately or in context -- I've given reporters quotes in writing and STILL had them botched.

Even if Sara Kate was quoted accurately, it's not a big deal. Of course they'll have to move!

I do sympathize with Monica and Steve's advocacy for renters and, especially, the poor. The poor are screwed in every way and then get despised for it. They need all the support they can get. Although I wonder why Steve would expect the Home & Garden section to pick up on the ethics of this particular situation. Good god man, in the march to war the Times didn't even speculate much about the consequences of the invasion of Iraq! You expect the fluff sections to hypothesize about the Gillingham-Ryans' real estate prospects?

The thing is, we don't know what the Gillingham-Ryan's rental situation actually is, and it's none of our business anyway.

This is a beautiful home that Maxwell and Sara Kate have been kind enough to share with us over the months! They've shown us that they're more than capable of walking the walk. They took a tiny place, forced themselves to limited their possessions to the bare essentials, and made their apartment work for their family. In terms of design and organization, these two are masters!

So let's applaud their fantastic achievement, not denigrate them because they have an affordable apartment! This web community is their brainchild and now people are using it against them. I don't get it.

And by the way, they're not taking this apartment away from anyone. Once they leave, for whatever reason, the rent will shoot sky-high. Higher than it should, actually. Rent control stops landlords from gouging their tenants. Tenants who might very well have poured their own dollars into making their rented space a home, just like Maxwell and Sara Kate did. Wouldn't it stink if they were turned out now, after all the work they did? That's what could happen without rent control. The landlord could raise their rent so high they wouldn't be able to stay.

So now everybody is happy. Maxwell and Sara Kate were able to afford a major reno because they're not paying "NY rent," and the landlord is happy because someone just improved his property FOR FREE.

Congrats Maxwell and Sara Kate. You're an inspiration.

Re Income Restrictions:
I think it is rent at $2000 per month AND 2000 square feet, and at that point, if the tenant has an income above a certain threshold (I thought it was $175,000) for each of the prior two years, then the landlord can seek to have the apartment deregulated.

Re Rent Stabilized/Controlled apartments in the hands of the rich:

Yes, this happens and there are a substantial number of stabilized units in the hands of people who could afford to pay more. They are typically under the 2000 sf limit and can't be deregulated. The landlord can seek an eviction if its not a primary residence, but if you go to the hamptons on friday and come back on sunday night or monday, that wouldn't count.

re the plan to keep the apartment:

I personally think that at some point, a person decides to play within the rules, as they are written, or decides that its okay to do what "everyone else" is doing. They will do what they want. Just remember that your posting and trafficking to the site makes it much more likely that they can afford to do the "right" thing. If the apartment is rent stabilized, their departure would not permit the landlord to raise the rent to market rent, unless their departure would take the unit out of rent stabilization. The landlord will not get that much more if they move. The new tenant, however, would have a rent-stabilized apartment.

I think the objection voiced by Steve and others is that this sounds like one of the abuses of rent stabilization that landlords can't get relief from, and its a problem. In other words, market rents are high here because the market rent paying tenants are subsidizing the rent stabilized tenants (including like these, people with houses in the hamptons and no shortage of space to access).



A

Pixie wrote:
> Not to belabor this rent control discussion,
> but Steve, are you saying that everyone in NYC
> has to regularly be requalified on the basis of
> income to legally stay in their rent controlled
> apartment?"

I don't know if this was answered, but the answer is yes. That is the law. Once your income is above a certain percentage of the rent, you either have to move out, or the rent price is to be adjusted to market value, and so long as it is stabilized, you can only keep the place if it is your primary residence. This is, of course, only in theory. In practice, unless someone is in a huge 3 bedroom apartment, paying $650 a month while driving a porsche, no landlords bother to pursue it. It is difficult to prove, and expensive to pursue in court. Instead, they just raise everyone else's rent in the building to a level that will offset the loss from that unit.

In fact, while many poor people cannot afford to stay in Manhattan, because of the wording of the law, many wealthy people go as far as to negotiate their compensation package with their employer to give them forms of non-salary compensation ($100K expense account and huge stock options) instead of salary, so that they step through a giant loophole in the law that keeps them 'technically' legal. Using the laws to scam the system they were written to protect.

the opoponax wrote:
> i, too, live in a neighborhood i love more than
> is probably reasonable and would do almost
> anything i could to keep a foot in the door here.

W.C. Fields once said,
"All I ever wanted in life was an unfair advantage."

Welcome to the ranks of the privileged.

-----


Oh, and I love the renovation.

It should be pointed out that Maxwell and Sara Kate are just working within a system they did not create. I do not blame them for using the advantage that has presented itself to them. They did not write the rent laws in the city. Focus blame where blame is due, and grant congratulations where they are due as well.

All the very best on your newly renovated home and the newest addition to your family.

Oh, I see right above me that "A" has answered to the income issue. I understood it to be a percentage. If it is a flat figure I stand corrected.

Actually, chris (nyc) you have it wrong. The following is my experience, but I bought in 1996 and have not been following the rules as closely.

You qualify for a RS apartment based on income at the time of the application. There is no follow through unless the landlord seeks to destablize the apartment.

No housing police test your income from year to year. Nor does a tenant typically negotiate a new annual lease; they are entitled, in most cases, to a renewal at the existing rent plus a percentage (in recent years, in the mid to high single digits), for either a year or two years. In other words, for the non-New Yorkers, the landlord's property value, heating and insurance costs went up by an average of 70% since 2001, but the stabilized rents went up less than 25%.

Not all landlords are evil. But there are many instances of landlords buying (at low prices)buildings that have a lot of rent stabilized tenants, and then doing a lot of work to get them out. Because some of them are not actually entitled to the protections that rent stabilization affords them. Most cases like this in housing court do not involve someone making $350k a year. They involve people who are either not using it as a primary residence, or are just over the income limit and its a big apartment. And it is a twisted system - some of the apartments at issue are in areas where the marketable rents are not that much higher, but when there is a vacancy, the landlord has a lot of chances to make adjustments that will be valuable in the future - the increase on a vacancy is higher than the increase on a renewal. And more important for resale - long term tenancies are not necessarily saleable. Finally, if you can flip a building into its own corp, reduce your costs and maintain the income stream from servicing the building, why not? You've shifted the liability to the tenants and made them pay the actual costs, but you still get the servicing contract.

chris (nyc) is correct in one regard. There are a lot of lawyers who help people create various vehicles in which personal expenses are run through entities so that the cost of these items does not show as "income" on a person's tax return. And the primary users of these devices are self-employed entrepreneurs or people who control companies - people who can control the timing of their income accretions. For example, in the laboratory under discussion, I wonder if any part of the kitchen is deductible as a business expense - is this the kitchen in which recipes for some endeavor are tested? I don't know about the viability of this, but I wouldn't be surprised. Interestingly, the barter of ad space for a discount on the cabinets is interesting. The IRS used to take the position that income from barter is still includible in gross income.

But if you are in an apartment that could be deregulated based on income, and you can stagger the larger payments to occur every three years, and you can consume enough in unreimbursed business expenses . . . you can keep the important number on your tax return in the right place.

There is a lot of play in all of these systems. I personally think that its fair to play within the rules. But I don't think the conversation here has been that M/SK are evil. I think that if the comment about having the apartment as a guest room/office (n.b. I don't think this is within the RS rules but its not my problem) was never made, no one would care. But since there are so many people that would love to have a rent at that level, and can't find such an apartment in the west village, it makes it look like they are cheating some deserving soul from a apartment, when they say they are going to retain it as an office/guest room. The reality is, no landlord is going to enter into a lease at that rate for that space in that location if it were not rent stabilized, because it is essentiallly subsidizing the tenant. I'm sure M/SK are deserving, but . . . whose to say some young starving artist without a business or two isn't as deserving of having a chance? Especially at the point in time when its a guest room? This is just a slipperly slope - what's to prevent someone from, in times of guest shortages, renting it out nights to generate income? The rent would be covered in 8 nights. Is that okay too?

That said, I would never ever in my life want to inhabit that square footage. That's just not a choice that a normal person with the ability to afford resources actually makes. I'm not advocating consumption as a lifestyle, I'm just saying that extreme non-consumption is no better (although I have to say that from everything I've read, these people have ample ample space in the Hamptons).

This apartment seems like a leftover from a different era. Add a hundred square feet and I wish there pods of these all over manhattan. Because I'm bored with all the interested people moving out.

I'm really interested in hearing about the outdoor space that was reflected in a few pictures of the Cure. Can you have a little patio back there? Or is it so narrow you can't do anything. Ever have any rodent issues back there? Any patio folk in NYC, any issues with rodents? What if your patio is on the second floor and abuts buildings (as opposed to a floating shelf patio like the new buildings have) - is the biggest issue soot and dirt, or rodents? What about having plants on the patio?

For a little more context:

There are such things as "preferential rents" in the rent stabilized and controlled area. This is basically where a landlord voluntarily does not charge the maximum allowable rent under the RS/RC system. The increase over time is limited, i.e., you can't go from PR to AR in one year, but you can take a big piece back on a vacancy - e.g., if you have an apartment at a PR, when vacant, you get a bigger percentage increase (but still not all the way from a very low PR to the full AR). That's why landlords with small margins are in housing court. PRs also make the building less saleable.

Re public housing:
In public housing, if you go over the income percentage because you do something like get yourself off welfare, or get a huge pay raise which happens in the unionized city businesses when you move up more than one pay grade, you may risk losing your benefit. And the difference between what you can afford with and without benefits is huge. its the difference between the LES and the Bronx or an hour out into Queens or Brooklyn. Imagine if you are a single parent with kids and you have relied on the public benefits system (like after care) to help you keep them in line and now you have to lose 2 hours a day with them commuting - just because you crossed a threshhold set by someone who lives in Albany and pays 1/5 what you would pay for rent in your neighborhood? the housing system in NYC, RC/RS/PH, is best described as a huge SNAFU.


And someone said we don't know what the actual situation is - I think its been disclosed in pieces. they said the actual rent - I think it was under $800. They said they were renters. They have talked about fixing up their hamptons house for summer rental season (I thought it was their house, maybe it was a job). I think once they said it was M's apartment from college. I don't think anyone is making up the premises that are below this impassioned debate.

I personally know several people with six figure incomes that have rent stabilized apartments and multi-million dollar weekend houses. I don't agree with their choices either - I think they are using a resource that they are no longer ethically entitled to, even if they are legally entitled to it. I just think that the system was not designed for people that can pay their own way. There is debate about at what level a person can pay their own way, and I am by no means saying that they can (although I wish them success in all of their endeavors). But if they can, at some point, I suspect they will. They just don't seem that exploitative to me, even with the guest/room office comment.

Some people have responded to me that $20k isn't enough for a down payment. Of course it's not! It's called saving; and it starts with a penny; and might I say that $20k is a great place to start (at least in my poor student mind). I don't think Steve would be bothered by them staying in the apt for a few more years, but rather is bothered that they sank an inordinate amount of money on renovations that could have been used in better ways (at least in some of our opinions). Maybe the fact that they're snobs (Maxwell's self-description) keeps them wanting to live up to the level of some of their readers - fashionable part of town, expensive kitchen appliances, cabinets, floors, and furnishings.

When I first visited this blog and saw the smallest coolest apartment contest, I thought this was a blog for people who couldn't afford big and must make do with what they have. Or possibly I thought it was for people who figured out they didn't need excessive amounts of space to live (good from an environmental standpoint). But what I eventually found out, from numerous snobby comments regarding the contest entries of people who just did their best and from the postings about yet another piece of unattainable, expensive furniture, I found out that the excesses of furnishings, living more designer than others, etc., had overcome the "therapy" aspect of the blog - the part that reassured us that we had enough. Quite disheartening. [I find the other city AT's (LA, Chicago, SF) are a much nicer read in comments and posts, actually.]

So reading this blog, when seeing the "community" as a microcosm, I find it an interesting study of society. Somehow it managed to bring together people from different socioeconomic levels, and might I add, the disparity really shows sometimes.

I don't know if any of us could answer the question of whether or not we'd keep a great rent-controlled place unless we were actually in the situation, but the fact that the G-R's are comfortable talking about their apartment finances and all the boons coming from ad/furnishing barter (seemingly glowing with pride at their advantages) both in the blog and in a widely distributed newspaper allows for our license in the discussion. What Maxwell wrote doesn't seem humble to me. If he didn't want people to post about his finances or (previously) private life, he shouldn't have brought it up in the first place or answered such questions to the Times, but he shared it all in his pride.

In short, I thought the blog was for humble people who were thankful for what they had and were willing to make do with the small apt they'd got. But I guess I was wrong, or the blog morphed into some incredible beast.

Would it have been possible to stay in the space with no weekend house or outside storage? Has anyone done this, and been comfortable/happy? From the pictures, it looks like there aren't even any books in the house. I'm just wondering how feasable such a small apartment is if it's the only space one has.

Steve, http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/how-to/how-to-paint-your-floors-and-not-screw-it-up-000210

Michelle, I think the socioeconomic changes would reflect the city, but I also think that some of us are more circumspect than others in our commentary and it is easy to draw conclusions that do not reflect reality. IMHO, the best part of this blog is the information that one can get from the comments on some posts (not necessarily this thread, which is really just a passion center). Some great ideas are still great even if they could be expressed differently.

The site is a business, not a not for profit. People might focus on that more here in NY. The other sites are a business too.

I wonder if the non GR "editors" and "writers" get paid and by whom. If you buy something a broker recommends, they have to tell you if they get something for recommending that. When you buy a magazine, do you assume that they get nothing for recommending the particular products? I just assume that unless its consumer reports, there is a QPQ. I just thought it was less often the case in the blogosphere. Because no one will ever live "more designer" than a designer who can afford it via discount. Maybe I'm just a cynical bitter working stiff.

A -- The last call for editors that I remember involved a paid part-time position, so it's not really a secret who pays the people who contribute blog entries.

"Slinks" come off other people's sites -- the equivalent of design-world gossip -- and there have certainly been many postings where editors mention that they bought something, read about something but didn't buy it, or were given something, so it's not really a secret what relationship the editors have to vendors, either.

Whether a non-designer would have done that rehab is certainly debatable -- but designers always play with their own homes (and do projects a non-designer would blench at, 'cause it's fun for them), so there's nothing particularly sinister about it.

Yeah, Wende - I guess I really wondered whether its something that a person does for fun and a little dough, or whether you get paid for it like a job. I presume its in the field of "publishing" which I just assumed didn't pay much.

I wasn't suggesting there is anything sinister about designers doing their houses, but Michelle's "more designer" comment rings a little true - it is a lot easier to have really nice protein stuff is you do not have to pay the full price for it. In the same way that my father the doctor handed out "professional courtesy" like halloween candy. But that was 20 years ago and times have changed. It seems to me that several of the entries for the color contest, and maybe for other contests, had exposure in multiple domains - maybe the next contest should require exclusivity - e.g., you can't enter a room or apt if you've entered or won somewhere else. Because if it already won, why not just blog the win with a slink?

A

Wow. They have a "cottage" in the Hamptons. So all this stuff people are writing about how "we don't know, maybe they will give up the apartment when they move out" is a load of crap. And the NYTimes article is a crock, too. The reporter gives the impression that they are going to raise their daughter in that apartment, that these poor folk are just trying to get by, living in their little home. Meanwhile, this rent-stabilized bargain apartment is their 2nd home. And they are planning to buy a third in the city. I wish I could say I was more surprised. All I can say is, thank goodness for rent control, because then the G-R's might not be able to afford their summer house!

What I'm really surprised by is all the people on this blog "congratulating" the G-R's and looking to them for "inspiration". Yeah, I'm real inspired. No wonder the Times didn't mention their "cottage", it would ruin the whole bull**** premise. Of course no one raises a child in a 265 sq. ft. apartment! They don't have any real worries about that because it's not their only place. It's their pied a terre. They are never moving out, because they don't live there full time now! That article is an insult to every New Yorker trying to raise a family in the city. And the fact that they are so blatantly holding onto a second, rent-stabilized apartment illegally is depressing. That's why no one has to worry about that kid growing up in a 265 sq. ft. apartment. The housing shortage is perpetuated by those people who lucked out and refuse to pay the market price for their apartments, even when they can. And this kind of fraud has become so institutionalized that Maxwell even crows about it on his web site!

I'd like to hear from all the people who were worried about the G-R's being thrown out of their place, and all their money being lost. Fear not! They won't hit the streets. They'll just hit the beach. I'll bet anyone on this site that soon the G-R's will rent out their rent-stabilized hotel room, and use that mishugena Times article as an advertisement.

Steve,
I don't think there is anything illegal about having a RS apartment and a second home, so long as the RS unit is the primary residence. But i think your point about resources and storage space is well made.

I suspect these people have, however, truly edited, and the fact that some of this seems insincere should not detract from the value of the useful advice (even if it now appears halfhearted). You have to judge the idea, not the speaker - why should a good idea not be a good idea?

I think this comment page makes that point clear. It would just be more useful if the site could be open about which recommendations are made because they are bought, and which are honest and sincere and objective. Personally, I can't tell which recommendations or product reviews have been purchased, but I have concluded for now that I can't take the opinions to heart unless they are in the comments.

"Would it have been possible to stay in the space with no weekend house or outside storage? Has anyone done this, and been comfortable/happy? From the pictures, it looks like there aren't even any books in the house. I'm just wondering how feasable such a small apartment is if it's the only space one has."

They have literally nothing in that apartment from what we can see in the pictures that have been posted - no photos, books, notebooks, pens, shopping lists, handicrafts, hobbies, magazines, plants, the detritus of a normal life - nothing

Either they are very boring people who have no interests or they have another place where they keep all their real life stuff

I know I could never live in a place that didn't even have room for the things I like to have around me

and people have lived in these size places and have made it clear in the comments they have left on this board that they were miserable and it was awful

So the idea has emerged that they have a place in the Hamptons eh? - and none of us are surprised...

and to Henrietta who suggested that doing something for publicity would make then "crass" I would suggest not being so naive!

After a quick Google:

"They were shaking off ... a whole summer in their barn and yurt community — affectionately known as Barnonia — near East Hampton, N.Y."

"Barnonia is the commune of yurt-housed friends who surround Mr. Gillingham-Ryan's Long Island barn, which is not zoned for sleeping. Hence the yurts.

There used to be four — yurts are canvas dome-ish tents that Mr. Gillingham-Ryan has stylishly appointed with sisal carpeting and shelving much like that built by Ms. Gillingham-Ryan long ago in her Upper West Side apartment"

http://flickr.com/photos/14704285@N00/sets/72157594268581349/

Doesn't look exactly like the Hamptons mansion we expected...

I didn't say "something". I responded to YOUR remark that the G-R's renovation may have been motivated by a desire for publicity. I think that's false. Why? Maxwell posted in detail about the reasoning behind their renovation, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. You could have followed the link.

Also above, a link to the G-R's Hamptons house.

Pay attention.

wait, what about that paint the floors piece that shows a cottage? does this mean they have an apartment, a cottage, and a barn (and yurts)?

The barn looks nothing like the cottage, nothing at all.

I have assumed all along that at least part of the cost of this renovation would be tax deductible as a business expense. It can serve as a showroom as well as PR/Advertising for the Website and Maxwell's interior decorating/organizing business.

It's amazing, Steve, that you can take anyone's point against your arguements and twist it so it suits your purposes. I posted about communities suffering under the abandonment of rent controls - to refute your belief that abandoning rent controls were a good idea. You used that to make an entirely different point, and you've done the same with many folks' statements. It seems like you're more interested in scoring points off AT than participating any real discussions. Come on, give it a rest. You've obviously got some deeply held grudge against the Gillingham-Ryan's, but take it elsewhere.

To everyone else, please forgive my grammatical errors in the above post - I really wish AT had an "edit" function!!

Dorianne- Chill out. I have no deeply held grudge against the G-R's, in fact, I never heard of them or this site before that Times article. I don't know them, except they don't mind giving the world the false impression that they are raising a child in a 265 sq. ft. apartment. And they have money. You're absolutely right, I did use your point to illustrate how unfair the G-R's scamming is. Thank you with providing me with that. PLease follow: if you think rent control is bad, then the G-R's are a perfect example of why it's bad. And if you think rent control is good, well, the G-R's look even worse. You see, I think rent control is a waste, and doesn't help anybody. You seem to think it would help poor people. And thus, the G-R's are taking housing from poor people. The argument I was making is that no matter which one of us is right, the G-R's are wrong. This is not an entirely different point. It may be to you, because I think you're so busy trying to defend the G-R's that you can't be honest about what they are doing. What I am doing is having a discussion. What you are doing is being a sycophant.

Now, I don't know where you live and how your "community" (whatever that is) is suffering because you don't have rent control. (I'll bet the people who don't work for "non-profit groups helping tenant's rights" can afford their rent). I'll take your word for it. But I have been talking about New York City. In New York City, rent control is a freaking disaster. It has held real estate prices high, and encourages people to scam the laws. It's so pervasive that people advertise the fact that they are cheating. It fundamentally screws with basic economic concepts, and turns the NYC real estate market into a Soviet-style "line-up and wait your turn" universe. And since these laws were supposedly meant for the poor, and you supposedly help the poor, I find it bizarre that you are such a cheerleader for the G-R's. If you think it's right for people with the talent and income to afford East Hampton beach cottages and $20,000 renovations to be taking up these apartments forever, then I wonder what you're all about.

Rather than have a real discussion, it seems like you're more interested in cooing over Maxwell smiling at his baby, praising their wonderful taste, and telling me to stop posting here. It's strange...I disagree with you strongly, but would never attempt to silence you. Why would you do that to anyone?

Ouch!

Oh by the way...

"I disagree with you strongly, but would never attempt to silence you. Why would you do that to anyone?"

An ongoing controversy here in happy happy bubble land (cf. Banishment of "you're all a bunch of fucking idiots" Jonathan).

Only a matter of time before somebody calls you a troll.

Ah ha! - I missed that link to their cottage - thanks for pointing that out to me - so they have three properties - the apartment, the cottage, and the barn - plus the yurts which I presume are classified as "tents" or temporary structures to get around the no-sleeping zoning

Sorry but I still think this whole renovation was done for publicity purposes - Maxwell now has somewhere to show off to clients to say "Look what wonders I can do with a small space" - its really got nothing to do with them actually LIVING in that small space

and I'll echo the sentiments of someone above who thought this website was about making beautiful apartments with little (either stuff or money) but it seems to have turned into more of a flagship for the most expensive designer products and less of a place for people to exchange good ideas

Oh and can anyone tell me what Americans do when they get married if they are both double barreled already?

For anyone who commented on the Oprah show, guess what? The G-R's removed the commentary. Wonder what took them so long. They are going to craft a response. This should be interesting. How much does anyone want to bet that they mention a caring, profit-eschewing landlord?