apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

That kitten is TOO cute! Who does he belong to?

wende . . .

May I call on your history of taxidermy decorating?
(Yes, I remember your post about owls.)
I have a nagging question . . .

Hunting Lodge v. Victorian Library v. Artist/Visionary
My hunting-lodge-loving girl and I got in a bitchy disagreement about whether the Victorian thing was just English Countryhouse.
Me, I think of it as a profoundly Urban decorating phenomenon.

thoughts?

HELLO SF! Anybody else happen to know about this topic?

Guido!

In the U.S., Victorianism was all about the tension between rapidly increasing urbanization and a fading rural ideal. Mass production made it possible to have furniture fashions that the middle-class and the new rich followed, while the intellectuals praised the honesty and purity of Colonial furniture.

So if you lived in a townhouse in NYC or a house in the New Jersey suburbs, a fashion must-have in the 1870s would have been a sideboard decorated with carvings of dead deer, flaccid fish, etc. If the young ladies of the family were the least bit "aesthetic" in the 1880s, the parlor would have its art arrangements with feather wreaths and ferns on pedestals. Taxidermy was more for Papa's study (where he was allowed to smoke his cigar, too), though a sweet arrangement of dead songbirds might appear in the parlor.

In any case, the idea was to bring nature inside -- in an era when nature was becoming more and more remote.

The same urge to rediscover nature fueled the popularity of the Adirondack twig/rustic style, but that peaks between 1900 and the crash of 1929.

Post-Victorian, it was a stock move in popular novels to characterize rural homes as holding onto these fashions absurdly late -- but they got them late, too. In contemporary Victorian literature, the small-town families would have been poked fun at for aping city styles.

Am I answering the question asked?

I would love your readers' thoughts on this -- I am building a tiny carraige house that will be a complete, 260 sq ft apartment. Would folks prefer a sleeping loft to save floor space, or (since we're all adults now), I'm thinking, a double bed that is recessed into the wall a bit with storage above (and inset lighting).

I just wonder if we've outgrown loft beds even if the space is tiny.

Thanks!

wende!
you are of course making me ask more questions.
thx!
I was actually thinking about the UK. My friend felt sure the owl in papa's study was something he brought in from the country house. I thought there was no such country house, and it was a decor/status/positioning item having nothing to do with his actual hunting.

I just read a fab novel from Scotland called "The Cutting Room", by Louise Welsh. It's about an estate auctioneer who comes across a disturbing collection.

Guido -- While I don't know enough about UK culture to be positive, if I'd encountered that owl in a museum of the family's townhouse, and the docent had claimed it was brought up from the country place after that was tragically sold to be an insane asylum... I would have thought what you did and made myself irritating by asking questions.

The novel's now on my library list.

Anonymous - usually my preference is to go vertical to save floor space if at all possible. or at least that's my first instinct, from years of living in small spaces. but i guess it also depends on how high the ceiling is, how the loft is situated, how big, etc... it might be helpful if you could provide a bit more info?

forgot to mention--i didn't realize loft beds were somehow "juvenile". is this really true? i've actually always rather liked the idea of a sleeping loft. (note that i'm not talking about BUNK beds, which definitely do seem juvenile)

The best place for us to live?

My girlfriend and I are interested in moving to the San Francisco area, but not in the actual city. We'd prefer something of a 45-minute drive away or so. Our first priorty is housing cost, and our second is proximity to jobs. We're a younger couple, so a younger area would be nice. We're coming from an area with a median home price of about $275k. I realize that this is practically impossible in the San Fran area, but we really want to move there. So my final question to the crowd is this: What area would be best suited for us? All help appreciated on this one.

N. -- 45 minutes out puts you in working-class/middle-class bedroom communities. There are a few major employers in Concord, Dublin/Pleasanton, Fremont, Vallejo, and Livermore... but most people end up commuting after they've changed jobs once or twice.

If you want nearby jobs, cheap housing, amusements for 20-somethings, and access to San Francisco for day trips, I'd go all the way out to Sacramento and look at downtown or midtown. There's a genuine city vibe developing there, lots of nightlife, and signs that the region is overbuilt on housing, so bargains will be possible in the next couple years.

If it's more important to be near SF, I'd consider Oakland, which is where the edgy artsy stuff has moved as SF has become too expensive.

i recently was on vacation in SF and visited the asian art museum. i fell in love with the wood flooring they have throughout the galleries. any idea where they got it?

Wende, Thank you very much for your advice! I'll definitely take a look into your suggestions. How long is a realistic drive from Sacramento to San Fran? I GoogleMap'd it, but times aren't always on spot. Thanks again!

N.,

Do you want to be near the beach or inland? Do you like the heat or mind the fog? Do you mind driving (and, often sitting in traffic)? Would you consider taking the train or BART? You emailed us that you have two dogs -- are you looking for a yard? Are you planning to buy or to rent? Are you nesters or do you like to go out a lot? Tell us more, tell us more. . .

Speaking as someone who's lived in Napa, Santa Cruz, Carmel, SF, and on the Peninsula, a lot will depend on your own particular likes and dislikes. I've found good and bad in each of those places, and they were all right for me at various times in my life, but not necessarily at others. I have friends who just moved back from Southern California, and while SF was ideal for them a decade ago, they ended up in Burlingame this time. You definitely should visit before making a decision.

I'd call Sacto to SF about 90 miles, which is 80-90 minutes in light traffic and just plain horrendous at rush hour. It's normal in the 90-mile-out towns to come to SF at least once a month for the culture. Sacto has the advantage of having its own culture, plus proximity to the Sierras if you like skiing or boating. And excellent antique stores that are affordable!

Amazon has a new mapping feature that lets you see street-level photos of some of these areas:
http://maps.a9.com/

Leslie, I think everybody would prefer to be closer to the beach, but with housing costs seem to prevent it. Yeah, the two dogs means we need a yard. One's a Great Dane, so we'd really like a BIG yard, and we're definitely planning on buying. We're used to fixer-uppers, though, so that should help a little bit.

We're more of nesters, really. But we do enjoy our day trips to the city (currently Boston). We visited a family member in the Half Moon Bay area (Moss Beach). That's really the kind of neighborhood we'd prefer to be in, as unrealistic as it may be based on our budget. I'd love to visit more before I buy, but I don't really want to burn up a down payment.

Wende, believe it or not, we neither ski nor boat, despite living in New Hampshire. Based on your suggestions I looked at some of the home listings in the areas you suggested, and they seem reasonable. Any info on Fairfield, Vacaville, or Rio Vista? Obviously we're not going to buy anything sight-unseen, but we'd certainly like a better understanding of things before we go out hunting.

Thanks again for your help.

I drove from SF to Sacramento last Friday. Left SF around 1:30 in the afternoon and it took a little under 2 hours. Coming in reverse on the weekend, or at rush hour, that would be an awful drive to make. It can sometimes take 45 minutes to an hour to come in from Berkeley and that's only 10 or so miles away.

I agree with Leslie, it really depends on what you like to do with your free time and what kind of weather you like.

House prices are still pretty high even very far out of the city.

Fairfield, Vacaville, and Rio Vista are further-out bedroom communities, though Fairfield is probably the least bedroomy since it's based around an AFB and has some major employers. Rio Vista gives you Delta flooding, Valley heat, and no mass transit to anywhere, as well as nothing really major in the way of shopping. New construction has been on the mega-wealthy end, so it's not a youthful community.

Fairfield gets a little Amtrak service, and it's decent-sized, though downtown doesn't quite... quite... quite... the mall's reasonably nice, though. No BART. Fairfield is pretty much any Central Valley semi-agricultural town, only it's on I-80. Vacaville is where you move when you're hoping for something cheaper or more small-town than Fairfield.

If the numbers work for you, Pleasanton might give the right feel, as it has a cute downtown. Fremont has three or four little historic downtowns (it was created from the merger of several settlements) and is where people working in Silicon Valley used to move to have a yard for the dogs. Both are on BART.

In my short time visiting, I never used BART. How is it? Is it clean? I'm used to the Boston T, which ... is not clean at all.

just for laughs, check out this apartment condo for $1,625,000. i can't seem to find the sq ft, but judging from the exterior, when i walk by, it can't be more than 1,000 sq ft. i think what you're paying for is the parking space that's part of the building, which is pretty rare here. i'm lucky that i rent a space 2.5 blocks from home.

http://1022powell.com

BART is ok. It's a convenient way to get into the city and not have to deal with bridge traffic or parking. If you are coming in to the city for special events - July 4th, Bay to Breakers, etc - you don't want to be driving! Although I wish it ran later and was a little cheaper.

Has everyone noticed that this morning Maxwell started polling people about the next AT site? I'm just wondering where all the people who've asked us about Seattle are. . .

Okay, here's the brief deal with mass transit in the Bay Area:

--BART funnels commuters into and out of the city, mostly from East Bay, to a lesser extent from the Peninsula above Millbrae. Lots of trains all day, few stops. Connects with local bus systems.

--CalTrain connects the city with San Jose, via various Peninsula small towns. If you work in an office park, usually a bunch of big companies will each toss in a couple bucks to run a shuttle bus from the nearest CalTrain station in a circuit of office parks.

--There is commuter ferry service from Vallejo, Larkspur, Sausalito, Oakland, and Alameda.

--Amtrak's Capitol Corridor train connects Sacramento to San Jose, via Emeryville, with express bus service into the city and a BART connection at Richmond. This is a real train with a cafe car.

--Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) runs trains from somewhere around Lathrop in the Central Valley to Silicon Valley. There are four trains each way. It meets up with other mass transit at the SV end.

--Larger, more distant towns that are not served by mass transit usually have spontaneously organized "van pools" to the Bay Area. Members chip in to operate a minivan on a regular carpooling basis.

All of these systems are reasonably clean and pleasant, but the overall effect is a potent mix of entrepreneurialism and utter confusion.

Been a while (months and months) since I've checked out the site and posted, but count me in for a Seattle AT vote!

N: Grew up in Sacramento and moved to SF. If SF is what you want, you will not be happy with Sac, trust me. The drive is an average 2 hours (as is the amtrak train) if there is no heavy traffic. On top of lacking the vibe, energy, art, culture,etc of SF, Sacramento housing costs are high as well. I agree with Wende, I would definitly look in the Oakland area. BART is wonderful, cheap, convienant. One last note, when it is sweltering over 100 degrees in the Sacramento summer time, you will realize just how nice San Francisco and its proximity to the ocean really is. Trust me. Good luck!

Again, thank you all for your help!

N. my fiance and I moved to SF last year from Boston. While we haven't explored as much as we should have, so can't weigh in on your choices of towns to live in, I can tell you the BART and public transportation in general is not nearly as good as the T and commuter rail in Boston and the BART has kind of gross upholstered seats that collect grime. However, you don't have to deal with slushy, cold BART stations in the winter like you do in Boston!

I don't know, if I was N., I probably would try to find a fixer-upper in Half Moon Bay, Montara, Pacifica... I bet there are still a few old tiny houses on big lots that you could totally fix up. Although it's a real pain getting into SF now that devil's slide is closed indefinitely. But then, my personal dislike for anywhere really hot would keep me out of the east bay and most of the peninsula.

oh you know, there is one crazy little town just across the Richmond Bridge.. called Point Richmond. It's super quirky, with a really small-town feel, and a lot of older homes. Anyone know what houses there are like?

Zut allors!

I go away for a while and look what happens, there's some activity on these threads! That's just great!

Well, then. I just returned from my very first trip to New York so I find it amusing that we're discussing public transport. Throughout Manhattan, the MTA was wonderful; much to my chagrin though, I didn't make it to the Outer Burroughs, so I can't comment on how it works through there. Still, I was suitably impressed even if I did find the subway a tad difficult to navigate at times.

On the subject of rent, I have little to say except that it's absurd. There's something akin to the Red Queen Theory going on in this city. Indeed, SF has lost some of its fecundicy as the City races towards high end everything. Where SF used to have an effect on the people who came here, the people are now effecting the City. But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

To qualify, as a dedicated "city" person, I'm not of the mindset of the bedroom communities or the suburbs. Just the name "Vacaville" makes me shudder. I live 4 blocks from Union Square and love it! That said, if what you're looking for is square footage, someplace to purchase with a yard and a neighboorhood feel with easy access into the "city" part of SF, you might really enjoy the Richmond or Sunset districts of San Francisco. There is more square footage for your buck, better availability to street parking, and clumps of fun neighborhood shops (and plenty of coffee shops, pubs, restaurants, etc.), and even a traditional shopping mall (Stonestown). And, needless to say, your dogs will *love* the beach and GG Park.

Also, I'm wondering how much you've ever been here since you remarked that you want to be close to the beach, even if you did visit Half Moon Bay once. Definitely come visit once or twice before moving here - I'll be happy to help show you around. Most folks in the Bay Area prefer to live closer to the bay than the beach, since the beach is foggy, and during the summer months (although not this summer!) can leave you shrouded in cloudy, cold weather for days, with the fog never lifting. That area of town is referred to here as the fog belt. The Richmond & Sunset districts are cheaper since they are far away from downtown and in the fog belt, even though they are close to the ocean and GG Park.

Wherever you live, if you want to hop into the city semi-frequently, I *highly* recommend you do it on mass transit. My friends who drive into the city are often stressed and tired from the traffic, navigating unfamiliar streets, and then parking. Therefore they get stressed out when they even think of coming into the city, even before they get into their cars. My friends who use BART, CalTrain, ferries or the deluxe commuter buses from the East Bay & Marin that AC Transit and GG Transit (respectively) operate are much calmer, happier, and ready to enjoy the city when they arrive.

N. - Where in NH are you in?

Holly

RE: the move to San Francisco...

You might also look into a Tenants in Common situation, where you find (through a realtor) other prospective buyers on a limited budget and you go in a building together; each of you getting your own flat. Kind of like a townhouse. I have friends that have done it, and found places in the Mission district and the Richmond District - both with great yards. Keep in mind also, that there are plenty of dog parks here in SF, and most people end up gathering there in the mornings and evenings with there dogs. And a lot of them are off-leash so they can romp around, including Crissy Field which is along the 'bay beach'. Have you got a good map outlining all the various neighborhoods SF is split into? It might give you a better understanding of what everyone is referring to by 'districts' and neighborhoods. Good luck...you will love it!