apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

So much money and such bad taste.

BLURGH!!

Well, you could hardly get bored with the decor! Just moving from room to room you'd have a sense of being in another house! (or is that another world?)

Just from the top photo alone, why are rooms made this big?? It's so wasteful, all that space there in the middle. I especially hate this mcmansion trend of having a GIGANTIC bathroom ... wait, 3 or 4 gigantic bathrooms, that is.

p.s. this house is hideous

obscene...and fugly

Is this an ad for "how not to decorate" ???

I really liked the flower mirror in the white and orange bedroom.

yuck.

It seems obscene that anyone should actually live in a house like this in a city with thousands of homeless people. And at a time where many people are losing their homes because of predatory business practices. There is no intelligence or grace to this house, and it makes me want to look away from it's ugliness.

Yikes!!!

This is a perfect example that money doesn't necessarily equal good taste.

ditto. triplicate. quadruple all that. Some nice vignettes here and there, but overall it's just sad.

Wow, where to start?

Some parts of this house looked very pretty. The California-style bedroom and the kitchen were very nice, and I can imagine a normal person having rooms like that in their house. Some aspects of even the "normal" places, though, seemed like overkill. A huge stove flown in from France that took ten men to move? Come on.

Other parts of it made my jaw drop. The salon (uh, a salon?), the entry hall and the landing with the grand staircase looked so rich and stately. They reminded me of olden times, when royalty used tax money to make their castles and mansions extravagant at the expense of their subjects.

All the other parts I didn't mention above were just not in my taste. Overall, I can appreciate and ogle some parts of the house, but I can't imagine living in such a large home.

It seems obscene that anyone should actually live in a house like this in a city with thousands of homeless people.

So, in solidarity, we should all live like we are less fortunate?

Actually, David, yes! I am not suggesting YOU do, but my personal ethos (one I believe to be in sync with a Judeo-Christian ethic) is that I should not have too much while others have too little to live--that is why in the Torah God instituted a law that every 7 years there would be a year of Jubilee and land would be redistributed--because God desired for all his children to have enough.

This doesn't mean I give everything away and live below the poverty line (though it does to some people--I have friends who do that). And I do splurge on things every once in awhile, but in general I try and avoid gross excess and give where I encounter need. I believe this place is an example of gross excess, in SFGail's words, "obscene."


I guess I just believe we are our brother's keeper.

I am really getting disillusioned with things here of late. Not the posts, but of the reactions.

It is a SHOW HOUSE. It is designed to showcase over-the-top showmanship-style decor. Just look at it like a style resource, good or bad, pro or con. There are ALWYS tons of ideas to be mined from showhouses. I'd expect the AT audience to understand that.

And showhouses like this ARE FUNDRAISERS. In this case, for the San Francisco University High School.

goonie--
To which worthy cause are you donating the computer you are reading AT from?

It's my understanding that nobody lives in this house. Each floor was designed by a different designer to showcase their work. It's only for display purposes.

Am I getting this right?

And if this place had been torn down instead of preserved, you'd be screaming bloody murder about waste, lack of respect to history, how "ungreen and disposable" we've become...

There seems to be no winning.

"I am really getting disillusioned with things here of late. Not the posts, but of the reactions."

With growth comes growing pains.

True that.

wow. that rug alone could pay for my student loans.

So could stopping your Starbucks habit for a year.

And ridge--

This "McMansion trend" you loathe, in this case, started in 1905...

16,000 ft. could be put to a lot better use than just a showhouse that people go and look at. Gee ... perhaps, using it to house tons of actual people?

I give up.

Reading comprehension seems to be lacking these days. Did everyone miss the part where it said, very clearly, that this is a showcase mansion built in 1905? And therefore a historical building? And no one lives there? They're just letting designers play around in the space for a fundraiser, which last time I considered, was a good thing.

All these reactions about people living in excess and building McMansions is mind-boggling. I'm pretty sure they didn't have the whole "McMansions" concept in 1905.

Patrick seems to be the only person who's commented so far who actually makes sense.

Donald brought up a moral argument--I was just responding. A house can be a decorating showcase and provide great, artistic inspiration that I actually did enjoy!! But that does not mean that someone cannot comment on other aspects that are brought up by the post.

AT is an appropriate place to have moral opinions and to share them--as long as they relate to our home, our built environment, and how we in turn relate to it. Re-nest is all about that!

I wasn't criticizing Donald, in fact, I went out of my way not to, I was only suggesting that the idea he had presented actually was acceptable to many people--presenting a perspective.

I don't believe nastiness is appropriate, but people need to people have opinions.

Patrick, I wasn't referring to this particular house with the mcmansion comment. I said ... that just from the first photo it was making me think about how ridiculously huge rooms are getting in mcmansions.

And Allsunday, I read the whole thing ... I got that it was a show house and that it was old ... but even in fundraising there is a ridiculous amount of waste. You know that many "fundraising" dinners alone actually lose money due to the luxury of the event? That a lot of fundraising is more for the fundraisers than for the people they're "helping"? Instead of wasting money and resources on a place for people to look at, use the space to turn the house into, I don't know ... a shelter? A community center? There are many alternatives.
And on the furnishings bought (or donated) to decorate this place, why don't they just give that money directly to the school?

And Patrick, for a site that's supposed to be about living small, green, etc., you shouldn't be so appalled that people aren't super excited about such a huge display of decadence. Seems you used to "get it" more also. Perhaps we're just as disillusioned with your comments as you are with ours.

A shelter in Pacific Heights? It seems you're not terribly familiar with San Francisco. A museum is more likely, and may be a possibility - after the showcase is over. There are hundreds of possibilities for that house, but if it ever becomes smaller units for living in (unlikely, given its historical value - not many mansions survived the 1906 earthquake), they will be expensive, and likely not very small. As for the fundraiser, the article didn't give any details about the monetary technicalities, so neither you nor I have any idea whether or not the fundraiser was profitable. We have no idea if any money or resources were actually wasted, and for all you know, the fundraiser may have gotten the school more attention and therefore more money than simply donating (which is, conveniently, the purpose of having a fundraiser rather than donating).

I'm not disregarding the perfectly legitimate concerns of sustainable living, but bringing up such a topic in response to this post is like bringing up the topic of rainforest deforestation in an article about an Aztec temple.

Allsunday, I'm afraid you've assumed yourself. I actually used to live in SF. It was an example, by the way ... not a specific action plan for the place.

Jesus, can't some of us just not like this sort of thing? Since when do we all have to believe in the same things??

Sure, you're allowed to not like this sort of thing. It's your apparent reasons for not liking it (like an historical mansion having a lot of wasted space) that are illogical and make people like me and Patrick go "Whuh...?!" I mean...do you dislike castles in Europe for taking up space as tourist attractions instead of being converted into apartments or organic farms? Do you think that some of Frank Lloyd Wright's larger homes ought to be paved over and replaced with a bunch of 600 square foot condos? These are pieces of history, not snubs at sustainable living.

Not to mention the people who took one look at "16,000 square feet" and apparently declined to read any further in lieu of posting about how obscene it is for people to live in so much excess. It might have cooled their indignant, self-righteous outrage had they actually read the article.

You'll notice I'm not arguing with anyone who just said they thought the decor was atrocious, even though I personally think that some of it is lovely.

ridge--

Your original McMansion comment was really not clear. Thanks for clarifying.

As far as "people not being excited about excess" it just seems you (and some others) are missing the point of the concept of "charity showhouse".

And for the record, most showhouses are completely dismantled after their run, and all furnishings go back to original sources, designers' collections, or are sold in the showroom from whence they came.

Seems "green" to me.

Even though I never really assumed AT to be the bastion of all things green. That's what the offshoot Green site was for (imho).

But, ps, the whole "it probably didn't make any money" is COMPLETELY ridiculous.

Oh for crying out loud, you're getting so carried away with the hyperbole of your point, that you've completely run off with stuff I'm not even saying. For one thing, I didn't even start the argument about how we should all have the same amount of stuff, or whatever. (Nor do I particularly believe that.) I simply don't like excessively large homes. That counts for historical ones or new construction. (And yes, that includes castles, etc.) That's a personal preference. Big friggin' deal. And as someone very involved in non-profits and fundraising, I'm personally annoyed with projects such as this (and $1000/plate galas, etc.) when there are many BETTER grassroots programs and more pressing ways to help your fellow man. Fundraising ideas such as this are for the people who want to go look at the high-end excess, not for the people who need to be helped.

Sure, some people didn't read the article and jumped to conclusions, but I DID read it and did NOT jump to conclusions. I was just putting in my own personal two cents on the offering, same as you, my friend. But anyway, you've decided what you want about me and my intentions, so as Patrick said, I give up.

incidentally, my reply was to allsunday, not to you, Patrick. I say truce?

It's hard to write a long thing out when you're popping in and out of here in between actual work ... and I never said it didn't make any money, but I've studied charity work/non-profits extensively and do a lot of work with several organizations, and there are different types of fundraising ... these kind are often not the big moneymakers. But again ... this train is gone so far out of the station... all I was saying is why are some homes so large??? End of story. I'm done with this topic.

Crap, I was in such a hurry, I skipped over my main point to your post, Patrick ... I stand by my "not excited by excess" comment. I get the idea of a show house, in theory, it's just not what I come here for - I like to be wowed by cleverness in everyday life, etc. I would never pay money to go see a bunch of over-the-top interiors like this house, since it's not my bag, and I'd rather give my money to something else (or just to that school directly) Okay, NOW I'm done talking about this. Ugh.

To dismiss, out of hand, a showhouse because one deems it excessive... you are missing a lot of inspiration, and that is sad. And something I would not expect of the astute, hungry for inspiration, eager to DIY AT crowd.

And big budgets do not exclude cleverness.

And ridge--

While it seems all my ire is pointed solely at you, it is not. You are just responding to the comments so I am addressing you as you do.

My frustration lies, here, with many of the commenters on this thread.

Hi gang,

The house is actually owned and has been by its current owner for about two years or so. I assume that it will become the owner's home after the showcase house is complete.

I was at the opening party on Friday and know for a fact that this fundraiser makes a ton of money for SF University High School.

As a whole I thought it was glorious, spectacular, and as a designer I found it very inspiring.

The great thing is that there is room for these large fundraisers as well as smaller grassroots fundraisers. I don't think we have to choose between the two.

I have personally never been to or been a part of any fundraisers that loose money on their event. For example Dining by Design makes a lot of money for their charities. Yes it costs a lot of money to put these events on, but it allows them to reach a much larger audience. Maybe even an audience that generally won't give unless they get something in return. This may sound crass, but it's true.

Some of these larger, glitzier, more publicized fundraisers get the ball rolling so even those that don't attend become aware of what is out there and what they can do.


I don't want to pick on anyone, but goonie I think it is great what you do to live your life, but what if someone said to you that it is not enough? That you need to give up more, participate more?