www.dwr.com/product/louis-ghost-armchair.do

$400 for a plastic chair?

I want nothing to do with wallpaper. Pain in the ass to put up and a pain in the ass to take down.

My lounge and kitchen are the same room.
That's London apartments for you.

Reed of the Valley People wrote:
www.dwr.com/product/louis-ghost-armchair.do

$400 for a plastic chair?

I want nothing to do with wallpaper. Pain in the ass to put up and a pain in the ass to take down.

In general I agree. But I will do almost anything to avoid re-drywalling a house I'm living in. So, if you've got a room with old plasterwork that's starting to crack, wallpaper isn't a bad option.

Remember, whatever you think now, there's a really good chance you won't be living there in ten years. A really common mistake is trying to make your first house absolutely "perfect." People who do that frequently end up spending most of their occupancy living in a construction zone. There's also the possibility of overbuilding and not being able to defray the cost of your improvements when you move on.

Chairs are expensive. Strangely, good furniture is often the same price as that which you find in Crate & Barrel. My new apartment (rental) has a new kitchen and bathroom as it has come out from being rent controlled. I have yet to see either, but am led to believe they will be finished soon and will involve a lot of white.

MsD obviously does a bit more than me in the kitchen.

There's also the possibility of overbuilding and not buying able to recoup the cost of your improvements when you move on.

You know, I've never really understood why this is an issue. You don't get a haircut to make yourself look better on the understanding that you'll make money back. You don't expect to recoup your outlay on a new bed that you sleep better in. If it makes you happy and you enjoy the hours and hours you spend in your gaff more, go crazy. A home is supposed to be a home, not a share portfolio.

Amor de Cosmos wrote:

In general I agree. But I will do almost anything to avoid re-drywalling a house I'm living in. So, if you've got a room with old plasterwork that's starting to crack, wallpaper isn't a bad option.



Bah...child's play. Unless, of course, you're removing lathe and plaster to put up drywall. Lot of work, that.

Speaking of which, A de C, Mike Holmes is working five doors down from me this week. I'd stand there with my book to be autographed if I didn't think the neighbours would recognize me.

hobbes wrote:

You know, I've never really understood why this is an issue. You don't get a haircut to make yourself look better on the understanding that you'll make money back. You don't expect to recoup your outlay on a new bed that you sleep better in. If it makes you happy and you enjoy the hours and hours you spend in your gaff more, go crazy. A home is supposed to be a home, not a share portfolio.

The comparisons are nonsense, but the thrust of your argument is true if you're planning on staying put for a while. But why would you improve a home beyond what the market would bear upon resale? That's simply subsidizing someone else's home.

Why would a buyer pay more for something that you liked but they think ugly?

The whole recouping thing is a real struggle and is an argument based on utility rather than money.

Well, they wouldn't. But people usually buy houses that they like.
I don't understand your second point.

hobbes wrote:
There's also the possibility of overbuilding and not buying able to recoup the cost of your improvements when you move on.

You know, I've never really understood why this is an issue. You don't get a haircut to make yourself look better on the understanding that you'll make money back. You don't expect to recoup your outlay on a new bed that you sleep better in. If it makes you happy and you enjoy the hours and hours you spend in your gaff more, go crazy. A home is supposed to be a home, not a share portfolio.

That's why I altered "recoup" to "defray" two minutes before your post. A house is a home but it's also most people's principal financial asset. These two qualities are not mutually exclusive.

Bah...child's play. Unless, of course, you're removing lathe and plaster to put up drywall. Lot of work, that.

It's a fucking mess is what it is.

I think you have to balance all the concerns. Primarily, the point of the house should be to enjoy living there, but it is a pants-shitting-scary amount of money so you do have to think about the day when you'll sell it at least somewhat. But I would never do something to the house that I didn't like just to appease the fuckers who are going to buy it next.

There's a TV show about that (the proliferation of these shows is remarkable - there's a PhD thesis is there somewhere). The premise is that two designer types (I say that because they fit the stereotypes) look at improvements that homeowners have made to their places and then assess how much of that money they can get back someday. Over 70% is doing really well. Meanwhile, the homeowners watch a tape of these designers criticizing their stuff and they make defensive and outraged comments.

From a pure design standpoint, I agree with the pros about 60-70% of the time, but some of the stuff they want is wanky.

Had a post, got logged out. basically you use Utility as a measure to encompass value to the person / owner, which is derived differently. Would you design a kitchen differently if you expected to live somewhere ten years as opposed to doing it to sell? I would expect so. Doing things with a view to sell are always a bit circumspect and disasterous in housing, as they are purchased on location, layout and then "which do I have least to do to". No 'but dear, I know it is in the arse end of nowhere, they did a beautiful job on the kitchen. We should buy it'.

Reed of the Valley People wrote:
There's a TV show about that (the proliferation of these shows is remarkable - there's a PhD thesis is there somewhere). The premise is that two designer types (I say that because they fit the stereotypes) look at improvements that homeowners have made to their places and then assess how much of that money they can get back someday. Over 70% is doing really well. Meanwhile, the homeowners watch a tape of these designers criticizing their stuff and they make defensive and outraged comments.

It's called "Bang for the Buck" or something like that. But yeah, I agree with you about that show. The big problem is that they say what "buyers" want. As if there is only one type of buyer, and s/he all have the same taste. A lot of times the homeowners on that show get cranky and say, "well, we put it in because we like it, and that's all that matters." Which is true, but then why are you going on this show if you don't care what any prospective buyer thinks about your renovations?

They do that all the time on property ladder. They get a specialist to help them add value to sell the property, proceed to ignore them, then look aghast as people (clearly selectively filmed) say exactly the same as the expert when looking around the house.

Reed of the Valley People wrote:
www.dwr.com/product/louis-ghost-armchair.do

$400 for a plastic chair?

Agreed, totally absurd.

But, $500 for an Eames plastic chair, or at least $450 for an Eames plywood chair, on the other hand...

And one day, if we ever have the room and lots of money to throw around, I will have an Eames lounge chair. I've dreamed of having one.

That's an excellent point. I doubt they get anyone on that show that completely rejects its premise. And a lot of the choices the homeowners make do seem kind of wany and "designery" if you know what I mean, so I don't think they're as individualist and self-assured as they want us to believe.

I look at that more in terms of just comparisons and opportunity costs. The more you can recoup from an investment into your house, the "cheaper" that investment is, effectively, in the long run.

Of course, in the long run we're all dead.

dglh wrote:
MsD obviously does a bit more than me in the kitchen.
An ice cream/potato scoop makes a witty and inexpensive eye gouger.

The best property show on HGTV, I think, is Real Estate Intervention. The expert, Mike, is clearly a badass:



He's like a strict high school principal that doesn't take any shit from anyone but you end up actually liking even though you don't want to.

He's not a bad guy on the show at all, though. He's a voice of reason to a lot of people that are in really bad situations. It pains me to see what some of these people are going through. I haven't seen anyone on the show that got a risky mortgage or took out a home equity loan to spend a lot of cash in their house--they just bought at the wrong time, they've lost their jobs, etc., and they need to sell, but for much less than is good for them. Sometimes people listen to him, sometimes they get angry when they hear what he has to say, and I remember one episode where a husband was completely baffled by what he was saying and just basically shut down and could not comprehend what he was hearing. The wife started crying because he was so unwilling to face their situation. It was really uncomfortable viewing.

Incandenza wrote:

And one day, if we ever have the room and lots of money to throw around, I will have an Eames lounge chair. I've dreamed of having one.

Me too. I don't know if you've ever heard of Canadian Tire, but last fall they had (for god knows what reason) a collection of seriously inexpensive editions of the Eames lounger, the Noguchi table and the Barcelona chair. I think the Eames chair was $800 and the ottoman was another $300. Somewhere in that ballpark. They were licensed repros and all, but I've no idea how they got them to agree to the price points.


Wait, here they are. Even cheaper than I remember.

I find that guy's attitude repulsive - that the furniture isn't cool if it's not expensive. At least he admits he's a snob, but he doesn't seem to see what's wrong with that.