This Space for Rent

Pull the other one…

New York magazine has an article about the latest fad in upper class twit style – “Luxury Bathrooms” – and to illustrate it, they show a bathroom that would not look out of place on Rikers Island or in some factory in Queens. Sure, it’s nice and clean, and they did pick nice fluffy bathtowels to decorate it with, but aside from that, the exposed concrete block and mirrors begs the question: Is it luxury, or back on the chaingang?

I can just imagine that bathroom 10 years down the line, when the mold has had a chance to work its way into the concrete blocks, and when a decade of leaking in and around that woefully uncomfortable looking bathtub (I do note, approvingly, that the shower appears to be elsewhere, so at least you don’t have to wrap the bathtub in shower curtains, but that’s really the only thing I find appealing about this bathroom.) I’m old fashioned and I don’t really see the point of making the bathroom into an “oasis” when the primary reason I’d be using it is to use the toilet or to bathe. If I was going to oasis my bathroom, I’d do a japanese style bathroom where the toilet is in a separate room from the bath so that someone can do their business without bothering the people having sex in the bathtub. And I’d probably pay to have someone tile the bathroom walls, because there’s actually a fighting chance of keeping them clean without having to call in airstrikes on the fungal infestations.


The current working definition of"luxury" is “a lot of money to install.” And that bathrrom would cast a lot of money. That’s easily a $20 bathroom.

It looks cold and uncomfortable to me.

Lynn B Dobbs Wed Mar 29 16:24:15 2006

Comments are closed