Is it moral to do up your house?

sydthebeat · 06-10-2019 10:06am

Yamanoto wrote: »

Gold coloured taps apparently make a bloke an ostentatious twat

Imelda Marcos-style walk in wardrobe, however, is now a standard & reasonable expectation

Lol.

06-10-2019 10:11am

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.

gozunda · 06-10-2019 10:18am

beggars_bush wrote: »

There's not much solidarity in that though, brother. Or sister

Right on. Lets pass the new law so no one can spend a cent on themselves before the likes of Margaret Cash and friends have all been provided with 5 star accommodation and the type of lifestyle only the fecklessly indigent can aspire to at other peoples expense. Barstewars!

Up the New Socialist Republic! ... :pac:

ToddyDoody · 06-10-2019 5:41pm

Bullocks wrote: »

Notice box. He's like a lad that's stuck renting or got turned down for a mortgage!
Of all the things to run RTÉ down over he picked that and Fair City on 4 nights a frigging week????

When is Fair City finishing up?

Don't say never.

HorrorScope · 06-10-2019 6:41pm

gozunda wrote: »

Right on. Lets pass the new law so no one can spend a cent on themselves before the likes of Margaret Cash and friends have all been provided with 5 star accommodation and the type of lifestyle only the fecklessly indigent can aspire to at other peoples expense. Barstewars!

Up the New Socialist Republic! ... :pac:

Margaret Cash and her like will be put to the wall long before that scenario ever becomes accepted.

The budget this year better have no increase on SW or their bonus for sitting for on their holes all year - you aspired to be in the gutter so sw payments should reflect that.

07-10-2019 5:52pm

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.

I see what you mean, but the expression "old money" also bothers me.

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.

ArrBee · 07-10-2019 7:01pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I see what you mean, but the expression "old money" also bothers me.

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.

It seems you really struggle with the meaning of some expressions.

Greentopia · 07-10-2019 10:34pm

Yamanoto wrote: »

Gold coloured taps apparently make a bloke an ostentatious twat

Imelda Marcos-style walk in wardrobe, however, is now a standard & reasonable expectation

Both are ostentatious twattery IMO.

sasta le · 07-10-2019 10:43pm

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 mortgage

07-10-2019 10:45pm

ArrBee wrote: »

It seems you really struggle with the meaning of some expressions.

I struggle with most things ArrBee. I can't put on my socks without being perplexed at least twice, but being an idiot is not a crime.

07-10-2019 10:47pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I struggle with most things ArrBee. I can't put on my socks without being perplexed at least twice, but being an idiot is not a crime.

Greentopia · 07-10-2019 11:33pm

Princess Scarce Juicer wrote: »

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.

Of course they do. Or many at least. And some people do want to show off whatever they have and that includes their big ass tv's. My point wasn't about that however. I was contrasting new money with old and their social and cultural norms, giving an example of the difference in attitudes between how new money and old see the importance of tvs, and particularly big screen tv's.

Princess Scarce Juicer wrote: »

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.

Yeah again good luck on your design plans whatever they entail-most architects and designers I've met hate big tvs (they have to design around big black spaces on the wall) but the fact remains that many old money families with generational wealth eschew them entirely, while particularly new moneyed working class or even middle class like to have enormous ones in their sitting rooms. It's a well documented cultural phenomenon in other countries like the UK.
tv snobbery

Not saying I agree with any of it, just making an observation.

From what I can see here most Irish wealthy people do like to show it conspicuously. But I was giving the example of Anglo Irish, and English middle to upper class expats who have come here to live who's homes i've been inside. And they either won't have one in their home at all because they see it as a bad influence on them and their kids or as low class entertainment. Or have the smallest one they can find and keep it out of sight until there's something they actually want to watch on it. Like one woman in an estate in Wicklow who had a portable hidden in her kitchen cupboard :pac:

It's just interesting to me to see what different people prioritise and desire. Go to Copenhagen for example and you will see company executives riding bicycles and only driving at the weekends, or even not owning but renting a car when they want one. Because bicycles are not seen as something for kids or the poor. In fact some of the high end hipster upright bicycles I've seen there are worth more than some cars!

And it's a more egalitarian and equal society where many feel it's in poor taste to flaunt obvious signs of wealth anyway.

Greentopia · 08-10-2019 1:59am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I see what you mean, but the expression "old money" also bothers me.

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...

Well many are not necessarily flat broke, I know some with a lot of money who through connections retained and built on their wealth, but yes of course you get the ones living in relative poverty too.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

You're speaking to the converted here.

I understand some people don't like gardening or say they don't have time for it, but anyone can create a garden that is very low maintenance with a pleasant area to sit out and enjoy by doing some research on garden design and appropriate planting. It may take a bit longer than the instant garden that Diarmuid Gavin designed on RTI, but there is satisfaction in doing it yourself and of course we know now gardening has all kinds of positive benefits for mental health.

Ok if you have a huge site of several acres and want to lay out formal gardens you may need some professional help, but for most people with a back garden as seen on that show I think it's unnecessary and as you say just a show piece to impress strangers.

The problem I think also is some people want instant results and if they have it would rather spend a lot of money on getting it done now rather than doing some work themselves.

ArrBee · 08-10-2019 8:46am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I struggle with most things ArrBee. I can't put on my socks without being perplexed at least twice, but being an idiot is not a crime.

Surely by the second sock you'd have it sorted, no?
:P

08-10-2019 10:00am

sasta le wrote: »

150 -200 k to do up a house normal?Thats a mortgage

A 3 bed semi, 50-60 years old, in need of modernization and expansion to allow for modern family living could easily soak up that amount- How you obtain the funding for it is down to your own personal finances and credit facilities available

Is it moral to do up your house?

Comments