Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is it moral to do up your house?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I loved Room to Improve when it first started as he always worked within realistic budgets and you had clients who were ordinary people in ordinary jobs who had €150-200,000 to do up their homes.
This series has seen Google execs and the CEO of a company who think nothing of spending 4 to €500,000 on having gold taps, 15k baths and play rooms.
I think it's lost how relatable it was (though I loved the Joe and Mary episode), and wish he'd get back to realistic budgets.
Of course it's not immoral to do up your home but I think it's a mistake to present such ostentatious wealth as something to be emulated, is a waste of resources and rubbing people's noses in it a bit.
Grand Designs have managed to balance showing very expensive properties with people on budgets as low as €30k building e.g. earth ship homes from tires and all eco-friendly renewable materials. Would be nice to see RTI provide some balance like this and recognise the current movements away from ostentation and bling and towards zero waste, sourcing vintage, second hand and eco friendly with thoughtful and responsible purchases and materials used.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »I'm going to use two words that I've never said on this website and I promise I will never say again. Slum mentality.
The reality is that the people who can probably afford gold taps are those who are least interested in them. When it comes to money, over-compensation is a huge and a very real phenomenon.
There's a family I know who live in an old Georgian house. They're flat broke, but they have a lovely place. During a wedding a few years back, one of the guests was wandering around the front yard a bit stumped. "you have such a lovely home" she said to the owner, "but you've planted all these trees around it -- nobody can see it from the road". She meant well, she must have thought she was giving helpful feedback; but she just didn't get it.
I bet she was equally stumped about the lack of ostentatious gold taps.
I think it's the difference between new and old money. That guy Nigel who wanted the gold taps and kept talking about wanting to "look rich" is clearly the former.
Anyone I've ever met who comes from generational wealth is far less likely to want to display it in such a tacky way.
I know a few old money types-mostly from the UK who moved here and to look at them you wouldn't think they own a bean, while they have a few million sitting in their bank accounts. Not a gold tap between them needless to say.
They didn't get and keep their wealth by buying 15k bathtubs.
I remember an episode where a family from Dublin wanted to have a huge TV in their sitting room, which Dermot in disgust said would make the place look like a bookies
-a good example of working class folk who came into a bit of money and wanted to show it in a way they thought signified status to their peers.
Then I thought of watching an interview with Stephen Fry a few years ago who was brought up in a country house in Norfolk and who's parents wouldn't even have any kind of tv in the house considering it low culture and a distraction.
I'm doing a few improvements to my own house at the moment but no gold taps. Even if I had the kind of money to spend on that I think it looks crass and tasteless and neither my partner nor friends would be impressed by conspicuous displays of wealth like that, so I'll keep my money for structural work that actually adds value to my house and the rest in my savings account.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Greentopia wrote: »
I remember an episode where a family from Dublin wanted to have a huge TV in their sitting room, which Dermot in disgust said would make the place look like a bookies -a good example of working class folk who came into a bit of money and wanted to show it in a way they thought signified status to their peers.
.
I don’t agree with that at all, wanting to have a big tv is nothing to do with trying to show off it’s wanting a proper big tv to enjoy watching sport, movies etc. if you think wealthy peoole don’t have big TVs you are mistaken.
Im currently working with an archetoct on desins for my new build and both my living room and tv room are being designed around the tv so to speak ensuring a large flat wall is available to hang a very big tv in both rooms. It’s is absolutely nothing to do with showing off it’s because I want very big TVs for my enjoyment. The rooms are also big so even a 50 inch tv would look fairly small so 70inch or bigger TVs won’t look out of place at all.
In general though I call bull on this comment you often see about wealthy people not showing it, most do it’s only the odd one that likes to pretend they aren’t wealthy and I see it as all a bit stupid really. Also when I say showing it I don’t mean showing off I mean you can see they own expensive and quality things, their house is obviously extremely well done at high cost etc.0 -
-
-
-
I see what you mean, but the expression "old money" also bothers me.Greentopia wrote: »I think it's the difference between new and old money. That guy Nigel who wanted the gold taps and kept talking about wanting to "look rich" is clearly the former.
Anyone I've ever met who comes from generational wealth is far less likely to want to display it in such a tacky way.
I know a few old money types-mostly from the UK who moved here and to look at them you wouldn't think they own a bean, while they have a few million sitting in their bank accounts. Not a gold tap between them needless to say.
They didn't get and keep their wealth by buying 15k bathtubs.
I remember an episode where a family from Dublin wanted to have a huge TV in their sitting room, which Dermot in disgust said would make the place look like a bookies -a good example of working class folk who came into a bit of money and wanted to show it in a way they thought signified status to their peers.
Then I thought of watching an interview with Stephen Fry a few years ago who was brought up in a country house in Norfolk and who's parents wouldn't even have any kind of tv in the house considering it low culture and a distraction.
I'm doing a few improvements to my own house at the moment but no gold taps. Even if I had the kind of money to spend on that I think it looks crass and tasteless and neither my partner nor friends would be impressed by conspicuous displays of wealth like that, so I'll keep my money for structural work that actually adds value to my house and the rest in my savings account.
People have romantic notions about "old money", when really, if you think about it, it refers to people who are suddenly flat-broke, and living beyond their means, because their ancestors spent a fortune doing ridiculous things, like building follies (if anyone doesn't know what a Folly is, click this link). Our country has more than its fair share of follies, whilst also having a long experience of exploiting workers -- in fact, a long history of exploiting poorer households in general.
In short, "old money" refers to people who originally outspent the Celtic Tiger brigade, but (inevitably) ran out of money. There is no philosophical difference between the pre-Edwardian Anglo-Irish, and some "new money" chancer who built ghost estates in Ballygar or Borrisokane.
Still, I mostly agree with you. There is of course a "new money" phenomenon that we see in times of economic boom. My only point is that they're as bad as the old shower. A lot of "old money" families started out as "new money" parvenus themselves. I know of one very respected Tipperary family who made their money building Victorian sewers in London, splashing the cash, and are now considered (broke) gentry.
So we're making a mistake by blaming the newly-rich. This didn't begin with them. If WW1 hadn't happened, the so-called 'old money' would still be doing crazy, stupid sh1t with money and employing the rest of us as footstools.
All of us, whatever our economic situation, can understand that wasting resources is an awful idea, and that there can be great satisfaction in combining a bit of frugality with pursuing a happy life that has meaning. It costs nothing to plant a garden that might give you decades of enjoyment, instead of employing some 'landscape architect'. Plant some trees that might give you a sense of sanctuary in your home, instead of deploying it as a show-piece for strangers who might admire it from the N52 road.
Simple things. This isn't anything to do with being old money or new money, just something that is common sense to most people.0 -
-
-
Greentopia wrote: »I loved Room to Improve when it first started as he always worked within realistic budgets and you had clients who were ordinary people in ordinary jobs who had €150-200,000 to do up their homes.
This series has seen Google execs and the CEO of a company who think nothing of spending 4 to €500,000 on having gold taps, 15k baths and play rooms.
I think it's lost how relatable it was (though I loved the Joe and Mary episode), and wish he'd get back to realistic budgets.
Of course it's not immoral to do up your home but I think it's a mistake to present such ostentatious wealth as something to be emulated, is a waste of resources and rubbing people's noses in it a bit.
Grand Designs have managed to balance showing very expensive properties with people on budgets as low as €30k building e.g. earth ship homes from tires and all eco-friendly renewable materials. Would be nice to see RTI provide some balance like this and recognise the current movements away from ostentation and bling and towards zero waste, sourcing vintage, second hand and eco friendly with thoughtful and responsible purchases and materials used.
I think it's the difference between new and old money. That guy Nigel who wanted the gold taps and kept talking about wanting to "look rich" is clearly the former.
Anyone I've ever met who comes from generational wealth is far less likely to want to display it in such a tacky way.
I know a few old money types-mostly from the UK who moved here and to look at them you wouldn't think they own a bean, while they have a few million sitting in their bank accounts. Not a gold tap between them needless to say.
They didn't get and keep their wealth by buying 15k bathtubs.
I remember an episode where a family from Dublin wanted to have a huge TV in their sitting room, which Dermot in disgust said would make the place look like a bookies -a good example of working class folk who came into a bit of money and wanted to show it in a way they thought signified status to their peers.
Then I thought of watching an interview with Stephen Fry a few years ago who was brought up in a country house in Norfolk and who's parents wouldn't even have any kind of tv in the house considering it low culture and a distraction.
I'm doing a few improvements to my own house at the moment but no gold taps. Even if I had the kind of money to spend on that I think it looks crass and tasteless and neither my partner nor friends would be impressed by conspicuous displays of wealth like that, so I'll keep my money for structural work that actually adds value to my house and the rest in my savings account.
150 -200 k to do up a house normal?Thats a mortgage0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement