apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

This show has been on for ten minutes and someone's crying already.

This is so fun you guys- can't wait to see the AT abode among the other Nate creations. I've been looking for you guys in the front row- far left I think?

I'll have to say, that home with the tented ceiling made me claustrophobic. So much pattern in so little space-eek.

Grace

will someone put this up on bittorrent, pretty-please? I have no tv.

Nate's place is fab! I think it has a clean warm feel that will resonate with many AT'ers. Eagerly waiting to see you guys. Got the VCR on to capture everything

wow - congrats! i wish i wasn't at work missing it!

I'm watching right now... waiting for Maxwell and Sara Kate. I must say I really liked what Nate did with his own 500 square foot place - painting the ceilings, walls and floors white looked great and I loved the French doors separating his living space from the bedroom.
Grace - I would not be able to handle that tented ceiling either. That space felt more like a fancy dressing room to me than an apartment. Oh well, the woman who lives there loved it, so that is the most important thing!

I'm loving the coffee table with the ottomans tucked underneath, although the thought of buying something online scares me a little. Has anyone had any experience with it?

Very cool - Jane and Darko's place (one of the Smallest, Coolest winners) is featured on the show.

I'm at work - watching it right now! FANTASTIC!

Linda,if you have that Long Island station, "WLIW - TV 55", as part of your basic cable lineup, you can see each day's Oprah re-run at 7:00PM on Ch. 55 (if you don't have Time Warner, it's carried by other cable companies as well). I'm also at work and forgot to set my DVR to record, so I'll be watching it tonight at 7:00 too.

Ursula is cute, cute, cute as a peach!!

Maxwell and Sara Kate (and Ursula) - your home, and all of you, looked fantastic. Great job - you've done us small apartment people (and the rest of AT) proud!

Got the VCR on, so I can't wait to watch it tonight!

Oprah needs to say "Apartment Therapy"!!! GAAAHH!!!!

You guys are too adorable.

I just saw the Oprah episode and you, Mary Kate (and little Ursula) were GREAT! Congrats!!!!

Great show, fantastic apartment. Ursula's a star :-)

In NYC, Oprah also repeats on ABC at 1:06 a.m. Don't know if it's the same all over.

Congrats! How fun.

Fantastic show, full of great ideas and tips! Maxwell and Ursula's space looks awesome. Bravo!!!

yes they replay the day's episode after Jimmy Kimmel Live...

It also repeats in New York at 7 p.m.

http://www.wlny.com/oprah.shtml

Too bad they Apartment Therapy wasn't mentioned!

You can some of the photos from the show on Oprah's website if you aren't able to watch the show itself. I checked it out on the web earlier while at work though I've actually recorded the episode on my DVR at home. Apartment Therapy is mentioned in the credits/sources online for the episode although a bit buried.

I actually like the tented room Nate did even if not my style. It just completely changed the preception of the space to a completely different level. All that fabric would get a bit dusty though.

I have 20 yr old White Melamine with wood trim Kitchen cabinets. Repulsive I know. Have been searching craigs/ebay for weeks, this will take forever. Any other NYC source ? I'm in Hoboken NJ Ikea is even too expensivefor me. Checked out maplecraftusa, like the alum/glass doors but with shipping not worth it. So, where to get used cabinets and nice alum/glass door replacements on the very very cheap. What do Contractors do with all the stuff they accumulate from demo's??? PS- It's a tiny galley kitchen
Thanks All

I saw the show - it was fantastic, a lot packed of small space decorating info packed into one hour.

The Gillingham-Ryan family is adorable, as is their apartment.

Great show! And, yes, Nate is unbelievably cute. It hurt to see him paint over his nice hard-wood floors but the end result was fantastic.

congratulations! you all looked wonderful on camera and your apartment looks incredible.

enjoyed the show--i felt the tented ceiling made the space look even smaller and thought they would have done something different but the owner seemed to really love the space and was so happy. that narrow carriage house is just beautiful!

You three are so cute. I enjoyed seeing you and your little babe on the telly. Your apartment is the best. Thanks for sharing it with us.

No mention of Apartment Therapy ?

BAAAAh! Bad Oprah No Soup for you

I love love love this website and have been a fan for sometime. I also love Oprah, but I am a bit disappointed that she didn't mention apartment therapy not once. Boo! Well, maybe it is a good thing that the followers of the O won't crash your server in a fury to consume anything she says...not hating or anything but just being selfish of one of my favorite sites! Congrats!

Gillingham-Ryan family is adorable! Great job! Thought the tent decor made the space feel closed in as well and good heavens the dust would be enough to bring on an athesma attack.

Aww... you guys were so cute. Great interaction with Oprah. More of the Gillingham-Ryan's on network TV!

I usually don't watch Oprah, so today was a unique experience. The scene depicted in the above picture was priceless. You don't need to know the conversation that accompanied it, only that:
1. Nate is laughing about the fact that he is in bed with a woman
2. Oprah is laughing about the fact that she is in bed with a man

that was excellent! your family and everything that you've done are truly special!

You guys looked so great, not to mention your place...

Congrats to you all!
Being on Oprah is HUGE!!!

it was all about nate, which was great! i love his personal style. the tent was too crazy for me but the howmeowner loved it. and jane & darko's apt looked so much more fantastic on oprah. i know moving images are better for showing spaces, but i wish they'd post a lot more pics on the slideshow. the at part was okay, kinda akward. odd it wasnt mentioned but oh well.

Yes, the first thing I thought was, why the heck didn't she mention AT? I thought that very strange and was waiting for it at the last moment before the show ended. Makes you go hmmmmmmmm. It was a great segment with super ideas and a beautiful family story!!

I'm getting ready to watch it on Tivo! Yay for DVRs!

I watched Oprah today just to see you guys!!! Great job - your place looked fabulous. And Ursula is so adorable! Congrats!!!!

I am watching it now, I am not a fan of what Nate did to the 250 sq apartment. All that curtain everywhere...oh the allergies. But maybe Nate got to know the lady, and knew she would like that style. Nate's own west village apartment (which I would kill for, corner windows, separate bedroom, a co-op board willing to be bribed into letting you knock down a wall), I didn't care for most of the makeover. It looked really cluttered to me. I had to cover my eyes when they painted over that hardwood
floor. I did like the kitchens in both places (well not the drawer fridge, but I am guessing Nate doesn't cook much).

Wow! Jane and Darko's apartment is AMAZING. I am in love with their style! I absolutely adore the bathroom.

I wished Oprah would have mentioned Apartment Therapy and its huge following. :( It's important to note that their are thousands of New Yorkers living small and loving it!

Loved the show!

Your family is very telegenic and you came across really well. It was great that you got your philosophy across.

Did Oprah mention your book at all? I hope so, you deserve to be a gazillionaire and have oodles of people do book club cures.

Too bad everything not done by Mr. Adorable barely got any attention; I like the G-R home so much better than the suffocating floral tent Nate put together. And what a telegenic family the G-Rs are; SK and Ursula are gorgeous!

I did like what Nate did with his own home. Jane and Darko's place was fantastic and Jane was a great tour guide.

I can't believe Oprah didn't mention the AT site and the book; if she had Ursula's college tuition would be covered before Easter.

Caught the show, I liked all the apartments and even the little house. I liked Nates space, and the way he incorporated a desk -- two-- I think. I also liked the enclosed shelving white shelving unit from IKEA. Yes, I know how many of you feel about IKEA. I would like to pare down like that--just the basics...joining the new cure--it's going to be interesting.

Loved the whole show about living in small spaces and (most of) what Nate did. I was so looking forward to seeing your place & was not disappointed -- way to make use of every available space & create a cozy, useful, efficient space. One thing though -- does your baby really sleep in that Moses basket up on a shelf? Sorry, but that looks terribly dangerous.

Out on the West coast, am going home now to catch the evening feed of Oprah! Can't wait!

I'm also surprised and disappointed Oprah didn't mention AT or Maxwell's book. I'd like to know why. But the Gillingham-Ryans were fabulous and its national exposure so maybe great things will come of it.

Re: the tented apartment - the person with whom I share my office is a personal friend of Martha's. She has seen Martha's teensy place before and after and said it is GORGEOUS. Apparnently Martha loves clothes, theatre, etc. and its perfect for her. I would also feel claustraphobic and would worry about dust but Martha is a happy camper and Nate gave her what she wanted. I thought it was actually beautiful. Nate's apartment was wonderful.

All-in-all, I think AT promotes ideas as innovative as Nate's, although he is a cutie.

Maxwell: Your philosphy came across beautifully. Good job from both of you and Ursula gets cuter by the minute.

Loved it...
First and foremost, Maxwell and his lovely family looked fabulous. Secondly, his space is such a delight. He was the highlight for sure... so gracious!
And lastly, Nate is such a cutie pie! His New York teeny abode is also amazing...
Lots of great stuff displayed.. loads of fun! (:

Yay! You are so photogenic + poised!
Loved seeing your beautiful family.
HOpe we see you on TV more!

I'm sorry I didn't get to see it. Maybe I'll get to see it at 1am? But I can't buh-leeeeeve she didn't mention AT! At all?

Wow. What a cool episode!

Made my day =)

So fine, I've been trying to wean myself off Oprah for the last couple of weeks. That doesn't mean that I don't watch the odd episode, and that I don't like the show. I just think it's gotten off track.

But, I can't believe I missed this one! I was at work, near a big screen TV,(in fact, sadly, watching Judge Judy) and I missed it.

I guess I'll be looking for Oprah re-runs, so be sure to tell use when and if it airs next. I'm so curious to know your 250 sf in the West Village looks like!!

I'm glad I live in the NYC area and can watch this when it reruns tonight at 1:06 am locally. Otherwise I would have missed it and I would have been very sorry about that. I can't wait!

I'm sure the moses basket isn't dangerous, considering it's in arms length of Sara Kate and the baby is still very small. I wonder though, what are your plans when the baby gets big enough to need a crib? You aren't going to sleep with her are you?

Oprah airs three times a day in the NYC area.

4pm - ABC 7

7pm- TV 55 (Cable)

1:30am - ABC 7

So folks can set a tivo, vcr or stay up for the late night airing.

I dozed off after the guy in the shack on wheels. So sorry. I usually do on Tuesdays.

I mean 1:06 am!

Lovely, poised, Gillingham-Ryans! Beautiful, clean, uncluttered Gillingham-Ryan home!
'
There was a time in my life when I would have loved the tented apartment. I had a Laura Ashley book that had instructions for tenting a room and used to dream of doing that once I had a place of my own. That was in 1984. But I was very impressed with the functionality that he was able to pack into that small space, and if the style is to your taste, it was beautifully done.

Also, I thought Nate's apartment looked cluttered.

And why, why, *why* no mention of AT????

How great! Ursula is adorable, oh my goodness.

I thought Nate did an amazing job with that woman's apartment because it seemed perfect for her. Plus, what a transformation. I could personally never live there (I found the tent extremely claustrophobic as well) but seemed to really fit her personality.

I covet Jane's sink so much.

"Why no mention of AT????" You ask? Because they are getting a little smarter about revealing their little real estate scam.

Why do they claim to live in that place "365 days a year" when they have a home in the Hamptons? (Which, by the way, isn't zoned for sleeping, so they stay there illegally.)

It's amazing to me that the G-R's have the temerity to put themselves on national television, crowing about how they spiffed up their apartment. And they continue to brag that they could afford to move elsewhere, but decide to stay in that apartment simply because they "love the neighborhood".

This time, however, they do not reveal that they spent $20,000 to improve a rent-controlled apartment they do not own. This time they didn't brag that they plan to hold onto the place forever, maybe as a office or pied-a-terre, even though rent-controlled apartments were meant for the poor, and meant as primary residences. And they certainly do not mention the "cottage" in the hamptons.

For a picture of said cottage, please click on this link:

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/how-to/how-to-paint-your-floors-and-

What a crock.

Sorry-

Here is the full link:


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

Maxwell,

consider brooklyn. there are great communities there. someone with your insight would fit right into many communities there. that little girl is sooo cute. one day soon, she will need her own room. it promotes independence, something she will need in her life.

congrats on your oprah moment. i think she will call again soon.

Steve - If you saw them "crow" or "brag" then you must have been watching a different show. On another planet. It *is* their primary residence, and it *is* a wonderful neighborhood. If their landlord gave her blessing to the improvements, then it's all good. Your vitriol is confounding.

I am so glad that my VCR worked and that I got to see your little glowing iPod of an apartment.

Also baffled as to why Oprah made no mention of AT.

I loved your place, love how open it is even though it is tiny. I too was skeptic of Ursula being in the basket on the shelf, my thinking is there is no gap between the too, but hell, I'm sure people were skeptic of my son sleeping in my bed, lol. I was aghast when Nate had them paint over the hard wood floors, and I thought the curtain ideas was genius, but everything just seemed so dowdy and crowded, partially because of the print of the fabirc

That was a fun, packed show. It was great to see all the NYC spaces, when usually their idea of a small space is a one-bedroom condo somewhere with a deck. Loved that narrow house in Alexandria, thought the G-R family looked lovely, and actually liked the boudoir-like studio makeover. It's nice to see something done with a small space besides going all white and streamlining. I may give up on trying to make my place seem bigger than it is. If I embrace the jewel box look, but dislike jewel tones, will my place look like a cave? I like gray.

So don't do jewel tones, Julie. Do your gray and throw in an accent or two that you do like. Gray is an excellent neutral. It makes every other color look better.

I just watched the show which I Tivo'd. I love how Maxwell practices what he preaches. Where is the crib going to go, though? I haven't read the other posts yet, but I was so proud (strange I know) of them. They help us out endlessly with our own living spaces and to see their adorable family making it work in such a small space was positively inspiring. And what a cutie-patootie that Ursula is!! Well done.

did Nate's publisher have them not promote Maxwell's website/ book?

Trish-

If you don't think they are bragging about their apartment and lifestyle, then you must not have read the NYTimes article about them back in November, and you don't read their website. Here is the link about their NYTimes article.

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/house-home-roundup/house-home-roundup-111606-014783

You also write:

"It *is* their primary residence, and it *is* a wonderful neighborhood. If their landlord gave her blessing to the improvements, then it's all good."

Actually, no. It's not. Rent controlled apartments are meant for the poor. There are income limits on most of them. Relatively wealthy people are not supposed to live in them. People with the talent and resources of the G-R's do a real disservice to the city when they get an apartment and hold it forever, even though it doesn't belong to them. A poor person cannot live in that apartment because the G-R's have decided they are too hip to move to Brooklyn.

You miss the point. Of course, it's a great neighborhood. That's why they've decided to hold onto a rent-controlled apartment forever, even though they can afford to move. (We know they can afford to move because they said so, and they spent 20 large fixing it up.)

The G-R's should not hold onto apartments meant for the poor, to use as a pied-a-terre, or an office, forever. They are betting that the city will not investigate and catch them, even as they go on national television, making even more money.

Also, if you think that is their primary residence, you fooling yourself. Where do you think that little kid will spend more time, in the 265 square foot apartment or in the Hamptons? That why, as CASAPINKA has noted, there is no crib.

The question I have, is why are the G-R's so calm about giving the false impression they are raising their child in a closet? And why does Oprah, who is very sensitive about child issues, think this is a good thing?

I saw it, and was also disappointed that AT wasn't mentioned, but I enjoyed the show. I actually did like the tented room. It would have been too much for me, but it seemed to really fit the woman's personality, and let's face it...she basically does live in a dressing room with a kitchen, so why not embrace that?

Nate's apartment was nice, though I was baffled by his metallic bean bag chair. Jane's apartment is totally amazing, and they did a fantastic job.

The Gillingham-Ryans managed to rival Oprah's "Cutie Pie" (aka Nate) in adorableness. :) I think she managed to call him every pet name in the book during the show.

What Nate did to that womans apartment was appalling! - if you wanted an example of how to make a small space appear even smaller then you've got one - awful!

I don't know the status of their place, but if the Gillingham-Ryans moved out, it would probably become a non-rent-controlled property (if it even is one now).

It's not like this family is holding on to a four bedroom place which could be used by a family of six. I'm sure there's tons of demand for 260 sq foot apartments.

Sounds like you have a case of the sour grapes, Steve.

Maxwell,
I detect a hint of envy on your part by calling Nate B. "cutie-pie."

Steve- No need to spew links at me... I've been a visitor of AT since early days and have seen the NYT article.

Like the G-Rs. my home is tiny but the neighborhood is great. So why not stay put and fix up the current place for much less? I'm not missing the point Steve... I'm just not agreeing with yours

I went ahead and stayed up until 1:06 to watch it, and it was soooooo worth it, but how funny that Maxwell, et al were in the last 5 minutes! So, it was like 2:00am when I finally saw them!

Anyway... I think that it's great that what the G-R's did to their space, and it's great that they have a landlady who likes them, and it's great that they decided to buck the conventional wisdom average of living where there's more space and made a lifestyle, or actually a life, out of it, even with having a baby.

I think you guys came across VERY well; I just wish some mention of AT had been made some kind of way.

Regardless, you can definitely say that you and your apartment have been on Oprah, and that is really pretty major.

A good friend of mine - who knows I like my small space home - but doesn't know I'm an avid Apartment Therapy vistor - saw the show yesterday and said she liked the young family with the child best. She thought they were warm and sincere!

Steve,

I'm so glad you spoke up, expressing my exact sentiments regarding the G-R controversy. I agree with you 100%.

Gemma,

Oprah called Nate cutie-pie (and every other pet name in the book) repeatedly. I think that's the reference he's citing.

If you click the link "Small Space Episode" in the post above, you'll see both the website and the book listed as resources on Oprah's site.

I was not in love with the woman's makeover, but she seemed crazy about it, and that's what counts. As for making the space look smaller, I think a lot of times designers, when dealing with small spaces, get caught up in trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. That place is never going to seem huge, so why not focus instead on making it feel luxurious? (not MY style, just playing devil's advocate here) I'm sure that Nate talked to her for a long time about what she likes and what she wanted for the room (instead of the 5 seconds of talk we saw). It was an Oprah makeover, not a Trading Spaces job ... Oprah does not want anyone crying over their fireplace.

Steve: Everyone of us is entitled to an opinion, however, you don't need to voice yours so personally or vehemently on this blog.

I would suggest you take a pill, calm down, a realize that the Gillingham-Ryans can do whatever they want. It is, afterall, a free country. They have misrepresented nothing. Those of us who follow the blog know about the Hamptons.

Play nice. You'll have more friends.

Jackie - stating on national television that they live in their apartment "365 days a year" isnt misrepresenting anything?

I live in my apartment ALL YEAR LONG except that I have an investment with a brother in California and I visit for vacations, much as others might have a place overseas - timeshare - or whatever and they spend VACATION TIME THERE whether that is a weekend or a month.

No, it is not misrepresenting. They're smart. They stay in NYC and have found a way to afford a summer place.

Lighten up. Your point seems to be to nail them to some cross. If that's the case, you have a long list of people to get to.......judgements of other people such as yours is bad energy. I can't participate in dialogue with you.

I respect your opinion, not your manner of delivery. Enjoy your day.

jackie, i'm a different stephen.

I was just wondering how you thought their statement wasnt misrepresentative.

frankly i dont care what they do. i was just calling you out on making a crazy statement.

and having an investment property in california is hadly the same as a house in the hamptons.

sending good energy your way,

stephen

Maybe the producer told them to say the "365 in 265" thing. Although I do agree about the rent-stabilization issue, it's not a big deal that they didn't go into the details of their vacation schedule or their plans for the apartment 3 years from now in the 2 minutes that they had to present themselves and their apartment. The piece wasn't about that stuff ... it was about space-saving designs for small apartments, which the G-Rs have tons of.

But Jackie, you are also judging (Steve). And who are you to police this board? Steve makes a good point. If this blog weren't about a philosophy of the home, Steve's point would be irrelevant. But given that Maxwell's focus is on one's relationship with one's home, Steve's point is appropriate, even if you don't agree with his conclusion.

If I was able to fall into an apartment in the west village that was rent controlled, I'd do it. Does that make me a bad person? I really don't think so. An opportunist, maybe. The world isn't perfect. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Are you kidding? I have 2 boys in their 20s who I'd throw in there in a minute. They'd each fight over it. It doesn't make the G-R bad people, sorry, it really doesn't. Morally perfect? No, but who is??? Are you?? There would be a real long line of people out the door and down 20 blocks who are otherwise very good people, who'd take that in a minute. Maybe not "nothing" wrong with that, but little. And, are they the only ones doing it? I doubt it. No, it doesn't make it right, but that's the way the world is. I'd take it in a heartbeat if I had that opportunity. And, about misrepresentation? That's Oprah's problem, not theirs.

Stephen: didn't realize you are a different one and you have the right to call me on my opinion, as I did the other Steve. That's fair. So I will respond. However..........

.........my opinion is no more crazy than anyone else's. I try not to cram it down anyone's throat, however maybe now I will.

"...and having an investment property in california is hardly the same as a house in the hamptons" Ok, so is it the location that bothers the naysayers? Isn't their Hamptons home an investment property? You don't know how they acquired it and it isn't anyone's business. No one I know knows about my investment because its my business. Have I committed fraud? Did they? Who cares. Only the IRS needs to know.

I just don't get the problem here. Do you think they should have stood up and said "Oh well, we are also getting rich and have a house in the hamptons. Bad people that we are for becoming successful. Kill us now".

The show was about small spaces. Period. The guy in the 96 sq. ft. place (I would shoot myself) answered O's question of "How long have you lived there". O never asked Maxwell/Sara Kate that question. It's a show. It's O's show. Maybe she didn't care.

An opinion is one thing. The argument, however, is pointless.

Good day.

ss,

the point is that the GR's are making a living off of "Maxwell's focus on one's relationship with one's home" as Actaully stated. therein lies the irony...

thanks to lowes, thanks to ge, thanks to all the expensive designers, architects, etc. that overdid the 250 s.f. boudouir. no thanks to apartment therapy? even when the founder is a featured guest. no mention of the most important resource of the entire show! (unless I missed it). oprah and nate didn't turn to their own town either (mine too) for any inspiring spaces. why?

Jackie,

i think the point is less about the Oprah show, and more about the underlying theme of Apartment Therapy, which contradicts people abusing the rent-control system.

the rent control system has allowed them to live in the tiny space, and by doing so has afforded them the opportunity to start a little empire based on that small space. a small space which, ironically, was intended for people who actually needed an affordable (WAY below market) place to live.

I was wondering about Ursula too. She is about 5 months old now and will be sitting up on her own very soon. Therefore the moses basket won't work for much longer. Their only other option, if they don't want another piece of furniture in their room, is to co-sleep. Furthermore, I felt like the G-R's could have staged their home a little better. It seemed a bit dark and dowdy compared to the pics presented on this page. And suddenly I realized just how small it really is. Finally I agree that Max kind of slammed Brooklyn. I understand that he has been in his neighborhood for years and feels a real sense of community but to suggest that cannot be found in Brooklyn or anywhere else is preposterous. But congrats on your Oprah moment. I am sure, even though they didn't mention it,resourceful viewers will find AT and the boook.

As someone fairly new to this blog, I must admit that I do feel somewhat "disappointed" to learn that the G-R have a house in the Hamptons, because that means they aren't really, totally living in one small space (while many others around the world actually are). I don't think they're "bad" people, but for them to tout the benefits of small space living, when in reality they have not one but TWO homes, is a misrepresentation. The woman with the 250 sq. ft. apt. is a more authentic example of someone who is able to live well in a small space.

Stephen (the second): I don't get the irony.

Steve (the first): I think the personal attacks started with the phrase "what a crock" in your original post.

Also think that some of your arguments are based on gross assumptions about the G-R's financial situation. I'm sure they are doing well as AT expands, but SKGR is a foodwriter, and MGR was a school teacher prior to starting AT and becoming a design consultant for apt dwellers in NYC a few years ago. Neither of these current enterprises likely come with 401Ks, health insurance, paid vacation and sick leave.

My gross assumption is that the "wealth" of a happy and comfortable situation for the G-Rs has more to do with the G-R lifestyle and outlook and less to do with the G-R bank account.

Veronica: I see living in a small space as an option, not a necessity. So, if I live 90% of my time in my small city apartment and rent a huge house in the Outer Banks once a year, it doesn't make me a fraud, or any less sincere about my decision to live in an efficiency apartment most of the time. Leslie

Where does it say that this is a "rent controlled" apartment (to nitpick, this cannot be a "rent controlled" apartment, as that would require that they had lived there continuously since 1971. If anything, it's rent stabilized). As an aside, if one knows the address, you can find out if an apartment is rent stabilized, as that is public information on the DHCR's website.

And the rent stabilization laws define what is required to be a "primary residence" and it doesn't mean you have to live there every single day of the year (see http://www.housingnyc.com/html/glossary_defs.html#primary).

Even if this is a rent stabilized apartment, so long as the rent does not exceed $2000 a month, they can make as much as they want and be legally entitled to the apartment. Even if the rent were higher than the $2000 threshold, they would have to make more than $175k in AGI for the last two years in order for them to longer qualify for rent stabilization status. Even in NYC, I don't think someone making $174k a year is poor. Rent regulation is in no way intended to provide housing for poor people, it's intended to provide stability for tenants against rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods.

I don't want to get into the merits of rent regulation (I concede that there are numerous problems with the laws), but the G-Rs are living within the law. To say that this is a "real estate scam" just isn't true.

Jen,

the irony (once again) is that the small space intended for poor people has allowed them to become very comfortable.

and yes, one would assume that with a house in the hamptons and the ability to sink $20k into a rent controlled apartment, their financial situation seems quite adequate enough to allow them to afford market rental prices like most people in this city.

grendel,

i dotn think anyone said it was a real estate scam.

Stephen R at 11:49 said:

"Why no mention of AT????" You ask? Because they are getting a little smarter about revealing their little real estate scam.

This is what I was responding to.

ahh, i see.

i'm certainly not questioning the legality of anything, but i am questioning the honesty of the situation.

regardless, i own the book and love my small space and the ideas brought forth on this site.

however, as was said earlier by someone, i'm dissapointed.

and by rent-stabilization laws THEY CAN! They are not breaking any law.

I refer to this:
Posted by JenPDX at 02/21/07 11:51 AM

Stephen (the second): I don't get the irony.

Steve (the first): I think the personal attacks started with the phrase "what a crock" in your original post.

Also think that some of your arguments are based on gross assumptions about the G-R's financial situation. I'm sure they are doing well as AT expands, but SKGR is a foodwriter, and MGR was a school teacher prior to starting AT and becoming a design consultant for apt dwellers in NYC a few years ago. Neither of these current enterprises likely come with 401Ks, health insurance, paid vacation and sick leave.

My gross assumption is that the "wealth" of a happy and comfortable situation for the G-Rs has more to do with the G-R lifestyle and outlook and less to do with the G-R bank account.
_________________

I agree, and that's it

i found the entire show hoohum and rushed, not very interesting or inspiring and uttered an explative when Brooklyn was "slammed".

I have to say that I am happy to finally see some real differences of opinion here. I've only been reading this blog for 4 months but until now it has been off putting to me that people are so concerned about offending other people. I find that there is a lot of passive aggressive behaviour from the readers and too many comments along the lines of "Oh sorry I didn't mean to hurt you feelings..."

I'm not suggesting that people should be highly aggressive and antagonizing but please let people express their opinions. The world is a controversial place and it's good to have opposing views - encourage this.

M

Stephens I and II, and the few others who've agreed with you:

You'll convince none of the regulars on this group. One of the most interesting aspects of this community is how cult-like it is (and increasingly so). The G-Rs are prophets, and can do no wrong. There was a parody posted on Open Thread 375 the other day on what passes for discussion here: Maxwell posts some semi-mystical musings in his trademark first-person plural, and injects an unsubtle product plug or two; the usual suspects squeal their applause. Anybody who dares raise even the hint of a contrary point of view is greeted with irritation and, worse, hurt feelings.

There are many contradictions on AT:

There's the contradiction, pointed out above, between claiming small living, yet living off large resources.

There's the contradiction between urging people to pare down, yet constantly pushing this or that new product.

There's the contradiction between the simplicity and organization the site proclaims, and the total chaos of how it's actually organized and run.

Yet, to me it has value, partly for the amusement of seeing how these contradictions play out -- all cults are funny -- but also because there's a core here of interesting, well-informed people with interesting, well-informed things to say about design and living. That's why I visit.

As someone stated earlier, I also love looking at the ideas brought forth on this site. For many people (including myself), small space living is not an option, but a necessity.
Many people are “sincere” about living in an efficiency 365 days a year because that is what they have. When someone is trying to promote small space living, it certainly sounds a lot better to say that 2 adults and an infant can live in a 265 sq. ft. apt. 365 days a year – instead of saying 2 adults and an infant can live in a 265 sq. ft. apt. 365 days a year because having a second home makes that a lot easier. Then it sounds disingenuous. Having MORE than one home (and more available space) is NOT “living light.”

Where does it say that in order to be creditable, Maxwell and Sara Kate must be poor and live in a small space? Remember how many people wanted them to move to a larger place when they announced they were expecting a baby?
AT the website and AT the book are about apartment living in general and making that space work, not about where the Gillingham-Ryans live or their economic status.

I am a huge fan of AT and Maxwell, but must admit to a bit of disappointment. I agree with Stephen - I am sure, or at least hope everything is legal - Maxwell is that smart. However the spirit of making small, simple living work BY EXAMPLE is a bit lost when you have a second home that is close enough to escape to often.

Also being flip enough about rent control to state you may one day use an aparment as a pied-a-terre seems insensitive to the sense of neighborhood community and diversity that the G-Rs hold in high regard. Legal probably, in the spirit of rent control probably not.

Do I still love AT - Yes. Do I still think Maxwell is intellingent and has valid points - Yes.
However I now see Maxwell more as a savvy, talented opportunist with good tips on small space living. Not bad, just not quite what I first thought. Maybe I was a bit idealistic.

How do we know any of the people featured don't have second homes? The only one I would safely say probably doesn't is Martha (of the tented apartment). We have no idea about any of the other people. I'm willing to bet that's not Nate's only home, that's for sure.

Also, from what Grendel posted, they seem to be within the law. There's no way a studio that size, even in the West Village, is going for over $2k. My friend pays $2,500 for double the space in the West Village (a one-bedroom)

Of course Nate B. doesn't only own an apt. in the West Village. But he also isn't constantly trying to espouse the virtues or living in a small apartment and presenting himself and his family as a premiere example.

Design Dabbler, Apartment Therapy is now a cult?! We have arrived. Where's Tom Cruise?

Lauren, as to Nate's apartment in NY, his large Chicago apartment has been featured prominently in Oprah Home in the past and he didn't state he had sold it. Since he frequently does business in NY he clearly bought the "small" apartment in the Village as a "pied a terre". And I'm not convinced in NYC a 500 plus sq. ft. apartment translates into small.

Love Nate-Love Oprah-loved the show.

Steve R. (and M, m, stephen, and Design Dabbler) I want to thank you.

Design Dabbler, I think you are incorrect in saying that the "regulars" can't be convinced by Steve R.'s opinion. I am an AT regular, as in somebody who has been reading AT daily for approximately two years, whether or not I comment often. I say this because even though I'm a regular I find his opinion very convincing! Design Dabbler, I agree with you about the cult-like aspects of this site, and I'm embarrassed to say I feel like I've been "drinking the kool-aid". I agree with all of the contradictions that you have pointed out between the stated purpose of this blog and what actually goes on here. My rapidly changing opinion about AT started two days ago with the hilarious Open Thread post you pointed out, reader xyz's parody of a typical AT discussion. The parody was in good fun, but boy did it accurately demonstrate the cult-like readership.

Steve R., it's nice to hear somebody stand up and voice a different opinion. I don't see what you are saying as a personal attack on anybody. You are just pointing out the facts - the Gillingham-Ryan's are opportunists. They aren't necessarily doing anything illegal, but their "we live in 265 square feet 365 days a year" on Oprah is at best insincere, at worst a flat out lie. They sunk over $20,000 (would be more had it not been for deals with retailers and manufacturers) into their rent stabilized unit with the intention of using it as a pied a terre, office space or guest house in the future. In the meantime their space serves as their residence (and conveniently a marketing tool and publicity vehicle). Yes, most of the readers are perfectly comfortable with this (their future intent). You aren't though, and I'm not, and my guess is several other readers will start to have light bulbs go on over their heads. What they are doing right now, if they are in fact living there most of the time, is fine. Their plans to hold onto it forever are certainly unethical.

I've just been blindly reading this blog and eating it up without question. I'm starting to feel like I've had the wool pulled over my eyes. Yes, there are some great posts from time to time. As Design Dabbler said, there are some readers (and several AT editors) who are very intelligent and have great design ideas that are worth reading. But the Maxwell worship is quite cult-like, over-the-top, borderline creepy, and, in many ways, undeserved.

Sadly, I think I've realized I don't need an Eight Step Apartment Cure. I need a Twelve Step Apartment Therapy cure. I don't want to end up lying on my back on the floor of my small apartment (which happens to truly be my only residence) in brand new black-and-white Nike tennis shoes. Although maybe in the case of the AT cult it would be Eleanor Grosch Owl Keds.

Step 1. We admitted that we were powerless over Apartment Therapy...

As a side issue: who is Nate?

Unlike everybody else here, I did not rush off to watch Oprah yesterday. I never watch her, and I saw no reason to start just because Maxwell's House was on. The price I'm paying is that I'm now the only man alive who doesn't know who Nate is.

I don't think their vacation home or their income have any bearing on their appearance on the Oprah show. Are their stated motives for rennovating their apartment shady? Yes. Are they hypocrites if they do illegally keep their $800 rent-stabilized apartment after it is no longer their primary residence? Yes. Is abusing a system that's designed to help people ever okay, no matter how much sentimental attachment you have to your apartment? No. What kind of example is that to set for your child?

BUT are they currently within their rights, both in letter and spirit of the law? Yes. We can debate for days about what they may or may not do (I realize I'm doing my part in helping to extend said debate), but when it comes down to it, they're not doing anything wrong by having the apartment and going to their very modest vacation home on the weekends.

I too was disappointed with the Brooklyn comment – I found it naive and elitist. (But then again... who really cares.)
Certainly there are neighborhoods outside of the WV that would welcome your family and where you could make your own.

What was the Brooklyn comment?
I didn't see Oprah but used to get so angry when Sex and the City would slam Brooklyn. Will & Grace used to do that too. arrgghh.

Dear Design Dabbler -- I don't know who Nate is either. and i don't care.

I live in Brooklyn and I don't see how the comment on Brooklyn was in any way offensive. They love their home and current neighborhood even if it is smaller that what they might find by commuting further out in the borough of Brooklyn.

Ok - This is one of the best posts here in a while -

I find it quite ironic that post slamming the G-R's are being posted on their site paid by them..but alas..

SteveR, just curious you are making some interesting statement, but I assume you know more than you are revealing,as you state as a fact, and therefore must know, the actual legal situation of the places the G-R's inhabit. By reading this site I knew they went to the country, did not know it was the Hamptons or that it could be illegal, or that they were rent controlled or stabilized. So obviously you found a great forum to state some facts you are privy to.

Where they live I don't care and as to how they do it, it's really up to them. Do I think a running 2-year old can be in a 265sqft apt, good luck as I would not like to see my child running around in a 3ft circle all the time, and believe me they have energy!

As for the rest of the comments, yes, the opinions here are FINAL and must be enacted as laws, and it makes sense, its all about personal tastes, and while we are human we will never find a common ground or agreement on that.

The best part about the site is the links to all the stuff (that we are not supposed to be buying) and that is what attracted to me as I was furnishing my place. The comments are just plain amusing ( and a little addicting as someone pointed out earlier)

peace everyone!

This is ridiculous!

How do you know that they own the Hampton's cottage? Perhaps it's a family share that they are lucky enough to enjoy and help take care of from time to time?

How do you know that the Gillingham-Ryans are making a fortune?

Sure they spent some money refinishing their apartment, that they love. This is their world and it's their job to know how to do it right, what better way then to try it on themselves.

I know for a fact that they tried hard to find another spot for themselves and their baby, unfortunately they couldn't yet, so they are working hard to love their situation.

No matter how clean and modern and nice the space, how would you like to live in less than 300 square feet with a spouse & a baby? This does not sound like an ideal situation, no matter how good the neighborhood.

I missed the whole thing. Anybody knows how I can I get a copy?

Almost every East Coaster that I know had a "summer place" which they either rented or owned. Mostly they went to the house on the weekends. Very much like my friends in California who own or lease cabins in the Sierra in the winter. So what?

I am from Brooklyn and I thought the comment about moving to Brooklyn for a larger space was sort of a dig as well. I have been reading this blog for over a year now and I am finding it less interesting (this post sort of makes up for the less than interesting bedroom posts). Like many have pointed out, many of the posts are about living in a small space, but the majority of the posts are about buying really expensive things to live in that small space. With that in mind, I think, from what I saw on the Oprah show, Maxwell and his family are following the spirit of their blog: live in a small space with really expensive things (the kitchen for example). What's wrong with that? What happened to the post with Amtrak slide show? Step1: From today I'm starting my 12 step apartmenttherapy.com cure-it is a drain on productivity and I need to make money to afford the really expensive things to put in my small space in Brooklyn.

ebrown: how can I get you to know me? I'd like a regular summer place.

City Realtor:

You are wrong, it's a family property, I know for a fact. Secondly, they would be in a bigger apartment if they could.

jd,

They could be in a bigger apartment - they announced that on the Oprah show. did you watch? they would just have to move to brooklyn..

Why would they want to move to Brooklyn if they love the West Village? If you love New York, why would you move to California?

jd, if you actually knew them, you would know that they said they could afford more. Maxwell has stated on this blog and then on a nationally-televised show that they looked around and although they could afford a bigger place, they didn't want to give up living in the West Village.
And I really do actually know them, so I know for a fact that this is an absolute fact.

Criminy, people! Just this morning as I was getting dressed, I was thinking to myself that AT has one of the most civil, supportive online communities that I've experienced. Then I get to work and read this vitriole. Go away!

jd,

i'd love to live in the west village also, but i live uptown because that's what i can afford.

loving to live somewhere is not an entitlement, especially when you are living in that place at the detriment of others (meaning those people that the affordable place was meant for).

all they are doing is making my market rental apartment more expensive, which erks me beyond belief.

oh - and not to mention the part that they are actually making money by doing so.

Oh my god, I forgot, blogging is next Investment Banking in terms of earning potential. Phew, thanks Ellen for pointing out how wealthy they are!

Since you know them, and since all of you read the blogs, you probably also know for a fact that they looked for another apartment for over a year, to no avail.

jd,

did they look in brooklyn?

or did they look in their beloved west village?

get real.

Yes, jd, we know this as it was mentioned, but thank you for reminding us.

stephen, it irks me too. More than I can say. You are right, living where you want to live is not an entitlement. I don't actually know them, nor would I want to. I just thought it would amuse jd, their best friend, to say I did.

Diane, some people are just tired of drinking the kool-aid. I'll pour you another cuppa.

Diane, you must be pretty new to this site. Here are a couple of links to help you acclimate:

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/fall-colors-contest-east/ive-got-color-extras-aydens-awesome-wildcat-nursery-009645

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/fall-colors-2006-east/44-the-opoponaxs-happy-kitchen-013872

http://la.apartmenttherapy.com/la/small-cool-2006-entries/36-dianes-cozy-nest-downtown-007455

To everyone who's bitching about where they live, what they pay, what they own or don't own, or who they are or aren't shutting out by keeping a rent-stab. apartment...

get over yourselves.

I think the GR's have a sweet set-up, and i'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who would give up a rent-stab lease in the best neighborhood, on one of the best blocks, in the best city in the world. the GR's are the type of people (writers & creatives... not to mention thoughful, community-oriented, and truly caring people) who DOWNTOWN was originally made for.

And, regardless, quit bitching about whether or not you agree with their lifestyle choices or even believe that they live the way they say they do.... having a vaca spot to spend 2-4 weeks (total) throughout the year doesn't take away from someone's primary residence, btw.

What I know b/c they have demonstrated to AT readers for years now, is that they DO truly LIVE the AT philosophy... which (except for when it comes to coolest-contests and being on Oprah) is living lightly and exchanging creative ways to live RICHLY and FULFILLINGLY without having a lot of physical space...

No one on Oprah said that small was meant not to be luxurious or not expensive... shit, they featured a furniture piece by Liget Roset. The show, and this site, focuses on modesty in space, not price. Everyone here (and on the East Coast in general) talks about buying for quality... for life... And, we've seen that furniture and appliances that last a lifetime cost a lot. That includes a Henry-Built kitchen w/ solid bamboo cabs, a range, and rocking chair that the GR's will use for their next 3 kids (should they choose to have them).

If they want to spend $1,000,000 on a 250 sq-ft rent-stab place in Black Earth, Wisconsin... why do any of you care or even take issue with it?

I don't get it. It's their life, their choice, and I really don't know why people take issue with what they're doing/have done.

-Kellen-

Kellen - I think your post is an example of precisely the kind of self-righteous BS and attitude of entitlement that people are complaining about.

Kudos on the Oprah appearance! You guys were great!

As to the sour grapes: for god's sake: doesn't everyone look for rent stabilization, anyhow? Very, very sour grapes and very, very unclassy. Get a life.

Oh for the love of pete. Discussing a persons private life and motivations based on circumstantial information is just plain stupid. Unless you have the GR's income tax files in front of you as well as their Quicken breakdown of yearly expenses, I find the arguments and/or opinions vilifying them to be unfounded and malicious.
Read the AT. Don't read AT. I don't care. But don't make accusations without hard proof.

Kat-

I'm not anymore self-righteous than anyone else screaming that they're lying or being selfish by doing what they're doing. I don't care what the GRs do- it's their life and their business.

That makes me self-righteous? ... for defending that they have a right to life how they choose?

SteveR: If you dislike the G-R's so much and can't stand what they are doing, then why are you here?

SteveR- I'm glad i could infuse some humor into your reading of AT- clearly, using the word "made" not in the literal sense, but in figurative- below 14th/village-y downtown has historically (within the last 20, going on 30 yrs) been the creative/artsy enclave in NYC.

I get it. I just think that people like to play both sides of the coin... especially when it comes to NYC and who lives where and how they live.

e.g.
People bitch about genetrification and insane market-rate rents forcing creatives and artists out of downtown within the last 5-10 yrs, yet when one of them (two GRs) lands a rent-stab apartment and then becomes successful enough to live well because of their creative talents, we expect them to leave and/or not live well?

please explain.

Might be admirable/idealistic, but I don't know why you'd expect that to be the case.

What is it about what they're doing that is so bothersome?

Kellen, you can't win. They're out for blood.

on a more important topic, i think nate b's apartment turned out great. maybe i'm just biased because i desperately hope to wind up in it some night soon. anyone know his local hangouts?

kat,

"it's their life and their business". very true. but they make it the AT community's business when they make false announcements on the Oprah show because these false announcements lead to false assumptions by the AT community. those false assumptions lead people to follow the GR's blindly - buying their book, buying the products they push etc, without realizing that it's all based on an ill-gotten small space.

i'll repeat what i wrote earlier "i think the point is less about the Oprah show, and more about the underlying theme of Apartment Therapy, which contradicts people abusing the rent-control system.

the rent control system has allowed them to live in the tiny space, and by doing so has afforded them the opportunity to start a little empire based on that small space. a small space which, ironically, was intended for people who actually needed an affordable (WAY below market) place to live."

the fact that the GR's are making their living (which includes a commnunity of followers) by taking advantage of a system that is allowing them to make their living is sickening.

the reason they were on the Oprah show was because they "live" in a very small space. "365 days a year'. the reality is that their small space is one of two homes. the small space they do have is because of a rent control system, a system which is being abused. they can afford to move to another apartment (as Maxwell announced), but they choose not to. instead, they choose to hoard the apartment. the result? everyone who pays market rate in nyc pays for the GR's to live in the West Village.

this whole thing would be of no issue to me if the GR's were not profiting off of the city's loss.

I"M TIRED OF PAYING RENT FOR THE GR's!!!

it's time for the apartment guru to take some responsibility.

while you're at it blaming the GRs for your (and my) high rent in our market-rate apartment, why not go on a rant blaming the wall-streeters who are dropping a shit-ton on new condos and co-ops driving the sale market in NY so high that no one can ever afford to buy a place.

hell, i could go off on wall-streeters who seem to do nothing for society except make rich people richer, and blame them for NYC insane sales market.... too high for me, thus, keeping me a renter for as long as i live in NY. Or, why not the guy who just sold his Time Warner Center penthouse for $28 million (Jay-Z was paying $70,000 per month for that place in rent... was that GRs fault too???? maybe if they bought an apartment in bklyn, Jigga's rent would've only been $69,999 per month??)

i know i'm moving toward the ridiculous comparisons, but come on........ i just think this whole thing is ridiculous.

-Kellen-

Kellen,

the difference between your two comparisons is that one is illegal. and one party in your comparisons is making money off that illegal activity.

wake up.

Life is a crapshoot; people play the real estate cards they are dealt. Everyone tries to get the best deal they can, as well they should.

Perhaps there's anger at oneself for not doing the necessary homework that might have gotten them a tiny little apartment with a low rent? Perhaps not watching the tone of voice with your broker made him want to keep the good ones for the nice people?

One thing to be considered is that SOME landlords prefer to have their tenants being stable and loyal who pay promptly, etc. I've known people who were landlords and who really wish they weren't, because it's really hard to make that stuff happen in an affordable way. I've known people who rented from landlords for WAY LESS than the rent stabilized prices, because their landlords didn't have the guts to ask for rent increases because they liked them so well, and felt bad.

So, in that case, the landlord's own personality stopped getting in the way of their own best interest when stabilization came, because yearly increases were semi-automatic.

One thing that the GR's landlady gets RIGHT NOW is that the improvements they made would help her equity if she decides to re-finance. And it has already been said that she likes them, and they her.

I'm trying to picture a world in which the kinds of people who whine about them could possibly develop good relationships with landlords or anyone else, for that matter. Blame is such a sad, ugly little symptom of sadder, uglier things.

ummm, do they really have a place in the hamptons? cuz i was watching oprah and they said "living in a 250 (?) square foot space 365 days a year."

i've never heard they had a house in the hamptons, but that would totally change how i view this site if they do. they shouldnt say they live in a small space 365 and then actually get away to the hamptons whenever they can. i thought their version of getting away was going to the coffee shop next door?

im not sure about all that rent-stabalization stuff, im not that deep. but i would disagree to someone making a business and creating an entire community following on false claims.

he looked like an unphotogenic ass anyway, talking with his hands and trying to sound intelligent with the 10% rule. it was very akward and even oprah didnt know how to respons, they are not an on-camera family as many have said. the apartment didnt show well on camera, it looked like an ikea special. and you guys, there must be a reason oprah didnt so much as mention AT...yes, that's very very mean and immature of me but now i feel duped if they get to go to the hamptons on my dime.

someone please tell me they DONT own a home in the hamptons? please. id hate to revolt against this site. (which was built on living in a small space, 3-6-5 days a year)

wait, so you are saying that all NYers living in either a rent-controlled/stabilized apt should move out once they make a few extra dollars? Regardless if:
a) some have lived there longer than we've been alive?
b) raised/reared an entire family?
c) just plain love their home & community?

if you were in your dream apt, but it happened to fall under rent-controlled/stabilized law, you would move if were making X number of dollars?

tell the truth!

SteveR --

I took a look at that site. There are 84 comments on it and not one person brought up the subject of whether or not their creditibility was now "questionable," as they stated clearly it was their summer home.

and... I am sure if G-R's apt was for sale, they would have bought it by now. They love their little space/home.

SteveR and stephen: I admire your stick-to-it-iveness. I've long since learned that you cannot win arguments here if you question anything the G-Rs do. That was why I posted that parody on OT 375, posing as xyz. The emergence of Step 1 is encouraging, though, as are the other posts supporting you, so perhaps you guys *are* having an effect.

Let me help you by summarizing the key points of the opposing argument:

"take a pill, calm down....Play nice. You'll have more friends." -- Jackie (the original one)

"Go away!" -- Diane

"get over yourselves" -- Kellen

"Get a life." -- Terry

It's impossible to answer such cogently expressed arguments as these.

okay, so they do have a second home. but they said they live in the 265sq.ft. apt 365 days a year on oprah...am i missing something? isnt that a lie? unless they just go look at the second home for a few hours and then return to west village. either way, had they said something like "most of the year we live here successfully" or "other than 14 vacation days a year, we live here happily." not trying to be nit-picky, but they are making a living off of living in a small space, 365, just like the rest of us. i have a problem with that and now i want my money back on the book.

as far as the cult theory, i kinda agree. i noticed it a while ago, but thought maybe i was the only one. you need to be careful what you post, though. they will check your internet id (not a computer person) and block you from posting comments if they don't like what you have to say. they did that to someone in the fall colors contest. though, i do think that poster was posing under many aliases and not offering any real arguments, just saying nasty stuff over and over. either way, there's censorship unless you are in the "in" crowd. we could all name them, and they know who they are.

this entire post will magically disappear soon, you watch. AT is not a community for ideas and sharing - it is simply a business. they want your money. they want you to buy the book, the t-shirt, etc. you can't be both a "friendly blog" and a money-making business. the other design blogs i visit are frequently more informed, offer less expensive product options, and dont sell books/products for personal profit. whoever said this is a site the GR's personally pay the bill for is nuts, the advertising pays for this site.

and i agree that a kid shouldnt be confined to such a small space as they grow. but she's gonna have to adjust to ursula name jokes all her life too.
im sure i'll be blocked for my opinions, so it was nice talking to you all. especially nice talking to the non-cult people.

I would be interested to know how many people here are posting multiple times under different names. I just cannot imagine that this many people are really so worked up about Maxwell's lifestyle. Anyway, the more you post here, the more hits Maxwell gets to sells ads to advertisers.

I also quite entertained that Jackson Heights is being slammed by someone accusing someone else of being elitist because they like the West Village. I live there, and--gasp!--I actually like it. Maybe you should visit sometime, SteveR, before you start slamming it. Or maybe not. You seem angry.

ok, once and for all -

the entire foundation of the business known as AT is in question when the owners are taking advantage of the system, allowing themselves to actually make money off of their dishonesty.

they tout the idea that they live in a small space 365. this small space, in fact, is paid for by us - the rest of nyc. we subsidise their rent, allowing them to have the apt, which in turn is allowing them to claim that they live in a small space 365, which allows them to have the business (AT). it's insane.

it's the ultimate in greed and large living. essentially they are practicing the exact opposite of what is preached and sold (through the website and on the Oprah show) as Apartment Therapy.

I'll repeat - IT"S THE ULTIMATE IN GREED AND LARGE LIVING.

Lauren,

i can only speak for myself but i'm only posting under my own name.

and yes, he is getting hits on the site, but it's necessary to have a day of a few hundred hits more than normal to get the point across. the future will be different. there's always a price to getting the truth out.

jackson heights is fantastic. plus it's in the most ethnically diverse county in the us. definite plus.

SteveR. no word for me? please, i'm working hard over here...

here's a quote from the NY Daily News Article on Maxwell:

"Still, all things must end. Since his wife, Sara Kate, a food writer, is pregnant, it's just about time to move. But instead of giving up the $750-a-month apartment, Gillingham-Ryan says he'll continue to use it as a little laboratory. "I'm fascinated with how much I can change it," he says. "Every time I renovate it, I feel like it's a different place. Not just the space, but the energy changes."

the full article is here - http://www.nydailynews.com/03-29-2006/city_life/story/403802p-342009c.html

Gotta say that Stephen R. is correct about the law. I am a market rate tenant living in Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village, notorious recently due to the complex's billion dollar purchase price by Tischman Speir. 80% of the 11,000 units are rent-stabilized and the new owners are following thru with the old owners (Met Life) process of investigating each rent-stabilized unit and determinining whether those who live in such units are legally entitled to them. Rent stabilization laws state that the unit must be a primary residence, you cannot have earned more than $175,000 over the past 2 or 3 years (I'm not 100% sure of these figures) and you cannot own a second home-no matter if it is a small vacation home in Florida paid for with retirement income or a McMansion in Montclair, NJ. Violating any one of these three parameters is cause for review by the landlord. They are also rooting out illegal subletters and those who use their apts. as pied-a-terres.

Many tenants are receiving notice that their current rent-stabilized leases will not be renewed and their rents will be increased to market rate which is anything over $2,000 per month. It is then their choice to stay and pay the market rate or move. The G-R's are technically getting over if they are paying the rent-stabilized rate yet own a second home. Let's all just face the reality of that. Are they hurting anyone, no. Are they violating stabilzation law, yes. Is it on the same scale as mass murder, of course not. Are plenty of people in the city doing it, yes, but that doesn't make it right. Stepehn R. points out this fact and many are mad at him. Maybe his delivery is aggressive, his approach a bit hostile, but again he is right.

No one is asking/forcing the G-Rs to move. Certainly not their landlord who allowed them to do the $20G in renovations. Their landlord certainly has the right, at any point to pull tax forms and title deeds to destabilize their apt. They seem to have a good relationship/arrangement with their landlord so they may not worry about that. But if that building gets sold they really have no protection. The bottom line is they are getting over so as Stepehn R. says don't kill the messenger. His point is completley valid.

We can all love this site and the design and inspiration it brings, but still note the contradictions and hypocrisy of touting small space living while owning a second house in the Hamptons. I must say that Maxwell has been strangely silent in this discussion. I am sure he was been reading all these posts.

People, this is out of control.

Jason- you suggest that "Ursula" is an ugly name (she's a baby! my god!) and that Maxwell was prententious on Oprah. Why do you feel the need to post such nasty stuff??!!

I find all of this anger really odd.

BTW, it's my understanding that rent control was NOT designed for the poor, but to protect the middle class. I find it odd that here in America we build up these great socialist programs to benefit the people and then we tear them down (I'm from Canada where healthcare, nearly free university and other social programs are constant, consistent and for EVERYONE). The problems arise when we tear down these programs! The problem is that we have TWO different systems - market rate and rent controlled. Maybe we should have kept rent control? Perhaps out of control capitalism is the problem?

Anyway, what Maxwell, Sara-Kate and Ursula chose to do with their personal finances certainly NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

have another cup Vanessa...

Vanessa, if you think this is bad you should see the comments during competition time. Talk about nasty and out of control.

Just wondering about two things. First, was it Oprah or the GR who said the "365 days" thing? I didn't see the show, but I'm wondering if Oprah said it without checking with them first. Second, is it true that you can't own a second home if you have a rent stabilized apt? I couldn't confirm this anywhere on the internet. I saw that you had to live in the rent-stab place as your primary residence, but not your only residence.

Stephen,


I don't have to drink Koolaid in order to treat others with kindness and respect.

What do these posts have to do with the Oprah show? Don't you people have jobs and lives? Nothing better to do than trash someone on their own blog. AT would be perfectly justified in deleting all of your comments. Get your own blog if you want a soapbox.

Just wondering, is this "Stephen" the same guy who's been blog-trolling Grace at design*sponge? The tone and manner of the comments sound VERY similar.

Stephen-

The koolaid jokes are great. Without your comments I would have given up a long time ago.

I was very interested in dnd's comments about Sty town. I agree with everything he said. No one is saying the G-R's are terrible people. And this behavior of theirs is not the end of the world. I don't want to come across as nasty. Sarcastic, yes, nasty, no. The G-R's could be decorating geniuses for all I care.

BTW - Simpson. I Tivo'd the Oprah show. It was Maxwell saying, "We live 365 days a year in a 265 sq. foot apartment."

One thing that has not been discussed is why, for God's sake, would the G-R's want the world to think they are raising their child in a closet? I think it is clear now that they have alternatives, like the house in the Hamptons. If it was me, I'd be a little defensive, saying, "you know, we take the baby to the Hamptons all the time." Since they are not stuck in the apartment, why would they say they were? Maybe they think they have to to sell the web site. Or maybe they are afraid of getting caught.

Am I the only one who thinks having a baby in that tiny place, when you have other options, is a bit strange?

Oh, and Vanessa, maybe the "great socialist programs" of Canada aren't really so great. Not to knock Canada, our great ally. Are Canada's free universities and medical care so great? I don't see people coming from all over the world to study in Canada, and I read about long waitlists for common surgical procedures. Perhaps I'm just an ignorant American, but it seems to me that the market system in the U.S. has produced the world's best universities and medical institutions.

I always liked what Ronald Reagan said about communism: "Communism only works in heaven, where they don't need it; or in hell, where they already have it."

I can't believe you people don't state the obvious. The Gillingham-Ryan's probably just like where they live, and I'm sure they don't sit around thinking like you all do that they're cheating some other person probably very similar to themselves from an apartment. Who thinks, I'm greedy and I'm proud of myself? People try to save money. They don't want to give it to greedy LANDLORDS and PROPERTY OWNERS. Whether or not they are "breaking the law", they aren't bad people. No one's arrested them yet and if they don't, why should they care?

Steve R began posting at 11:51 p.m. 2/20 beginning again at 7:41 a.m. today, continuing to post consistently. He even said this is fun for him. I've worked, commuted, made dinner, worked on some art, called Vienna and spent and hour with the cat. But Steve R persists. Time to go to sleep. I will have nightmares of Steve R and some others typing their opinions throughout the night.

As Jackie above says, You people need to get a job and your own soapbox. This has been out of control and pointless conversation initiated and followed through with a gang mentality. Out of control.

As for the "in" crowd, only one of them posted tonight and it isn't me. They're probably having a good laugh. Get your facts straight. And trashing the baby's name, low blow and tacky as hell. Oh please, stupid me for even responding earlier. The Ursula statement alone disqualifies you from any sensible consideration in a debate. Act like adults.

Please God, let no one mention Oprah tomorrow...

It is NOT true that you cannot own a second home if you are a rent stabilized tenant. This is just plain wrong. The requirement is that your rent stabilized apartment must be your primary residence. The determination of primary residence is not a straight line test, but the types of things that courts look at when determiming whether an apartment is a primary residence are in the link you can find up in my post above.

Also, I would just like to question the assertion stated multiple times that this apartment is intended for poor people. There are ZERO income requirements for apartments renting for under $2000 a month. Zero. The point of the rent regulation laws is not, and never has been, to provide housing for poor people, it is to protect those tenants that are currently renting from displacement because of gentrification. Again, I have lots of problems with the current rent regulation laws in this state, but there is nothing illegal about what the G-Rs are doing.

Steve,

I really hate to say it after I went on about being polite, but perhaps YOU ARE an ignorant American. If you ever lived in Canada you would see people coming there to study from all over the world (but perhaps you wouldn't know that because we don't see much coverage of foreign on American news stations, do we? with the excetion of the countries with which we are at war...)

If you lived in Canada you would also know that sick people come to Canada from all over the world to be treated by Canada's doctors.

*Sigh*

i don't know why i am bothering, really, but here goes:

regarding rent control: i was under the impression that rent control was being phased out and if a family member does not take it over, it reverts to market value. (please supply a link if this is not the case.) my read was that their landlord likes them so much that he/she prefers to keep them at a lower rate.

regarding moving: i recall maxwell saying here or in NYT that looking for another apartment was a "humiliating" experience. why would it be humiliating if they were loaded? also, 20 grand, the amount they spent on the reno is hardly enough for a downpayment on a 2-bedroom apt. in NYC.

summer cottage: i recall reading that it's a family place, which does not mean they own in. also, i know that town and it's not like the rest of the hamptons. it used to be a bohemian enclave and their parents' or grandparents' generation could have afforded something there easily.

the "book deal": this is a guy with a blog about apartments we are talking about, not clinton or oj simson. he's not making millions here. that's just an absurd notion.

there are so many injustices in this city and so much to be angry about, but venting it here is totally missing the mark. this blog is not the enemy. now, if this anger were directed at politicians and big corporations; if you guys spent this much time and energy speaking to power, that would do us all some good.

Dear NY,

well said.

It appears as though some don't understand how web sites make money.
Hits make it popular with advertisers.
Popularity creates demand.
Demand causes prices to go up.
Increased prices mean increased profits for the G-Rs.
So really, if you don't support them, get off the site. You're only helping them.

Enough with the Gillingham-Ryan's already. Did anyone see the first apartment makeover? Don't watch Oprah and don't know who this Nate guy is, but he made over a woman's Manhattan studio who owns 2 cats (with claws), and completely covered the entire apartment (walls and ceiling) with fabric. The concept of hiding storage with fabric is a good one, but not for someone with 2 cats.
Don't suppose all that fabric has survived through the airing of the show. Either Nate's not too bright or has never been around pets.

God, Vanessa. Did I insult you? Did I call you, or anyone, bad names? Why would you call me ignorant? Because I disagree with you? Because I won't bow to the supposed superiority of socialism? Nice. Really nice.

ny, I don't need to vent at big corporations. I'm not upset at big corporations in general, just like I'm not angry at people in general. It seems awfully unreasonable to be angry at ALL politicians or ALL companies. Don't big companies give people jobs? Don't big companies produce our clothes, our medicines, and these computers we are using? And aren't there some politicians you plan on voting for?

ny, I AM "speaking to power." (God, I hate that phrase). These rent control laws that the G-R's plan to take advantage of have made NYC a more difficult place to live. They make housing so expensive that people do not move out of their apartments. So expensive that people will claim to raise their children in closets to stay in a hip area. The G-R's are a PERFECT "teaching moment". The G-R's efforts to manipulate the system speak volumes about the way the rent laws have twisted the lives of people who just want to get ahead in NYC. That, I believe, is an important issue. And discussing it in forums even as pedestrian as this is not a waste of time.

Design-

I think the word "dabbler" suggested the feminine to me. Yeesh, am I embarrassed.

And I, too, hate this "Why don't solve global warming with your complaints" nonsense.

Oh, and ny....

I think the G-R's found looking for an apartment to buy "humiliating" because they did not want to live in Brooklyn or Queens, period. And spending 20K to renovate an apartment you don't own is 1) weird, 2) an indication that you will never, ever leave unless you are removed by the landlord.

And Maxwell has said that even when they move, they are keeping the place as an office.

That's what started this whole thing.

I've only read about half way through this thread so far and I just wanted to jump in and say one quick little thing before I forget it. All this "craziness" seems to be precipitated on the idea that they're living in this so-called rent-controlled or stabilized apartment (and I suppose depriving all of lower class NYC of affordable places to live) because of the rent. If it was for that reason, then maybe the complaints might hold a drop or two of water. But I really don't think that's the case. I think they've got something a bit rarer than rent control: a landlord that allows them to renovate!

Besides who would commute from the Hamptons on a daily basis? Seems like a bit of a hike (and not cheap either).

I've been checking the web site for a year or so. At the beginning every day, then after a while, maybe once a week - I guess it was one of those things; new and interesting at first, but then you realize it's same old, same old (I find the comment threads particularly uninteresting).
I was, also, under the impression that G-R's lived exclusively in their small W. Village apt., which is the reason why I forwarded the link to the site to a lot of my friends. I thought the way they lived was cool and inspiring. I guess I don't anymore.

Really? The only reason you liked the site was because you thought they only lived in one apartment? And because they spend some time elsewhere, the entire site suddenly has absolutely no validity to you anymore?

I believe I said I found the web site less and less interesting over time. That has nothing to do with where "they" live.

And, yes, I forwarded the link to my friends (who live in small apartments, just like me), because of the small living aspect of this web site. Now that I know "they" don't live so small, sadly, the sense of kinship is gone.

I can't believe that Oprah didn't call Maxwell on his 365 days a year comment. I mean, unless he and the family flew in to Chcago that morning, and were leaving that night, that makes at least one whole day that they weren't sleeping in their stolen from a poor person apartment.
It's also a good thing that I read AT for design ideas and not for rules regarding rent regulation, because some of you people are just throwing out "facts" thaat are quite simply, BS.
Whether the family GS lives in a hole in the wall, or in a spacious two bedroom doesn't really change the reason I stop by here. I love getting ideas on how to decorate, to peek in to other people's homes, and to make fun of little girls named Ursula.

Steve R. and stephen have probably paid all of the G-Rs stabilized rent for this month by frequenting this post.

Oh yeah, since the G-Rs are so obviously malevolent and greedy (especially little Ursula), they probably ARE Steve R. and stephen and are just pumping up their hits for the advertising. Since little Ursula is confined to 200-some square feet, she's on the computer all the time, so maybe it's mostly her.

Oprah chose to allow them to say they live there 365 days because it added to her small-space-living show - she doens't care one iota about the G-Rs or their situation - they were just a convenient example of what she wanted to show on that episode

She'll probably have them on again for the episode she does about houses in the Hamptons!

I too became disillusioned with the G-Rs some time ago - and I've been reading a while - I only continue to come to this site for two reasons:

there are occasionally good links to shops/resources in the NY area that I can use;

and the pictures of readers apartments that give great inspiration

Most of the stuff that the G-Rs post I just skip over these days as it is too pretentious for my liking

Oh and I forgot - the title of this post says "AT is on Oprah Now..."

AT wasn't on Oprah - the G-Rs were on Oprah - entirely different

(For AT we'd need Springer anyway!)

Go back & re-watch the show. It was Oprah who made the "365 days a year" comment. Actually the comment was made while coming back from commerical with the big, wide audience shot -- could have been dubbed over. However, it certainly is getting a lot of mileage here.

I've been a frequenter of this site for a while now (well over a year). This whole Oprah appearance and the issue of G-R's rental situation really rubs me the wrong way. There was a lot of good information and discussion previously, but I do see much more product placement and group-think.

Things feel less genuine. I think I'm going to have to do my own AT:cold turkey program. I don't feel right about contributing page-views to something that feels less than honest.

Robyn - In the brief montage of their (rent-controlled) apartment, MAXWELL SAID that they lived there "365 days a year." Go back and re-watch the show.

Manhattanite - That's how I feel, too.

Max - I feel the same way that you do. Things feel less genuine here than they did a year ago and there is definitely a lot of group think. I'd like to quit cold turkey but I'm still on Step 1. Today I only stopped in to see if this debate was still going on - it's nice to read some different opinions, even if some people are angry, and also to read that I'm not alone in my feelings about this site. My loss of interest is due more to the increasingly pretentious ramblings of the GR's and focus on more expensive products. This blog used to have a sense of community, a feeling of togetherness based on "our apartments might be small, but we can make them a great home." There was a lot of DIY and unique ideas. Now, not so much.

Steve R. - Way to stick to your guns. I think most of the people offended by what you have to say didn't get the point. I don't think anything you've written has been a personal attack. You have pointed out some glaring contradictions and some important ethical issues. I'm sure you aren't surprised that for the most part your side of the debate hasn't been well received. Like you said, it's classic "shoot the messenger" behavior. Most devotees won't stop reading, but maybe a few will get the message.

Step 1. We admitted that we were powerless over Apartment Therapy...

Ironically, I peek at AT online at work as a little escape for myself from my hectic, controversy-filled job. What is going on here? This is not a political forum for housing issues, it is a design blog - one that the creators of happened to appear on Oprah. How many bloggers do it so successfully that they appear on national TV? One of the reasons I like AT is for the honest (occasionally harsh) DESIGN-RELATED criticism. This is just plain hating and it has gotten quite repetitive and rather boring. Now I am seeing it overflowing into other threads!? I must say that many of the comments (both for & agains the G-Rs) are thorough and well-written -- perhaps those of you who are so passionate about unfair housing practices in NYC should refocus your energy and write to a councilperson, housing board, the mayor? Your arguments are wasted here.

Elizabeth,

They are hardly wasted here - after all, you read them!

Do you people really think three people live in that tiny apartment?! That apartment is an investment, a marketing ploy. They're in the Hamptons organizing their money while the real small space dwellers are just trying to get their pared down belongings, their bare necessities to sqeeze into a room and a closet.

I'm am neither poor, nor a small apartment dweller or resident of NY and my parents were perfectly loving and kind. But I have to call bull $hit on this instead of instead of "soppin' it up with a biscuit" like some of ya'll. (Go ahead, poke fun. I'm from The South.)

Here is Maxwell's little slam on Brooklyn, for the poster up above who was wondering what he said:

"And, you know, the community makes a huge difference. We could live all the way out in Brooklyn, have a lot of space, but we wouldn't have the vibrant community and the friends we have on the block."

Stephen,

Sorry, although I did read through some of the comments here, they ARE wasted on me because I can do nothing about the situation. I am a homeowner, not a renter, I live in the suburbs and work & shop/dine/etc in NYC. My comment was simply to suggest that you redirect your passion for the topic somewhere that it may possibly be productive.

How odd. I'm usually all against "consumerist greed," and gentrification yadda, yadda yadda- but Stephen(R? whatever) you are taking some HUGE leaps in logic.

First, these guys aren't rich - they are making a living - there's a difference. They are good, thoughtful shoppers who look for deals - they don't just buy crap all day long so everyone knows how rich they are. They give people advice on "options," that doesn't make them hypocrites (Most fashion designers, who are obsessed with fashion, wear jeans and t-shirts - that doesn't make them hypocrites either). Please. They live well, and seem to keep the crass consumerism to a minimum. I think that is reason to applaud them.

I'm totes broke but own a Hans Wegner chair.... should I cast it out into the sea?!? Please. I have a small place so I can buy quality food and some nice furniture - should I spend all my money on a HUGE expensive apartment and eat McDonalds and sit on Lawn furniture?? I will keep my affordable apartment so I can SAVE money to BUY something one day - this is a responsible way to live - its not greedy or scamy.

One thing you fail to realize is that it is ESSENTIAL to New York's economy and place as an artistic capital that creative people can actually LIVE here - and SHOULD live here. Creative people deserve incentives to stay as much as poor people need help. It is difficult to make any kind of living in the arts. SOME artists need to hold the fort and live in Manhattan. People leaving town once they have success would be cultural death for NY. Further, their rent stabilized apartment is perfectly legal, and they deserve that incentive to STAY in New York their lives - the city needs people like them.

SteveR,

You know it's church time when I start quotin' Grandmommy.

The fantastic thing is that I love this site. I love the tips/tricks for DIY and organization. I love that people feel so good about their spaces that they invite strangers to share via photos. I think there are some really intelligent and creative people milling about here and I dig the community of it all.

But if those same people choose to buy into the whole GR Scheme there's hardly anything we can do about it... except share a knowing wink and nudge when they get rid of their lovely book collection and family photos to make room for one more Eames chair. (Ohhhh yeah, I said it...)

Jenny, that's funny :) I feel like you - there are a lot of really creative people here. I read for the DIY stuff and reader's homes and have found some ingenious solutions for storage and decor from other readers. As for the stuff I don't like, and there is a lot of that (including the GR scheme as you said), I just skip over it. I do like several of the other editors and especially enjoy house tours.

Melissa,

I usually skip over the stuff that doesn't interest me, too. Today I just couldn't resist poking the bear a little.

Jenny: That bear, to mix metaphors, has sailed. Maxwell seems to have adopted the tactic of ignoring the concerns that several of us have expressed. He's simply letting the fuss die down. Soon this discussion will enter the oblivion to which most discussions on AT are consigned -- hidden deep somewhere in its impenetrable archives, immune to the site's ironically named "search" feature. A couple of people had expressed the concern above that this thread would be censored and pulled. I know that this has happened in the past -- does anybody remember Jonathan? -- but Maxwell has an even more powerful weapon at his disposal: bad archive organization.

Yeah, DD, I don't get it. The site owners are social critics and put a lot of their life philosophy out there. When their *community* raises legitimate questions, they don't find it necessary to respond - - ever.

Whether they respond to this issue or not, I'd like to know why this - or any debate - can rage on for days without a single word from them. How does this fit in with all the we shit?

As has been said before, the GRs are not breaking any rent regulation laws as long as this place is their primary residence – with one of the criteria being that they have occupied the place for at least (and only – gasp) 83 aggregate days in the most recent calendar year.

MGR stated once that he intended to keep this place after they move out.
After the illegality of this was pointed out on AT, he has never mentioned that again. This either means that he does not want to bring it up again (even if he intends to stay) or that, once he realized that this was illegal, he decided that he would not stay.

No one who has commented so far knows which of the alternatives is true. So anything you say about MGR intending to keep it forever may not be true now. You simply do not know.

I recall reading that the family place on Long Island was sold a few months ago. I remember thinking that this was a bad decision but cannot find that post.
Thus, all this talk about their Hamptons place could be based on outdated information.

SteveR, all your ranting is based on old information that may not be true any more.
If the MGRs have not changed their minds or stance then I agree that staying in a RS’d place after you have moved out is illegal, unfair and prevents a “deserving” household from benefiting.

However, if they have changed their minds then all your ranting is meaningless when directed at them. When directed at real RC/RS abusers then you have a good point.

If the MGRs responded, as DD has already mentioned, then a lot of this could be cleared up but they decide not to.

I fully understand your point SteveR and agree that having 1 million rental units under RS with another 1 million under free market keeps the free market rents artificially high and that people who abuse RC/RS laws deserve to get punished.

However, in case my point is not clear (you seem to have a problem understanding other peoplesÂ’ points and that they have understood yourÂ’s), what you are accusing the MGRs of in terms of current illegality is not true and may not be true in the future if they move out because they realized the error of their ways.

That should be 183 days

SteveR - click my name for a picture of the "artists" (aka the G-R's) chillin' out on their property in the Hamptons. I thought you might enjoy the link.

Also, Ralph is a pretentious ass. This isn't the only forums where he likes to stir the pot. I know many other design bloggers cringe once he discovers their sites.

That's on their property in the Hamptons?

SR,

They aren't doing anything illegal - you are being absurd - and further saying that they are is totally immoral and ethically questionable. You don't even know the difference between rent controlled and rent stabilized. Anyway - the system is not that great, but I don't see how it is a "scam" to take advantage of an opportunity. I mean, I get work sometimes because I know people, not just because of the gloriousness of my resume. I mean - it sucks for people who don't "know" people - but taking advantage of the opportunity does not make me a scammer.

Explain to me at what point someone's salary should mean they need to be priced out of their home? Don't people have the right to live in a place they find attractive and can afford?!? So you are saying if someone starts to make more money, they should have to leave the city? Eventually what you are saying about their neighborhood will spill over into ALL New York neighborhoods. We would then need to leave New York altogether by your reasoning. Hello - white flight in the 60's and 70's is what hurt the economies of most American cities - yes we need these people to have reasons to stay, artist and yes - doctors and police and fireman TOO.

I do live in Brooklyn and I will NOT move to a fancier place when I make more money - I will SAVE my money so I can buy a house in my hometown New Orleans, so I can live there part of the year. Is it immoral to SAVE money and buy a house in the neighborhood I grew up in?!? I was CALLED a gentrifier by some obnoxious punk as I walked through that neighborhood, The Treme (just above the lower 9th ward), just because I was white and well dressed. He assumed something about me without all the facts - like the fact I had lived there my whole life and was not rich - just aspirational. By your reasoning I should abandon my New Orleans neighborhood - which desperately need its young professionals BACK, and let it rot.

I also take issue with you saying interior decorators aren't artists - thats totally retarded and simplistic. I do not worship at the alter of "fine" arts - art is art. Making life beautiful is indeed an important task

Pretentious, as I know the definition, is hardly an insult. I was a poor kid who learned to speak in the language of the middle class, and later the art class. Pretension is a survival skill. Fake it till you make it, or die. I'm an aesthete - putting on airs is essential and fabulous. It's the only way to tell, or see the truth or get into clubs for free.

"Pretentious" is used as an insult by people with low reading comprehension skills and weak vocabulary to dismiss a point of view they don't actually understand.

Re: the posting by "the artists."

I think your posting of private, personal pictures sucks, particularly the nude photo of "someone we all know." I hope they know you are and sever the relationship. This is totally uncalled for.

Careen - don't shoot the messenger. I didn't take those pictures or post them. They are PUBLIC photos available on Flickr, a PUBLIC photo posting website. Also, the link to the photos was on another AT thread about the G-R's place in the Hamptons.

Personally, I would not post pictures of parties that I had with family and friends on a public photo site. I just wanted you to know that I didn't take or post those photos. I don't know any of those people nor was I there. They were taken and posted publicly by somebody else AND were linked to on another AT post.

Ralph - where I come from pretentious means ostentatious. Maybe you like being ostentatious. Peacocks are, and it works out well for them. I wasn't attempting to insult you as much as to let Steve R know about your usual blog behavior.
My vocabulary is just fine, thank you very much.

Peacocks ARE my favorite.

I kind of like them too. And they probably would have no trouble getting into the clubs (were birds allowed, besides the pigeons, of course :)

It really bothers me that they're raising a baby in that tiny apt -- and I don't even like babies! No matter how much time they spend out in their "vibrant" neighborhood, that apt is still a sterile white box. There's no color or other visual stimulus, no place to play or crawl in the near future, no room for toys, the baby sleeps in a basket on a shelf for cryin' out loud.

I don't even see how two adults "live" in that apt, I mean live in a practical day-in-a-life way. It's essentially a bedroom, a hotel room. There's no "living" space, just one. single. chair. It seems like it's soley a place to sleep and that's it. How do they LIVE there? I actually think the guy on Oprah who lived in that tiny cabin had a better, more practical setup in a smaller space.

I find the way they fetishize this tiny space to border on creepy. And I think it blinds them to the reality that it's truly not practical for their family. But beyond that, I don't care. I read AT for the reader's pics and links to cool stuff, not for any of the GR's personal life philosophies.

I've tried to avoid getting too deeply involved with this discussion, beyond lending my support to the main points made by Steve R, Stephen, and others, but this seems as good a place as any to voice one of my fundamental objections to the G-R philosophy. The main objection that's been voiced here is that Maxwell preaches the "small is beautiful" message, yet lives large. Very large, if those pictures are to be believed.

More fundamentally, though, small is not beautiful. Small is what people have to put up with when they live in places like New York or Bombay or Tokyo where real-estate prices are out of control. Small means having no room of your own, no privacy, no freedom to do as you please. It's oppressive and limiting, not ennobling and liberating. There's nothing beautiful about living in cramped quarters. I know two cases of teenagers who grew up in tiny apartments and suffered from psychological disorders because of the stress of constantly having people around.

People live small because they have to. It's dangerous to romanticize living that way (and it's wrong to do it when, privately, you have access to a lot more). It's certainly very useful to have a website that teaches people how to cope with the small spaces in which they are forced to live. I admire those parts of this site that do that. But one mustn't present tiny living as a Good Thing.

How convenient for you.

Ralph: Leaving aside questions of whether or not you are pretentious (in a good sort of way, of course), I'm curious about one thing: Do you think the way the G-Rs portray the way they live is the way they really live?

Wow. These are some of THE WORST, most convoluted arguments I've ever read. Y'all would so fail Debate class. Or "class" of any sort, come to think of it.

I think everyone is being overly dramatic about a sentence put on the air - anyone who has worked in film and video knows how skewed editing can make things, especially when it's in someone else's control.

In any event, I don't care about issues of phoniness AT ALL. I care about great art, and/or useful information. IMAGE should never be taken at face value. Once people become a part of the media or arts, people expect them to rigidly live the mythology that has been created - which is utterly ridiculous. No one's life is so simple. Apparently David Bowie was lying back in the 70's when he said he was gay - that fact doesn't diminish his cultural relevance to gay people - or the world.

Design Dabbler--
Re: "I've tried to avoid getting too deeply involved with this discussion"

THAT made me laugh. And I was already laughing about how you equate a blog's elusive nature and daily shifting of subjects off the main page and into the archives with a conspiracy theory to relegate your "brilliant" comments to the back of the box. Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

And sad you can not find the beauty of small, whether by choice or by necessity (although I see *part* of your point... see my comment on the Small is Beautiful post, since you are such a fan of cross-thread self promotion). Sad for you. But you've always come across as really pretty bitter, so it comes as no surprise.

I hope to meet you at the next AT function, where you can espew your anger directly to Maxwell and SaraKate, while sucking down their free wine, the way you are using the blog they provide free of charge to ridicule, criticize (and borderline libel) them.

Hey Ralph-- The clubs that let your fabulous self in for free? My guess is that they are TOTALLY getting their money's worth.

The NY times article from 2004 tells you how much time they spent in the Hamptoms house that summer (the entire summer), tells you how much rent they paid in 2004 (very low, under $1000)

Here's the URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/realestate/19HABI.html?ex=1172293200&en=f82fa797af18a8d7&ei=5070

The facts don't take away from the good tips and community created by the founders of AT.

I don't comment much so I want to clarify my earlier point. I have always been annoyed by the lack of true dialogue on this site, and I think people are raising a legitimate issue about keeping this sweet apartment ad infinitum. But all of the discussion about the Hampton property seems way off base. Do they have some sort of ownership or part of a family ownership? Good for them. Don't we all wish we were so blessed? I don't believe they have the wealth people are implying. On an NPR story six months ago (on Marketplace?) Maxwell said his income was $45K annually. If he can afford a $20,000 renovation on that that kind of money, he's clearly done something right (and should start another blog).

I am bugged by the issue of keeping this place off the market, especially since my 23 year old daughter is one of thousands who, if they had they kind of leg up place would afford, could actually enjoy a quality of life and stand a chance of making it in a brutal city without much money. This rent at this location was and is sweet deal for him. Working this TINY space into a functioning home for three has served as an inspiration and, through his own creativity, hard work and a great marketing sense, has helped him find his way in life. I just wish that Maxwell and Sara Kate would acknowledge the gift and pass it on when they purchase a home.

They are not "keeping it off the market." They are friggin' living in it.

You've never made me orgasm. Your work is NOT done.

Clearly I'm late to this party, and I'm glad, because it doesn't seem like all that much fun. But having grown up in New York and lived here my whole life, this issue of ethics when it comes to rent controlled and stabilized apartments is absolutely bizarre.

As stated above, very eloquently by Grendel, >.

Is NYC much too expensive? Of course. Do we envy those who have good deals and try to size up whether they deserve them or not? Sure. But if you go by some of the arguments here, my 86 year old grandmother in the Bronx should give up her 1,000 square foot apartment because she has some savings and lives alone and my friend who lived in 400 square foot rent-regulated apartment in a very nice UES side neighborhood for 14 years should have voluntarily stepped aside and signed the lease over to a newcomer who couldn't live here due to now insane rents. If you know anyone on the planet who would actually do that, let's nominate them for sainthood--or let me know when they're giving up the apartment!

And yes, the NPR story was on Marketplace.

I've been reading AT for forever, even though I never comment. I don't really have much to say about the debate here (except that maybe everyone's taking this all a bit too seriously), but I wanted to say that Design Dabbler/xyz's satire on AT in Open Thread 375 was totally hilarious. And so right on. I love AT, but I think we should be able to laugh at ourselves AND have a little debate now and then without getting so... angry. Here's the link to the thread for everyone who needs a laugh:
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/open-threads/open-thread-375-018252

Also, the Oprah thread is back up, for everyone who has no idea what everyone else is talking about:
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/news/at-is-on-oprah-now-018277

OK now I read the Oprah thread. I can see that there was a lot more to this than a larger home in the Hamptons. I'm staying out of the rent control debacle, but I would like to comment on the people who seem to think it's inappropriate to raise a child in such a small apartment.

We're all entitled to our own opinions but I'm a little sad that we have to question someone's parenting skills based on sq. footage. There are millions of children being raised quite successfully in tiny little apartments in Japan and other locations known for small living spaces. It's just silly IMO to equate small space to stunted childhood. Could we just leave little Ursula out of it? Just sayin'

WOw...I'm wondering which turned uglier. The Color contest comment posts or this thread?

I know Debate is great and all...

but somtimes, life is too short.