Restoration Hardware is such a racket. The played-out faux Belgian look designed for McMansions.

I always forget that not everyone lives in a city. Every time I visit my folks in the suburbs of California, I'm reminded that people buy giant, crappy stucco houses they can't afford to furnish, heat, or cool.

Something not mentioned in that article is the "bang for your buck" factor. I think when people see a $2,500 Restoration Hardware sofa, they see a giant 100"+ piece of furniture. To the average eye, it probably seems like a better deal than the $5,000 diminutive LC2. This also explains the success of The Cheesecake Factory.

imo, i always go for larger furniture, namely our sectional that's 11x6. we're moving into a new apartment with a living room that is 11x15...so it will be a stretch to make it work, but we love it and wouldn't part with it.

the way that i have justified it is that there are 3 built-in bookcases on the back, so it's mult-functional and holds our entire book collection without taking up extra square footage for separate bookcases.

We had a really difficult time finding a modest-sized sofa for our apartment. I just don't get the over-sized furniture thing but then I visit family in the suburbs and it all makes sense. When you buy a giant house you have to fill it with giant stuff or else it ends up feeling empty and sad.

Just read the NYT peice... dear god, the mark of "good" furniture is a table you can stand on?! I'll take my Paul McCobb coffee table over that any day. It's not child proof but it's actually aesthetically pleasing.

I don't mind big, comfy furniture. I love a deep couch that two can lie on comfortably side-by-side. But I hate when the overall dimensions make a piece so much larger. Do we really need a foot wide armrest on a chair? Or a big pillow in the back that is 8 inches deep? I find it's the design, not the seat dimension, of today's furniture that sends me running to MCM designs.

Our sofa was chosen so that my partner could recline on the main part at the same time that I am reclining on the chaise lounge section, for lazy TV viewing. (I am more comfortable with my feet elevated. He just likes to lounge.) It's a sectional. We couldn't find a standard sofa long enough for him (he's 6'2) with any room left for me. So although it's an oversize piece, we had specific "needs" that it meets. (Now that we have a home theater for more serious viewing, we could probably get a smaller sofa for the living room, but who can afford to change?)

We just recently renovated the main floor of the library where I work, and new chairs were needed. In the end we bought upgraded "bariatric" quality furnishings meant for large people. (They also have easy-clean properties for incontinent patients in nursing homes -- our homeless patrons pretty much qualify, and "easy clean" is important to our staff, mainly for odor reasons!) I bring this up, though, to point out that office furnishings now can be ordered in standard or over-sized configurations. Our chairs can support 400 pounds, and we have at least two patrons I think are almost at that level. I doubt that happened much in the 1920's. So, yes, I'd say our bottoms ARE getting bigger.

Being 6'5" I must say I'm a little biased toward larger furniture. I have a smaller cape cod in the countryside, and I am able to fit some larger furniture in it. I must say I do love restoration hardware, but could never afford to shop there. Instead I love going into stores like Homegoods or the local craigslist posts and getting furniture that looks and has near the same quality of restoration hardware. I've never paid over $400 for any of it, which includes my larger furniture and I am very happy with my selections.

The size of the 50" chair isn't the problem. It's the design.

If you had taken that same 50" and built a chair with a wide cushion and straight arms, you would end up with a chair for two that takes up 1.25" less space than the loveseat.

Another example: We have Crate and Barrel's Axis chair which measures 48" wide. Load it up with pillows and you have a cozy chair for one. Toss those pillows on the floor, and you have a cozy chair for two. At 3.25 inches smaller than the "compact" sofa you mention above.

So, no...I have nothing against big chairs. How they're designed is a different story. And yes, Restoration Hardware is a design embarrassment of--literally--epic proportions.

Ha,
My wife and I just bought the briarwood chair and a half to use as a love seat! Mind you we are very large people (6'5" and 6') and we fit perfectly. We did a compare and contrast with their love seat and found that it offered nothing of value when it came to seating space.

funny, i was just lookin at RH's Fulham leather sofa. I so badly want this sofa, but can't fit it through my teeny-tiny entryway. i have a fairly small apartment with a massive, wide open livingroom. living with a 6'5 couch hog and friends (whom i love) that never leave, i'm always in need of more seating. if i can't have the sofa i'm going for the chair.. at 58 inces it's pretty much a love seat anyways? or maybe just MY big cozy seat.

Oh come on. it's not about people being fat... it's about them being selfish and wanting an enormous cushy chair all to themselves. aka just wanting to be comfortable.

Go with what fits you and your lifestyle.

The harmony of colors, feelings, natural colors, natural, I have my house decorated with your ideas I think are wonderful and charming with you needed help I got it.

"One of the most prominent retailers of supersize furnishings is Restoration Hardware, the California-based chain whose leather steamer trunks and machine-age desks suggest that the Indiana Jones estate is being liquidated."

Great line. They send me their sourcebooks lately, and I wonder, who buys this stuff?

Interesting, MATTHEWELIKATZ! You'd never think by looking at it that that chair could be so roomy. So, then, I take it back. I have no problem with that chair's design.

It's all about the McMansion. We have a rule in our (1898) house: no "overstuffed" or "oversized" chairs. Even if the chair-and-a-half is a loveseat stand in, that's a lot of arm!

I totally agree with MATTHEWELIKATZ - of course, I'm in that same height range. I love having great big furniture at home and I get so annoyed with tiny desks at work and bathroom sinks that have a height somewhere around my knees.

I agree with UNABRIDGED.

I went furniture shopping this past weekend and came across a few chairs like the first pic. My issue is they take up the same amount of space as a love seat and offer less seating because of the design. It can't really accommodate two people and one person feels like they are a little kid sitting in it.

I guess if you live in a huge place where space isn't an issue, it would be fine but for me, it's a waste of space.

I had always had MCM furniture and was very happy- until I got my huge overstuffed furniture and chair this fall. The chair is huge, and along with it's ottoman could be used as a bed. The entire family on movie nights can lounge on the sofa. My living room isn't big, but it isn't small either. This new furniture fits well in the space, and it's far more comfortable than my old MCM and danish modern furniture- not just for us but for our guests too. I won't be going back.

I, for one, would love to have an oversized mad-scientist chair like the one Doctor Horrible -- played by Neil Patrick Harris -- sits on in Joss Whedon's "Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog."

It's just that awesome: http://www.librarything.com/pics/drhorrible.jpg

We also live in a 1920s bungalow, and while our rooms are not tiny, they are more compact than many newer homes and because of lots of windows and doors, there are some limitations to the furniture that will fit while maintaining a sense of space and good flow. We have slowly (over the course of 8+ years) been replacing pieces we had in our last (open concept) house; the last item to go is a way too large for our living room (which is actually a good size at 19X12 but because of doors and windows, the sofa ended up making us feel a bit claustrophobic); the new one arrives this weekend. Even though it is still a standard sofa, it is 15 inches narrower than the one we are replacing.

High five, E53. For me, a couch that an adult can sleep on (or that a kid can sleep on while an adult sits, OR that a kid, two adults, a dog, and a couple cats can sit on...etc.) is important. I love a big, comfy couch.

Far be it from me to armchair decorate for someone else.

When I bought a modest-sized condo 25 years ago, I furnished it with best pieces I could afford, classic clean-lined furniture I thought would be versatile. I still have every item, and across many moves they've served multiple purposes in family rooms, bedrooms, living rooms, and hallways. Smaller footprints and less bulk make every piece versatile. They served me well when I was single, a young parent, and now an empty nester who'll be downsizing soon.

If you can (some of us do need more length, width, and support), think long term and neutral for basic pieces and accommodate changes in taste along the way with accents and thrifted finds. Good pieces last, and smaller furniture can be comfortable and serve differing purposes to suit changes across a lifetime.

My husband is 6'4" and I am 5'1" and slim. We live in a 50's ranch with low ceilings. He is a fan of huge furniture but we don't have any because it wouldn't fit in our house (aesthetically or otherwise). I'm not a fan of huge furniture, and tend to have smaller, shorter furniture that is vintage or from Room and Board. I guess it's just the difference in our size and what's comfortable to us - like someone said above, I would feel like a kid in that giant chair! - as long as we live in this house, my preference wins by default. Not sure what we'd do if we lived in a newer house with high ceilings and more open space. I can't see trading in my lovely (and $) furniture for big stuffed things, but I acknowledge our furniture might look a bit like doll furniture in that setting :)

It is all about having the right furniture for the right room. I live in a very modest size 1950s duplex, and the sofa in my living room is 105 inches long and 43 inches deep. It is large enough that two adults can lay on it an watch movies very comfortably. It replaced a couch and chair of more traditional proportions, but it makes our narrow living room look much more like a room, rather than a hallway with a bunch of furniture pushed up against the walls. Plus, once you take the back pillows off, it is large enough that it functions as an extremely comfortable guest bed.

I can't help but think of that kids show Big Comfy Couch...the one with the creepy rag doll girl.

I don't like small compact furniture - when I hunker down with my hubby or friends to watch a movie or play a game, I want to be comfortable and have space to lounge! I might not choose that crazy wide chair in the picture above but I certainly wouldn't pick that teeny sofa to sit thigh to thigh with my house guests. Buy furniture in proportion with the room/house you're furnishing and you should be fine.

and Archdarling - How about you stay put and have people visit you instead in your big city? I would guess it's probably a bit more comfortable to stay with your folks in their giant crappy house but hey, I'm biased in my suburb-like city.

Brooding birds, presented with the choice between a smaller egg or a larger one, have been observed to choose the larger, even if it was artificial. In other words, even birds think bigger is better.

OK, what nonsense is this. A bigger egg is probably healthier, and/or further along so you don't have sit on it forever. Why are they equating this to ppl liking larger furniture?!?

I tend to like smaller furniture. This is partly because I move often and tend to live in smaller spaces. OTOH, I agree that a lot of the low-slung seating with firm cushions and no back support neither look nor are comfortable. The LC kind of offends me, even, since the cushions are just boxes, so not only does it not conform to human bodies but should be easy to manufacture, and yet they'll charge $5k for it?

I recently sold our old oversized chair and a half and replaced it with my parents' 30+ year old Pennsylvania House loveseat. The loveseat is actually smaller, but provides comfortable sitting room for two. I will say that the chair with the wide seat and giant arms actually made a comfier place to curl up and read a book or nap than the loveseat does, but we needed the sitting space, so it had to go. It was just a space hog. If we were single rather than a family of 4, the chair could've stayed.

I don't know, my parents just got one of those mega-chairs (apparently it was sold as a "chair and a half") and I LOVED it when I visited for christmas. Actually, one of my favorite things about it was that it was a great, snuggly seat for two.

I'm short and small, and all furniture made these days is way too huge for me. The only way I can find something comfortable is to get something vintage.

The "chair and a half" sold by Briarwood is actually about 66" wide, making it nearly as big as my sofa! The chair I featured in this post is the standard chair. Interesting comments so far, everyone!

I sometimes think Americans go for huge furniture in a desperate search for a sense of solidity and quality in their lives. With the economy so tenuous and people losing their homes, people feel good about at least having a monstrous 10-foot couch to stretch out on. I've also seen what a disaster some of the huge furniture can be modest apartment-sized places where they truly seem out-of-place. I like comfort but I wouldn't opt for any huge piece of furniture if I could avoid it. I appreciate a sense of openness and lightness in rooms.

I'm 5'3" and prefer smaller scale furniture. I really dig the stuff that gets sold in Japan. When I sit in the big stuff, I feel overwhelmed. However, my husband is 6'3". He likes the bigger furniture. It makes sense.

We were looking for a loveseat to put by the fireplace in our (not tiny) 1910 foursquare, and everything we saw was HUGE - so we got a chair-and-a-half instead. Found it on Craig's List, and the seller had the whole set - huge sofa, huge loveseat, huge chair-and-a-half and enormous ottoman, all in a small suburban ranch. The four pieces covered more than half the floor space of their living room, with maybe 10" in between.

its the design of furniture, not the size, thats the issue for me, those wide flared arms are nothing but wasted space. i have no problems with a wide seat on a chair or sofa but its the big clunky arms that kill it! a space can be full and layered without giant pieces furniture, its mixing styles, textures, and textiles that make a room appear full along with the staples; seating, surfaces, lighting, etc.

most of my family is guilty of this, and yes were in the burbs...

@archdarling - I'd tend to agree with you. However, we bought a perfectly wonderful loveseat sized sofa from RH that really suits our needs in the cottage we live in. It's well made and even though it wasn't a size that was advertised or shown in the store, it was easy to order and a good price for a nicely made piece of furniture.

It's not a played out belgian look. It's a neutral, English Country look and we're really happy with it.

I think one of the best things about shopping around for what you're looking for is being open to the idea that what you end up loving might be anywhere - we never discounted any one store in the search for what we were looking for; even though RH certainly didn't seem to be our aesthetic, we found what we wanted there. It was a good lesson for us to keep an open mind.

Personally, I'm not a fan of how over-sized furniture looks. But I will admit some pieces can be rather comfy. And they are perfect for snuggling up with a hot beverage, a blanket, and a good book.

I live in what I think of as a nice-sized 1920s house. Most of the Restoration Hardware furniture wouldn't fit through my door! The "kitchen" tables would work perfectly in my dining room. The "dining room" sized tables are over 100" long and would never fit anywhere in our house without looking ridiculous. The chandeliers would dwarf our ceilings. That place is out of control with their sizes!

AT- I think you are a pot-stirrer! Here you are posting a piece that ridicules large pieces of furniture- and yet on the same day you have anything piece entitled "Using Scale to Make a Statement."

I love how you make us think. Or not.

*another* (yikes)

http://www.restorationhardware.com/catalog/product/product.jsp?productId=prod1679275&categoryId=search
26"w x 28"d

http://www.restorationhardware.com/catalog/product/product.jsp?productId=prod500012&categoryId=cat1537055
72"w x 37"d x 33" h

This all seems pretty "normal" to me.

Another 1920's bungalow owner here. Our living room is 11 x 13 but has 4 large windows, a front door, a bedroom door and a cased opening to the dining room to configure furniture around. The only things I have found that fit the scale are modestly-sized pieces (no oversized/overstuffed here!). Most homes are much larger than mine and can handle the scale, so to each their own.

I do think the NY Times is on to something with big furniture keeping up with the growing size of the average furniture buyer. My mother-in-law is overweight (but not more than a large majority of Americans) and is not comfortable sitting in any of our armchairs. This isn't meant to sound mean, but she "spills over" in these chairs. Her favorite piece of furniture is a chair & a half at her daughter's house. So I think a lot of bigger folks like the larger-scaled furniture because then it also makes them feel like a normal size.

I just think that people are bigger now than ever before (not just overweight) and Americans in particular. Two anecdotes:

My dad is building a small plane, there's a British guy in his EAA chapter that was talking about which homebuilt models are popular with Americans and he noted that Americans preferred the models with larger cockpits because "Americans are giants".

I also remember seeing a Civil War uniform in a museum when I was a kid and despite being a maybe 12 year old girl at the time, it looked like it would have been too small for me.

So the sort of people that sat on a sofa in 1920 were likely much smaller than those that sit on it today!

As a plus-sized person, I actually prefer smaller furniture that (of course) is well made. My home is a tiny 1920's cottage and it took us many years just to find the right furniture that was also not overstuffed and not too expensive. I grew up in a century home with huge rooms that needed large furnishings. I can see both kinds needed in our country. I just wish that smaller furniture was more available and affordable than at just IKEA.