Oh wow, it brings up the question of values, and whether or not you want to leave all the price tags on things in your h*ome.

Not having the same kind of problem, I believe that IKEA products will look great in my k*tchen. And add rather than detract from its value.

you know, i find that article a bit ridiculous. would this be "news" if the couple had installed laminate countertops... a Kenmore appliance... or a faucet from Home Depot.

Sounds like there's a bit of spin involved.

I'm sure there is a lot more back story than the article provided, too. It sounds like the use of ikea is not the only point of contention. I could certainly see a European couple not finding it necessary to create a kitchen the size of my whole house, for example, which the owner probably expected as a matter of course.

Not having the same kind of problem, I believe that IKEA products will look great in my k*tchen. And add rather than detract from its value.

You folks missed it. When I first joined GW, there was always atleast 1 or 2 threads going on the beauty vs evils of Ikea. Every one of those threads would go the whole 150 posts, and would be filled with venom that would make the Hot Topics forum pale in comparison.

Here is a little more info--there is more to the story (as usual):

Here is a link that might be useful: more info

I dont understand the article...another frivolous lawsuit, IMO.
All they have to do is to add two zeros to their kitchen expense and suddenly it would be considered high end! I have seen several high end kitchens done with ikea cabinetry. The high endedness came from the use of fine stone coutners and floors, good appliances, great lighting etc.

What I don't understand is if it's a rental...why did they not meet expectations? There are expectations for when you rent? Sheesh, they already paid $300,00 in rent!!! (and I understand high land prices, I live in the California SF Bay Area!)

Let's say they entered into a contract to rent the apartment and there was a clause that said the kitchen would be redone and replaced with one suitable to the apartment then I would agree an IKEA kitchen is not suitable to such an apartment. Not too many kitchens would be. However, the articles seem to be silent on what exactly was promised in terms of the "promised renovations", so there is no way of knowing if the lawsuit is frivolous.

There is an interesting documentary on the Gramercy Park Hotel, which apparently played a role in "d rugs, s ex, and rock and roll" in NYC history, and there were a number of "characters" who lived there, some of whom chose to stay during the renovations. Some of them felt that they were personne non grata (sp) particularly to the newer, more upscale residents.

This suit is not really about an IKEA kitchen.

It's a contractual dispute plain and simple. The owners didn't make the repairs/improvements to an apartment they said they would to the level and within the timeframe stated in the rental agreement. The Ikea kitchen is only a small part of it (the level of fit and finish).

A dispute of this nature is hardly worth the ink printed , but copy will sell if you can divide the readership on lines along the rich vs. poor angle that this one takes.

This is really about coop ownership. Unlike condos in which you actually own your unit, in a coop you own shares in the coop which give you the right to live in your unit subject to often unreasonable rules, regulations and restrictions. I have friends in a coop who undertook a renovation and were given a deadline by the coop board for completion of the renovation subject to penalties for every day late. Coops seem to be more prevalent in NYC than anywhere else but we do have some in Boston.

I worked for a prestigious architectural firm in Seattle. One of the partners (a woman) installed IKEA cabinets in her $1,000,000+ home. Of course, she had an Ann Sacks glass tile backsplash. (wink) She was very happy with the results.

@ firsthouse: the Icelandic couple weren't the renters but the owners. (The article is really unclearly written with "rented out.") Thus the contract dispute. "Paramount" rented the place from them to use as corporate sublets. Apparently the kitchen was to be renovated by the owners as part of the contract, and Paramount is objecting that the renovation doesn't meet their standards, probably because they want to advertise "luxuries" when they in turn sublet it out to their customers.

If you're from the NY metro area, take note which newspaper deemed
this worth the ink.

'nuff said.