February 20th, 2008 categories: Finances, For Fun, Trends
Every parent of young children has an unwanted-toy graveyard somewhere in the home. Today’s prized playthings inevitably become tomorrow’s cast-offs, ready to be given away, discarded or boxed up in the garage. According to the folks at Springwise however, the alternative, offered by Texas start-up Babyplays, is to receive four to six toys by mail each month. Parents can keep the toys as long as they like, and send them back to receive a fresh batch. Monthly subscription rates range from $36.99 to $64.99.
Babyplays offers a range of age-appropriate toys, and depending on their membership level, parents can rent up to 10 toys a month. Besides reducing clutter, members can save money by renting instead of owning. You could call it the Netflix rental model applied to toys. We’ve seen start-ups tweak the rent-not-buy concept in innovative ways: a German company, Lütte-Leihen, sends parents a fresh batch of baby clothes that can be exchanged for new ones each month and the same model has been applied to women’s accessories, with companies like Bag, Borrow or Steal offering members access to designer handbags and jewellery.
A factor all of these firms must reckon with is the need to acquire an adequate inventory of items to accommodate customer whims—a potentially expensive proposition. That said, the rental model still has plenty of new potential applications. What’s key is that many consumers are becoming less interested in full ownership, opting instead for the convenience and flexibility of renting or fractional ownership.
| Discussion: No Comments »
February 14th, 2008 categories: For Fun, Home Buying, Investments, Real Estate
Looking for a commanding view of the collapsing housing market? According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, some 138 mountaintop acres next to the landmark Hollywood sign in Los Angeles are going on sale Wednesday for $22 million.
Abutting the largest urban park in the country –- and just west of the giant sign’s H, the property atop Cahuenga Peak has been privately owned for years. Eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes bought it before World War II in hopes of building a mountain hideaway for his then-girlfriend Ginger Rogers. She demurred. It passed undeveloped into Mr. Hughes’s estate and was sold in 2002 to Chicago-based Fox River Co. for $1.68 million.
Two years ago, city officials, residents and conservationists launched a fundraising drive to buy the property atop the 1,820-foot-high peak, which affords sweeping views of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley and the San Gabriel mountains. Their stated goal was to make the peak part of Griffith Park, the municipal land that practically envelopes it. Safe to say, they didn’t raise anywhere near the current $22 million asking price.
Griffith Park has suffered two damaging wildfires in the past year. Any potential developer is certain to face obstacles getting building permits.
Still, rare hill properties in Los Angeles can attract determined buyers, while the overall housing market remains depressed. In Los Angeles County, notices of default outnumbered home sales in the fourth quarter of 2007, and the median price of homes continues to fall, according to DataQuick Information Systems, a La Jolla, Calif., real-estate research firm. From the lofty heights of Cahuenga Peak, the view isn’t necessarily rosy. Full Story
| Discussion: No Comments »
February 12th, 2008 categories: Finances, For Fun, Home Ownership
With rents in many cities skyrocketing, men and women marrying later and a divorce rate for first-time marriages that hovers at about 45%, it’s no wonder more American couples are deciding to shack up.
There were an estimated 6.02 million unmarried-partner households in the U.S. in 2006, according to the Census Bureau’s latest research. This number includes 779,867 same-sex households. When the census began measuring unmarried partners in 1996, there were only 2.86 million opposite-sex couples.
Though you likely know at least one cohabiting pair, unlike their married and single peers, unmarried couples are not an easy group to quantify. They cannot check the single or married box truthfully, and there is little but a shared address to signify their official commitment.
But couples who live together have needs, too. In the Forbes.com roundup of the best cities for couples, they’ve identified what this growing demographic requires to maintain a stable relationship while on the path to marriage or something less traditional. They selected the country’s 40 largest metropolitan areas and collected data on marriage and divorce rates for the 20- to 34-year-olds who live there, the affordability of a starter home, the area’s income disparity and the availability of family counseling.
Dallas, the city made famous on television for its scheming lovers and dysfunctional relationships, topped the list. Four other Texas cities are in the top 10: Houston, Austin and San Antonio. Cities at the bottom of our list, with low marriage rates, high income disparity or poor housing affordability, included Cleveland, Providence, R.I., and Miami.
Top 5 cities for couples
You can see Forbes’ full slide show of best cities for couples here. Full Story
| Discussion: No Comments »
February 8th, 2008 categories: Design, For Fun
America’s most celebrated architect, Frank Lloyd Wright pioneered the idea of “organic architecture”-structures that would promote harmony between human habitation and the natural world. Today his buildings host hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
Fallingwater (above)
Stewart Township, Pa.: Perhaps Wright’s most recognizable design, Fallingwater perches over a waterfall whose sound resonates throughout the home. More than 120,000 visitors see this renowned home each year. The proximity to water and the ambitious design have forced extensive renovations-they also prompted the home’s first owner, Edgar K. Kaufmann Sr., to nickname the structure “Rising Mildew.”
Click here to see the full slideshow of “The Stunning Homes of Frank Lloyd Wright, American Visionary” from MSN.com.
| Discussion: 1 Comment »
