elalexid's Profile

Only those who can't afford it typically appreciate it.

Being an amateur cook, I'm a little confused as to why you would want to cover with a lid and open it. I would have thought that the lid was precisely to keep the steam in.
I would appreciate your comments.

This is indeed a very lame use of technology. Since when is watching TV (or several TVs at a time) the measure of success? It's just a further erosion of the social construct by continuing to bombard every minute of our lives with propaganda that only aims to promote more propaganda.
If I had $80K to spend on myself (assuming I had already contributed a considerable amount to social, spiritual and charitable causes, and that the rest of the house were already top of the line), I would probably just spend it on a trip with a group of friends. I would rather collect memories than cable, internet and pay-per-view subscriptions. Besides, how lazy do you have to be to not be able to turn on a light?

I do see the potential for ease of use for people with mobility restrictions, but that still does not justify the 4 TVs. And in the closet!! WHY? How long do you spend getting dressed?

We're actually lucky to have a semi-decent cooktop in our apartment, but there is DEFINITE room for upgrades!

I LOVE that it's a sort-of "rescue" shell.
I can provide it a good home....

It is very disheartening that the conversation immediately turns to the usual four topics:
1. More regulation
2. "Historic" preservation
3. Property taxes/value
4. Development profit.

While -as many posts have noted- style and charm are subjective, quality is not. The fact that the trend in home-building has consistently veered towards bigger and bigger houses built with cheaper and cheaper materials is undeniable. In Houston, where there are no zoning laws, development has focused on cramming as many as 8 "townhouse" units on the site where one house used to stand - without consideration for accommodating the 16 cars that now have to fight to park on the street.

It boggles my mind to see how Function and Sense are completely absent from the conversation. The perception of the American home dweller has unfortunately been warped so much, that it’s no longer even part of the discussion. It’s really sad, but it reflects the attitude of “us vs. them” that permeates our society, as opposed to the more collaborative “we”. Most, if not all of the posts above, are in one way or another pitting one thing versus another. Developers vs. neighborhoods, “historic preservation” vs. “modernization”, etc.; instead of arguing for quality and long term value.

Asking for more regulations (1) only leads to more headaches, and eventually only benefits the lawyers and rewards the party with the bigger pockets. It limits creativity, it halts progress, and it strangles the possibility for mixed, sustainable neighborhood development.

“Historic preservation” (2) is even worse than (1) because on top of all the hindrances, it aggravates the issue by outright denying progress. Old is not better than new in the same way that new is not better than old. Better is better. Trying to “preserve” a neighborhood by painting it with an old brush is condemning it to being a sterile display of what once was, and effectively forcing its inhabitants to live in a museum. And who said that “Victorian” is more valuable than “Tudor”, or any of those other invented names for things that are just plain old. Rome is historic, Chevy Chase’s “historic” is just a mediocre copy of an interpretation of a period when style was dictated by the available technology to try and hold up to the elements. There ARE things worth preserving, but they could probably be counted with the fingers of one hand. If you want fake castles or enormous, inflated “cottages”, go live in the suburbs.

Property values and the taxes they pay (3) are yet another impossible conundrum. Why would anyone want the value of their house to go up, unless they are planning on selling it? The sad truth is that everyone in this country is unfortunately focused on just that: making a buck. Therefore, nobody designs a house where they may want to live, raise a family and inherit it to their grandchildren, and their grandchildren in turn. Instead, everyone designs a house for the minimum common multiple, for the blandest and most beige, so that it can be quickly offloaded to someone else, who can then offload it to someone else. All homes are now designed, specified and built so that they don’t match anyone in particular, or in other words, they are designed for NO-ONE. If, instead, the true value of a house were measured by the quality, and longevity of its structure and the flexibility of its design to accommodate generations, as opposed to speculators, then I would venture so say that retaining its value would be much more important, and worth the effort to pay the corresponding taxes.

But who am I kidding? The ONLY focus of the era is short term profit. And the quicker and easier it is to make a few dollars off the ignorant masses, the better. Everyone is so convinced –at their very core– that bigger is better, that nobody seems to see how unnecessary these extra big houses, extra big couches, extra big cars, extra big TVs, extra big shopping centers really are. Greedy developers are not the problem, they are just a symptom of it; an opportunistic parasite feeding on the trend. Good for them! But do we have to keep feeding them? Should we continue to focus on “growth” instead of long term sustainable value? No, I don't think so.

I’m not advocating for smaller anything, but rather for right-size. What is wrong with THE RIGHT SIZE?

I find it interesting that furniture pieces that were designed in the first half of the last century, some more than 80 YEARS AGO, are still the ones predominantly featured in images showing "modern", "clean lines", or even "contemporary" design. They are doubtless amazing examples; beautiful and bold. There have been new designers born since then, though… some that are actually good! But somehow the world seems to have gotten stuck in that time frame and refuses to budge. This is not only evidenced by the myriad of decoration and interior design media, but by the absolute dearth of options. I see that there are only four ways to go when trying to furnish a room with new furniture:
1. Buying the above mentioned 80 year old design originals from reputable manufacturers, or compromising your morals with the horrendous replicas;
2. Importing ultra-expensive European contemporary pieces;
3. Succumbing to the even more hideous yet overwhelmingly ubiquitous, overstuffed, giant monstrosities with names like "Tuscan Style" and "Suchandsuch Villa" from Ashley, Thomasville, etc.; or
4. IKEA.
As an architectural designer myself, I strive for a balance of aesthetics, function and budget. I think that the best so far has been the “scavenger posts” on this site.
If you find a good piece that fits your style, satisfies your needs and that you can afford, perhaps you should invest in it, and in the likely hungry young designer that made it. Maybe 80 years from now it’ll be in the cover of the latest magazine…

While the do-gooder spirit of the idea is commendable, the notion is actually alienating.
Buying something simply because it is "made in America", means that you are compromising on something else. Where is that give? Unfortunately, I think that rather than a positive force for local job creation, it turns into a segregating stance of "us vs. them". Too much emphasis has been placed for a very long time on being "the fastest growing (blank)" rather than "the best", which has translated into everything having to compete for cheaper-faster-more, rather than striving for sustainable, global, nurturing development of quality over price.
I am very curious about the results.

What an amazing, cool yet warm, sophisticated yet accessible, pretty yet functional, classical yet "industrial" kitchen. The lamp is SO WONDERFUL!
Awesome post!!
I think the storage above the stove is a great idea for quick access... However, do the things on it get gunky?

I LOVE IT!
... now to start saving for the $18K asking price.