I have always found that the best sofas are the ones you least expect. Never a rich person's big fancy sofa but some girlfriend's, who lives in her tiny apartment, beat up, sofa, for example.
Why are most sofas so bad?
561–570 of 762 posts
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if it wasn't bad enough that most consumer goods have completely bifurcated into "junk" and "luxury", now it's hard to even tell which products fall into which category, because there is so much junk now being sold as luxury.
Yeah. Even at the time we knew West Elm wasn't high end, but we were at least expecting decent. We know more now (and could afford better) whenever we have to finally replace this, but $2000 is a not-insignificant investment that shouldn't be a complete piece of crap.
West Elm's quality has definitely dropped the last 10 years. It's still not a bad place to get things like side tables, but I definitely wouldn't buy any furniture there any more, which is too bad. We had gotten a couple of nice pieces there in the past, although they're now gone.
For quality modern furniture, the only game in town around me is Room & Board. The last couch we bought there was ~$6k[0]. It's a lot, but we'd honestly been eyeing it for almost 20 years and it'll likely be something we have for another 20 years or more.
https://www.roomandboard.com/catalog/living/sofas-and-lovese...
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#563When my mother was younger she used to reupholster furniture as a hobby.
Older, antique furniture was much easier to work with and most newer furniture was practically impossible to reupholster at all.
I was pretty easy to see the difference once the bones were exposed.
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if it wasn't bad enough that most consumer goods have completely bifurcated into "junk" and "luxury", now it's hard to even tell which products fall into which category, because there is so much junk now being sold as luxury.
the one that gets me (not furniture, but consumer good) is Yeti. they seem to be slightly better made, but for SO MUCH more money. They have huge stores devoted to their products. Are people really spending money, and that much, on coolers?
We have a couple of Yeti coolers. They work really well, but they're heavy and have significantly less space inside than you'd expect by looking at them. Most importantly though, they look cool and have nice shiny and colorful exteriors.
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#565I have decent and great furniture. Penny Mustard is outstanding and Room and Board is ok. My kids treat the Penny Mustard couches like a bed.
My Room and Board sofa from 2011 is still rock solid. I was a bit nervous buying it used a few years ago because of the age but it turned out to be a great purchase.
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to tell you, I don't think you can buy a recliner that doesn't look like "old fart stuff". Recliners are kind of "old fart guy chairs".
The Eames lounge chair is a reasonable solution to this problem. (It probably invokes other stereotypes. I don't really know, but either way, you'll be too comfortable to care.)
It looks like you should be smoking a pipe while lounging in it.
Feels 60's to me.
ETA: Basically unchanged since 1956 is why!
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem I've noticed is - the furniture that is built to last very frequently fails the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff". Same sort of issue with cool remote controls. For example, la-z-boy has pretty good controls - remotes have better designs, have lots of adjustments, and motors seem to move faster. And they too fail the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff" I kind of like some…
My cynical ass assumes it's because they know goddamn well no one under 60 years old has $4,000 to spend on a properly made sofa, irrespective of desire or taste. I make six figures and I certainly don't. My furniture is all cheap particle board shit because I can't afford anything nicer because I'm spending all my money on a mortgage, food, gas, and student loans. I don't think it's a matter so much of nobody wantin…
Gary Stevenson agrees with your assumption. If you haven't already, you should check out some of his work and recent book on this. TL;dr: your cynical take is correct.
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought their highest end leather couch with a fold out bed a couple years ago, due to time constraints. I was very unhappy to see it was made from chipboard. Of course their shelves and such you can see what you are buying, but I would not trust anything upholstered myself.
Indeed: > Frame: Plywood, Polyurethane foam 30 kg/cu.m., Particleboard, Solid wood, Fibreboard An example of something that looks well-built is the Skogsta dining table [1]. > Table top: Solid acacia, Clear acrylic lacquer, Clear lacquer > Leg/ Rail: Solid acacia, Acrylic paint (Though the oak version, which costs more, is oak-veneered particleboard.) Many Ikea things aren't designed to last. That table has cross-bea…
There are a few things that are ok to robust.
* EKORRE, the Rocking-moose is indestructable.
* Furniturewise the bathroom furniture, especially GODMORGON are ok. I think because they have to survice contact with humidity.
* The HILVER bamboo legs are that good, that we kept them even after getting rid of the cardboard table tops.
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#569Soon the cheapest Ikea sofa I could find in 2015 (about 200 $) has lasted me a decade. Sure, the cover worn is worn out and covered with another textile for that reason, but it's still usable. I can sit on it and watch my TV, which is even older.
Easiest way to find happiness in material quality of life is to lower one's standards.
Re: Why are most sofas so bad?
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. The buying up of precious housing as investments by non-residents should mostly be banned, starting with institutional and overseas investors. AirBnb should also be banned. And the people who profited off that startup, who must've known they were creating illegal hotels and destroying rental markets, should be hit with devastating fines, maybe also imprisoned.
> starting with institutional and overseas investors. This would do next to nothing. The landlords buying up real estate are mom-and-pops with fewer than 10 properties. Which makes sense, because residential property is a pretty decent passive income that's only accessible to people with wealth but are not a good asset for large institutions. Otherwise banks wouldn't sell foreclosed homes at a discount, they'd hold o…
>The landlords buying up real estate are mom-and-pops with fewer than 10 properties.
That might be true, but there are lots of companies that own more than 1000 homes. 1-3 should be the limit.