apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I agree with MG. I'm from NY and I would love to enter one of these contest but know how restricted I am. I would love to extend my walk through kitchen with original wood cabinets and tiled walls. I can't because I'd need to tear down a entry (not wall) that is useless. I wouldn't replace cabinets or my tiled countertops only because I can't afford that nor do I think its practical because I am a renter. So, yes I agree there should be a contest for those who do not have the ability to gut and renovate their space.

I've gone back and forth on this before settling on "no." Couple of reasons:

(a) Renters have done well in past contests. Isn't p(too), winner of the first Smallest, Coolest contest, a renter?

(b) Both Maxwell and a number of renters who post regularly insist that it's possible and acceptable to paint, swap lighting, change appliances, etc., in a rental. This is NOT my experience in renting! But it means that a renters-only division will run into the same problems we see now: the renters whose landlords place normal limits will feel disadvantaged compared to the renters who can do as much as owners.

With this month's theme, "renting" is supposed to be synonymous with "restrictions." Wende brings up a good point, which is that not all renters have these problems. In which case, maybe it shouldn't be a contest for renters, it should be a contest for restricted decorating. Contestants would need to list all the ways in which they can't decorate (can't paint, limited to N holes in the wall, etc.), and show off how they got around those problems. Obviously, someone who is only restricted by not being able to paint the walls will have an advantage over someone who has more restrictions, but I'm sure there is some way to allow for that and still produce a fair competition. Maybe make it problem-themed? Group entries by the problem/solution, not the overall effect. Like, have a group for lighting fixtures, a group for walls, a group for color in a white/beige setting, etc. I'm sure the AT crew is aware enough of the problems with renting to take extenuating circumstances into consideration when choosing a winner.

I am a renter but I vote no, for the same reason as Wende. There certainly are renters who can do a whole lot of changes to their apartment--would they have to be disqualified for being too lucky in their landlords? Further, what about the people whose landlords installed GREAT lighting, and stylish built in furniture, and had fantastic paint jobs? Should they be disqualified? I like the contest as it is, and many of my favorite entries have been renters and I think they have proven that renting does not doom you to having an ugly space. HOW you are innovative within the restrictions of renting counts as a plus for you in the contests. I mean no disrespect in saying this, but I think people who are harping on this should get over it. The AT contests are a fun way to peek into other people's houses, gain some design insight, and generally enjoy the AT blog. People that are being so strategic in their pursual of winning a prize, and clamoring for seperate categories etc, are not, I think, in the spirit of the contest.

THe Colors contest should definitely have a category for those not allowed to paint their walls. (Some landlords don't care.)

Smallest Coolest should have a family edition, for those squeezing kids into spaces smaller than 650 sq ft.

i also vote no. if there is a "family edition" and one for people who can't paint their walls, what about one for people who make less than $50K a year and can't afford to do much reno? Or one for people who live with their parents, or have roommates? It can really get quite silly. The contest should be about doing something cool with your space-EVERYONE has restrictions of some sort. Be they lease-wise, financial, time etc. There cannot possibly be enough subdivisions to include them all.

While you may think its silly max it still gives others ideas and in the bottom line isnt that whats its all about?

Uh Tulip, how long have you been renting? Sorry, but I've been renting for years, apartments that ranged from small to what I have now. I haved lived in NY all my life. I've had friends, relatives, and siblings who rented. You are saying that renters either want to spruce up their places in order to join a contest or don't because they can't do what other contestants do? Who is harping? Seems to me that, with all due respect, when anyone agrees to disagree some idiot has to stand behind someone else and throw in their two cents. I have seen apartments - ones that I have checked out apartment hunting others I've rented, briefly. I can tell you that sometimes, more often then others some spaces are just too far gone to fix up. Throw paint on it...I'd opt to burn it down. Anyway, I've owned a home, a very large beautiful one. My family size grew smaller I sold it. You can't compare a home, condo, or even a co-op to a rental. Some landlords or supt. won't let you paint, nail up, just about do anything to some spaces and not because they look great simply because the walls are weak and they don't want bold colors on the walls as well as nails - means they will need to prime it or better yet add on layers of white, neutral paint and plaster holes left by nails. I even rented an apt. once that would not allow me to hang curtains or blinds. Only shades. Light fixtures - ha! The electrical was so old - you'd be homeless starting an inferno. I'm sure they worked on that one unless it burned down already. So you see it's not about just restrictions it's just some places are not worthy at all unless you want all those nice AT readers to mock you for eternity.

Speaking of distinctions: how did houses end up in the color contest?

Everyone does NOT have some sort of restrictions. How is someone wealthy who owns their own huge loft/condo restricted?? In a rental,not only can you not add and subtract at will, you have to deal with things like harvest gold appliances. How much more creativity does it take to work around the harvest gold than to call Ikea and have them deliver a custom new 5k kitchen? In some places there are laws (and in even more places, statutes in the leases) that state that any improvements you make, you must leave in the apartment when you move out. Why would anyone in their right mind put major money into new light fixtures, for example, when they just become the property of the landlord who caused all this irritation in a year or two's time?

Sounds like the issue is more about rich vs. poorer than rent vs. own. Clearly you can't have a separate category for each income level and subcategories for each family/living situation. I'm confident that good judges are able to take restrictions into account when judging, otherwise they shouldn't be judges. If you make two categories, ok, but it seems unnecessary. Many of the lovely entries from this contest are rentals, and many of the not so lovely are owned. (But if there will be double the prizes, certainly go for it!!)

Re: light fixtures being an inferno- if the wiring is bad, it's not going to get worse from you changing the fixture (which you can take with you when you leave, btw- just save the old ones to reinstall). I always change mine, taking them from apartment to apartment. Same with drawer pulls. And often condos restrict window covering colors just like rentals may. The money I save by not owning my home leaves me with more disposable (or savable) income, too.

Not even sure what Cielo's (and amused's- same person?) point really is, other than anger? That rental vs. rental still isn't a fair fight? You need a special category for crappy rentals?

There are certainly some bad landlords, but many aren't so bad. Shop around. I've had good "luck". Also, being a good tenant can help you get good landlords, sometimes. And if you choose to live in a really expensive city, don't be bitter that you can't afford a palace.

i initially voted 'yes', but then i read the comments and see wende's point.

i'm one of those lucky renters who can do just about anything to their place and is only hampered by financial and temporal constraints (i.e. i can't afford to put in a new kitchen when i could lose my lease in 6 months). the changes i can make put me much closer to the 'owner' category than someone who lives in one of those picky white box spaces where you can't so much as hang a picture. so where do you draw the line?

personally i don't think it would be too bad an idea to either have dollar amount categories (how much of an investment did you have to make in renovating this space?) or professional help categories (splitting up DIYers from designers or those who hired help to acheive their vision).

i also think it would be nice to throw a bone to either renters or the financially challenged by having a contest akin to smallest coolest for low-budget renos or non-intrusive solutions.

I think the fact that every entrant had a space to descripe their home was the equalizer. If someone mentioned they could not paint, or had a strange fixture to work with, I think the person judging took that into account. There's too many opportunities to divide people and their "disadvantages"; so as long as you let the entrant say a little something they feel the need judges to know, let them.

But small spaces, color--that's about creativity. Until there's a contest on best DWR furniture, your only disadvantage is not having inventiveness to get around challenges.

I vote no for purely organizational reasons: it's a pain to keep up with all the separate categories! In fact, I'd vote for getting rid of the geographical categories so it would be easier to keep up with all the entries.

I don't really intend to enter an AT contest, so I am perhaps not being understanding enough of the plight of those who want to win the contest but feel they won't for unfair reasons. However, I think there are many more people like me who are just readers and want to be able to look at all the entries with as little hassle as possible.

Erica- First of all, no I am NOT the same person as Cielo (Why wouldn't I have just signed as Cielo?), and I'm not sure where you got that. Maybe you read over the comments too quickly and confused my comment with someone elses?

Secondly, I said nothing about rich vs. poor. My point was that even someone with money shouldn't spend it replacing fixtures, etc., that they are just going to have to leave in the apartment anyways. Be smart and invest that money, or give it to deserving charities. Wasting money is wasting money, no matter how much you have.

I do have considerable freedom- I can paint, sand/change the floors, move appliances and counters (since they aren't the sort that are bolted), and I even got permission to take my fixtures with me after a good 15 minutes of pleading my case and promising to put the originals back. I'm arguing mostly on behalf of those who don't have those perks, because there are a lot of them, and you can only do so much with first-wave shag carpeting.

Finally, I don't live in San Francisco- I live in TULSA. I don't think cost of living comes a whole lot lower than that. I don't think they even BUILD palaces here, unless you count McMansions. And just for the record, I'm not bitter about where/how I live- I'm doing pretty well for a single girl who just graduated college. You should think before you fling accusations around; they may wind up reflecting more on the accuser's character than the accusee's. In any event, there's no need.

I'm with Jenny on taking out the location distinctions- that shouldn't make too much of a difference since all of the cities represented here have easy access to a ton of different types of furniture stores, big boxes, etc. If there was a plan to set up an AT: Wichita or something, location might make a little more of a difference.

And I think opop is right- if the renters/owners categories aren't created, these alternative contests might still give people with tons of restrictions a chance to win a contest.

Sorry for the long post, but these last few comments certainly gave me something to think about, and I wanted to reiterate my concerns, since it seems they mightn't have been clear the first time ...

YES! Please split them up. For renters like me, it is more than inspiring to see someone in a similar situation (of not being able to do much to a rental) find solutions to problems we all have in common such as... how to spruce up ugly peach color oak cabinets in the kitchen with a temporary and removable fix!!

I say no because this site is a lot about making due with what you are given and creativity. Sure -if you can build a place from scratch it can be beautiful -but if you have to make do with an ugly shell and can make it beatitful -THATS special and more interesting!

Amused -- One of the reasons you see renters changing fixtures as "wasted" money is because you're not in a city like San Francisco that has rent control. For long-time renters with rent control, doing major renovations to a rental can be substantially less expensive than moving to a better place -- and more affordable than buying.

Ordinarily, I agree with you on the economics of rental rehab -- look where I live! -- but it does genuinely make sense for people who have rent control and stay in the same apartment "forever."