Ship of Fools: Screw you, we're rich!

Thread: Screw you, we're rich! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022046

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

Wow. Nothing says the OP title like a Versailles knock-off in the suburbs. It's so taste-free, even the friends-of-Croesus neighbors think it's awful. A mere 26ishK-square-feet of awesome! Suck it, ye poor!

Planned Palace Upsets Some Neighbors

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Suck it, ye poor!

Surely you mean the sleepless poor.

I really should get my husband to change his area of specialty.

I want one.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Given that I live in a city where you can buy the White House, I have to say I've seen worse.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

OTOH you have to admit that after building the actual Château de Versailles, things didn't turn out so well for the Capet family. [Snigger]

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

Quick query - what does tony mean?

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Think "posh".

Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :

Only 5 bedrooms? Are they each the size of football pitches?

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Obviously, that doesn't include the bedrooms for the servants.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Think of all the cleaning! (no, wait, that's what servants are for....)

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

Looking at the description of the house the master bedroom suite seems to be bigger than my whole house!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Think of all the construction workers who will be employed to build that thing! Do you really want them to be out of work?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If you are concerned about construction workers, MtM, you would think more lower income housing. Housing estates would employ more than a single house of even this size.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Don't all Americans live in those kind of houses?? [Big Grin]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I do think that if you're going to be obscenely rich, the least you can do is do something confident with your money- especially if, as Maarvin reminds us, it creates a bit of work. Much rather this than those awful rich people who try to insist that really, they're just like anyone else (yes, Cameron, there at the back of the class, I do mean you...)

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Don't all Americans live in those kind of houses??

Of course we do. My palatial estate has a detached garage, thank you very much. [Biased]

Of course, my entire home (with the garage included) would likely fit comfortably in the master bedroom suite of this display of affluence and power, as tessaB has also noted.

Amazing. Of course, I'm always amused by millionaires getting into squabbles with billionaires...

[ 24. April 2012, 16:17: Message edited by: jbohn ]

Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Much rather this than those awful rich people who try to insist that really, they're just like anyone else (yes, Cameron, there at the back of the class, I do mean you...)

Well yes, but, as we all know, money can buy neither love nor taste nor a sense of humanity.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, that goes without saying. Far better not to have people that rich at all. But if they're there the least they can do is give the rest of us a laugh now and then.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
...money can buy neither love nor taste nor a sense of humanity.

Unfortunately, being poor doesn't guarantee them either. If I were given the choice, I'd rather be tasteless, loveless, inhuman and rich than tasteless, loveless, inhuman and poor.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The canny church would be round the next day, knocking on the door with a welcome pack.

Ulterior motives? How can you say such a thing?

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

The security guards or automated security camera system will turn all except the best sort of people away. So, no church donations. Rather, they may have religious professions (or amateurs) on their staff who will tell them how to fit themselves through the eye of the needle.

God meant there to be hyper-rich and starving poor, because he enjoys both the intellectual justification for wealth, and the suffering of the poor. Jesus did tell the rich man that he would be first in line when they are lining up for entry to heaven, right? Jesus also likes guns and bombs because with them you can increase the suffering of the poor.

[Projectile]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Here is a quote from the site.

quote:
The basement alone will have a wine cellar, an exercise room, a billiard room, a theater with a concession space, a spa, a sauna, a card room, a recreation room, a gallery, a kitchen and a large guest bedroom.

What's this concession space? Are they going to sell things to their guests or to family members?

Moo

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Apparently a lot of people have only the haziest idea what Versailles looks like. I suppose if it were red brick they'd say it was the spitting image of Hampton Court.

Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is a quote from the site.
quote:
The basement alone will have a wine cellar, an exercise room, a billiard room, a theater with a concession space, a spa, a sauna, a card room, a recreation room, a gallery, a kitchen and a large guest bedroom.
What's this concession space? Are they going to sell things to their guests or to family members?

Moo

Fabulous, I missed that [Overused]

Maybe the kids will have part-time jobs selling stuff to their guests when the guests come down to watch a movie. or maybe sell souvenir postcards for the guests to take home

[ 25. April 2012, 00:11: Message edited by: Geneviève ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
...money can buy neither love nor taste nor a sense of humanity.
Unfortunately, being poor doesn't guarantee them either. If I were given the choice, I'd rather be tasteless, loveless, inhuman and rich than tasteless, loveless, inhuman and poor.

Yeah, if you're going to Hell, why not live it up? Eat drink and be merry.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
OTOH you have to admit that after building the actual Château de Versailles, things didn't turn out so well for the Capet family.

That crossed my mind as well. Perhaps the message is "Start a blood-soaked class war, right here on my lawn!"

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Are there degrees of inequality?
Given 2.6 billion people do not have reasonable sanitation, WHO update 2010, do we really think there is a tangible difference in wealth between us and the palace builders?

It is easy to say 'look at that rich bastard, what a selfish prat'. And I suspect 2.6 billion people say that about every single one of us on board. So, how do you justify your richness? Me, I am just grateful. No amount of scrimping, donating, caring actually removes the basic inequaity. And all else is hair splitting.

After all, shitting into a bowl full of drinkable water is rather ostentatious, don't 'cha think? Just ask a third of the world's population.

Me, I am just grateful.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

If it were my "Chateau de Lumiere" (hack, barf), I would be sure the servants were all dressed as French peasants out of period art. I would throw cake at them.

In all seriousness, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about being rich (as Tevye responds to Perchik's contention that money is the world's curse in "Fiddler", "May God smite me with it! And may I never recover!"), and as noted, even some of the first-world poor are rich by world standards but I tend to the Quaker view that you are obligated to regard riches not as "mine" but as resources of which one is a steward, answerable to God or humanity or whatever. There's no rule says you have to live in a cardboard box.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Yep, we borrow the world from our children, yada yada yada. I agree.

If your criticism is on purely asthetic grounds, then I have to concur. It is a ridiculous monstrosity.

I find it easy to slip into the 'damn wastrel rich' mindset though and this I struggle with more. Because it is a subjective measure in which we all fall short by others standards.

But even with the first argument, I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder... But... Bugger me, it's ugly and out of place though.

[ 25. April 2012, 01:57: Message edited by: Patdys ]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Rich people can afford to die in their own home. By that standard I am certainly not rich.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Sine, a man with your gentility may die in whoever's home he chooses.

It's more a question of whom he is prepared to be associated with once deceased. Next Tuesday is good for me BTW. I have icecream forks.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The late Molly Ivins quoted a Texas saying about similar McMansions; "Like God would build if he had money..."

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Rich people can afford to die in their own home. By that standard I am certainly not rich.

Me neither. On the other hand, I'm not rich (or crazy) enough to have a bespoke incompetent doctorish creature to give me anaesthesia for sleep issues. So I'm grateful for that.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Well all you poor buggers should move to Australia.

We're all rich enough to die in our own homes.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

As my old Mum would say;
"Money doesn't buy taste."

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I wouldn't wish another war on anyone, but it was a huge wake-up call to those in large houses when they were requisitioned (for use as schools, hospitals, military billets, etc.).

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I wouldn't wish another war on anyone, but it was a huge wake-up call to those in large houses when they were requisitioned (for use as schools, hospitals, military billets, etc.).

In the U.S., requisitioning homes for military billets is right out- the Third Amendment to the U. S. Constitution expressly prohibits it. In the other cases, my expectation is that compensation would need to be paid, as in the use of eminent domain to take over land for a government project. It's not as simple as requisitioning them.

Bill Of Rights

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I wouldn't wish another war on anyone, but it was a huge wake-up call to those in large houses when they were requisitioned (for use as schools, hospitals, military billets, etc.).
In the U.S., requisitioning homes for military billets is right out- the Third Amendment to the U. S. Constitution expressly prohibits it. In the other cases, my expectation is that compensation would need to be paid, as in the use of eminent domain to take over land for a government project. It's not as simple as requisitioning them.

Bill Of Rights

No involuntarily assigned billets in "times of peace". In time of war, it says laws may be made to accommodate such necessity. But, yeah, there would likely be monetary recompense unless all our rights went to hell in a hand basket. And during war, that would be just the time that might happen- in the name of Patriotic Duty, no doubt. [Disappointed]

[ 25. April 2012, 16:53: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
No involuntarily assigned billets in "times of peace". In time of war, it says laws may be made to accommodate such necessity. But, yeah, there would likely be monetary recompense unless all our rights went to hell in a hand basket. And during war, that would be just the time that might happen- in the name of Patriotic Duty, no doubt.

Given the current state of the Fourth Amendment, I have no doubt the Third wouldn't stand a chance.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
No involuntarily assigned billets in "times of peace". In time of war, it says laws may be made to accommodate such necessity. But, yeah, there would likely be monetary recompense unless all our rights went to hell in a hand basket. And during war, that would be just the time that might happen- in the name of Patriotic Duty, no doubt.

Point well made.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Given the current state of the Fourth Amendment, I have no doubt the Third wouldn't stand a chance.

To say nothing of what's left of the First, Ninth, and Tenth...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Apparently a lot of people have only the haziest idea what Versailles looks like.

Or how big it is. Its maybe thirty times the size of this house.

It might look a little less unlike parts of Blenheim Palace. Only parts of course, because that's also twenty or thirty times the size. The ground floor area of Blenheim might be, in American money, about six acres. And set in three square miles of garden.

Ostentations displays of wealth are not unique to the USA.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
After all, shitting into a bowl full of drinkable water is rather ostentatious, don't 'cha think? Just ask a third of the world's population.

To this habitual and self-justificatory inverted snob, that's a powerful image. Thanks.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Ostentations displays of wealth are not unique to the USA.

We always try to learn from our betters... [Biased]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Apparently a lot of people have only the haziest idea what Versailles looks like.
Or how big it is. Its maybe thirty times the size of this house.

It might look a little less unlike parts of Blenheim Palace. Only parts of course, because that's also twenty or thirty times the size. The ground floor area of Blenheim might be, in American money, about six acres. And set in three square miles of garden.

Ostentations displays of wealth are not unique to the USA.

But...but...Blenheim Palace is a World Heritage Site. Surely it can't also be in bad taste? Say it ain't so. [Tear]

Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :

I like how the headline specifies that "some" neighbors are upset.

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

We have a friend who is a real estate agent who tells us that couples who buy lavish houses often cannot afford to buy enough furniture furnish them, they sort of camp out in the middle of the oversized rooms.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
But...but...Blenheim Palace is a World Heritage Site. Surely it can't also be in bad taste? Say it ain't so.

Blenheim Palace has been there for about 300 years - the neighbours have had time to get used to it.

Ironically, the first Duchess of Marlborough thought it was too grand and wanted something smaller...

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
We have a friend who is a real estate agent who tells us that couples who buy lavish houses often cannot afford to buy enough furniture furnish them, they sort of camp out in the middle of the oversized rooms.

To me that is a cockeyed idea of what a house is for. The kind of house I want is the kind that I enjoy living in. I'm not interested in impressing others at the expense of my own comfort.

I feel the same way about people who attend social or cultural events they don't enjoy because it enhances their status.

I only have one life. I want to enjoy it as much as possible.

Moo

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
We have a friend who is a real estate agent who tells us that couples who buy lavish houses often cannot afford to buy enough furniture furnish them, they sort of camp out in the middle of the oversized rooms.

Isn't that what interior designers describe as 'minimalist'? I'm sure people feel comfortable with a fashionable term to describe the 'I can almost see another chair from this one' look.

Posted by Geneviève (# 9098) on :

In line with the above post I remember interviewing for a position in a church in a very very wealthy Connecticut area. The rector informed me that quite a few people in the town had big mansions and no furniture because they couldn't afford it. And this was back in about 2001 or 2002 I think, before the recession hit.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Yes, that's a comfort to me when a glossy new Infiniti or BMW passes my beat-up elderly Altima - "Humph. At least mine is paid for." I love to imagine my betters are drowning in debt whereas I am shabby but solvent.

(Plus I have hair too. No debt and a full head of hair. That means more than it used to.)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

(Plus I have hair too. No debt and a full head of hair. That means more than it used to.)

Does that give you an outside track for the POTUS in 2016?

[ 01. May 2012, 20:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

No debt, a full head of hair, and – as far as I know – no embarrassing pictures floating around the internet. That puts me ahead of a lot of potential candidates.

(I started to say 'all I need now is a platform' but apparently that's not particularly important. Let's just say I'm for increased stimulus, reduced taxes, a balanced budget, better defense, improved social safety net, a good 5 cent cigar…and a partridge in a pear tree.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0