Location, location, location.

Today I came across an article in the Home and Garden section of the New York times about beautiful homes with less than desirable locations. They interviewed and photographed several homes that the owner's bought for significantly less than what a similar house in a better location would cost. How bad are these locations? Try twenty feet away from railroad tracks (what were the Fox Studios at MICA? Five? Ten feet?); some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in New York, LA, Chicago, or San Antonio; the property was used as a junkyard previously; drug addicts pass out in the yard; or are located next to old toxic waste dumps. Sounds just like the MICA campus doesn't it? Hah hah, I jest, but seriously from the sound of it what most of these home owners save when buying they lose when they end up spending thousand, and thousands, and thousands of dollars on security and cleaning the place up. One woman removed ten tons of trash from her new home. But it's worth it for your dream home? Right? Right?

I found the parts comparing Griffth's home to a castle, then describing how she's blocked out the poverty around her in her "fortress" "towering over a sea of tiny, shabby buildings" particularly revolting. Comment #7 hit the nail on the head pretty nicely. However I can not say I am better than that over here in my ivory tower.

Here's the article.

Here's the slide show of the homes. I did like Gwynn Griffth's decorating (the first several photographs), turns out that's how she earns a living as a decorator in San Antonio.

(PS- San Antonio is a cool town, I totally recommend visiting it if you get the chance.)