apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Doesn't do it for me, but to each his own.

Nice. Bland. Next....

i love it......

People are harsh, my goodness.

Swanky is definitely the right word. Very clean and sleek. Almost a little too sleek—the place looks designed for a magazine. My favourite room is the daugter's room. That and the living room got me.

To each his own, of course. I like the grandness of the house, and the use of natural stone. The kitchen counter top is TO DIE FOR....

Barcelona Sofa - Gorgeous. BUT does anyone ever sit on it to relax?

very tastefully done. love the brown sofa in the living room.

lovely albeit uninspired.

I would give anything to see how long this house survives with kids. That would be a great TV show. A couple with an apartment like this suddenly has two toddlers.

Anyone know where one could find that bathroom tile? And spicynuts... hilarious. Toddler bomb alert. Code red.

wait.. how do you fit knees under that table in the breakfast nook?

No mention of any sustainable design? The house looks like everything else in MetHome. This is why I've stopped reading this mag.

Some good design here, but it reminds me mostly of a really nice hotel, not a home with any personal, quirky or fun things that say people live here.

I don't see a single place to put one's feet up, and the operative word is "comfortably", and read a great book (despite the library area). Makes me think that either the people who live here always sit perfectly upright - or - that Met Home 'sanitized' some of the design for the purposes of publication...

It is a beautiful, beautiful home. It does look like an advertisement for DWR.

I cancelled my subscription to MEt Home last week. Every house in that magazine looks the same- Just like this one. It all seems very nice but very "been done before."

How very sad for Met Home.

A Beverly Hills house put together by a professional interior designer wins a prize - Yawn.

This is why I haven't bought Metropolitan Home since the 90's.

My MetHome issue is being rerouted to my new address...I wonder what the exact criteria used by the publisher was. None of the pictures are inspiring to me, but that's just me.

I've moved back to Berkeley after having lived here previously for 10 years. There are some seriously AMAZING homes in the Berkeley Hills. Of course, several of them have been profiled in a number of interior design and architecture books.

My favorite home in Berkeley (besides the one I live in now my wife is quick to suggest) is the compound at the top of the fire trail in Strawberry Canyon where Panoramic Way begins/splits. I can only view the external structures, but if it is one-half as beautiful as the landscaping around its grounds, it must be heavenly.

Sleek, expensive, over-the-top. Possibly over styled for the photo session. Home as trophy, or is it portfolio? I'm not denying that it's beautiful (except for that pink room). It's just that it's a little like leaving the price tags on your clothes, your handbag, the art on your walls. It's a new-money approach, and brash.

What happened to subtlety?

It bothers me a bit, too, that the outside design of this house has absolutely nothing to do with the prevalent styles of that neighborhood.

... People associate the 1980's with gauche flashiness in design by the uber-rich and the climbers (Trump?). The gold-plated faucets, marble bathrooms, passamenterie and opulent gew-gaws that said "I Have Lots of Money". But the current "minimalist" look popular with the simply well-to-do has it's own kind of predictable flash. We all recognize the same furniture pieces in these homes, and we all know exactly what they cost. Anyone who follows design, or who has done extensive remodeling, knows that those book-matched, huge slabs of stone on the fireplace cost a bundle. And that's the point, isn't it? These spaces clearly broadcast the fact that no money was spared, but at the same time they strive so hard to give the impression that the homeowner has refined taste. That's why they come across as generic, cold, repetitive. I think that real taste is revealed (and truly beautiful spaces created) in the mixing of old and new, and in knowing when to stop decorating. I admire spaces that have evolved over time (or at least look as if they have), and that tell a story about who lives there. Some treasured antiques, mixed with a few unique pieces of no great value to anyone other than the owner, and some modern furnishings ... or a collection of mostly contemporary design placed in an old and not overly improved space... it's the contrast and the creativity of designs playing off one another that gives a space life. You need imperfection. It's like the difference between a woman who wears couture in complete ensembles all the time and never lets a hair stray out of place (the Chanel-suit-for- lunch crowd, for instance), and the dynamic woman who throws on a vintage Chanel jacket with her favorite jeans and, oh, something Lacroix. Who looks more interesting?

There are so many interesting, beautifully done homes in the Bay Area, and this was the winner? Sorry, but this is yawn inducing. There are bits of it I like, but I agree with whoever said that this might as well be an ad for DWR. Nothing special about it. Just another "yes, we can afford to drop big money on our home" photo shoot. Met Home is so redundant that they lost me as a subscriber years ago; they aren't winning me back with "winners" this dull and predictable.

I have to agree with previous posters... it is very "Met Home". And I don't mean that in a positive way...

Met Home used to be by favourite magazine when Dorothy Kalins was the editor (after 15 years, I can still remember her name, which is pretty amazing!). The magazine under her stewardship was vibrant and eclectic and vital.

Then, she left (or was let go; I never knew which), and Donna Warner took over. She is editor still. And almost immediately on the heels of this, the publisher changed, the magazine shrank, advertizing dried up, and magazines were released bimonthly.

Did Hachette Publishing do a hatchet job or was it the circa 1993-1994 recession?

In any case, Met Home has never been the same. There have been the occasional interesting issues, but not many. I like Donna Warner; she comes across as a lovely lady. But... But it used to be a much better more interesting magazine with a different and exciting aesthetic.

Hachette probably demands that Met Home have a different aesthetic than Elle Decor, or somehow controls it...

I agree with a lot of the above. If I had the dough for a place like this I'd have put more of it into the location. It looks really crammed into a neighborhood where it doesn't belong, and there's no connection to the outdoors.

when I , as a casual reader of shelter magazines, can name an object in every single shot from the DWR catalog, this hardly comes across as "design" as "assembling trophy pieces" to show off. Boring.

Anyone can have something cool by spending a lot of money, but how is that interesting or creative or representative of anything other than having spent a bunch of money?
A perfect example here.

Completely agree with the comments about Met Home. Everything is a repeat of the above, and every time I read it, I think to myself how I've seen much, much more interesting places on AT.

I haven't seen such vehemence since the last ineffective use of books post!
Forestdweller's definition of vulgar nouveau riche is spot on: people who try to make their homes look like (as wild-er said) a DWR catalogue.

This house looks like a very expensive corporate owned or studio owned for short term living for some executive who might need a place for her/his family while living in BH for six month - one year.

ouch people.

my only complaint is that it all seems a little cold. like no one actually lives there. the little girls room however i would have to say would have been my dream when i was a little girl, so if a little girl ACTUALLY lives in this house, she is pretty stoked.

I kinda like the little girl's room, but it's an adult fantasy of what a little girl would like. Where are the toys? The Jonas Brothers posters? It's so sterile.

Forestdweller--Wow. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I positively LOVE the house...but truth be told I am not that neat. I try though. I want to open the cabinets and doors to see what is on the other side. Perfect for Met Home under it's current stewardship.

Anybody watch MTV cribs - this is what they always look like, isn't it? If you're rich, you have (1) plenty of places to hide/store things when "company" comes; (2) plenty of people to keep it cleaned up and spotless. It is what it is.

This house has a depressing case of the emperor's new clothes.

How many fashion cycles will pass before the owners realize how awful that pink and blue room is?

Wow... really boring. Yeah, it's big, and fancy, and full of mid-century furniture and a cool waterslide sink... but I sure wouldn't want to live there. I don't even think I'd enjoy a dinner party there. There's not enough romance or character. P.S. The pictures on the pink bedroom wall are too small, nice try with a play on scale but it didn't work, although that is the room with the most character and I was drawn to it the most... which is saying a lot because I really don't like pink in home design.

I really wish there was a bit more originality to this home in terms of the design pieces. They're all catalogue bought pieces from DWR and even CB2. I know the owner is a designer but show us something a bit off center and quirky? It's pretty but that's about all I can say.