Was it owned by a jewelry designer? Since the article says it is staged, I would guess that a lot of the weird, disparate furnishing choices were made by the stager rather than the former resident...maybe even the jewelry showroom off the living room. I would fire the stager and hire someone who doesn't try to use every faddish trick in their portfolio in one house.

I have a darling DGS who has sensory processing disorder. He would take one look at those rooms, wheel around, and walk back out. He might require some hot cocoa to calm down.

Does not look like a home to me, but has more the vibe of a boutique with an in-house eatery.

I think I like this more than Chijim and Palimpsest, although it's a bit of a mixed bag for me. I like most of the wall colors except the kelly green in the hallway. I like the pink bathroom but dislike the vanity and the ceramic whatever-it-is on the toilet tank. I don't understand the function of the room with the shelves on the barn doors, and doesn't seem like a nice room to spend time in. The shelves on the doors are unique, but you'd have to be careful what you put on them so you wouldn't have stuff falling, or falling over, when you closed the doors (if you would ever actually do that). Don't like the bench seating in the dining room, but I don't think it looks bad, just impractical. I like the lights over the table very much. I generally like the living room seating (I'm a sucker for the colors of the chairs). Don't like the furry throws, or the furry rugs elsewhere in the home. I like the materials in the kitchen, but not the layout (functionally or aesthetically, the way the fridge dominates the back wall).

I guess the fact that I'm dissecting it piece by piece means that I'm not processing, or appreciating it as a cohesive whole.

I like individual pieces, and actually have a couple of things in the apartment. I just don't like it all together.

Yawn.......zzzzzzzz

It has so danged much going on in there, that it makes my eyes hurt!

I didn't care for it, but the one in the link in the article was WORSE!

https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/6/23/15861970/stone-age-rainforest-cafe-condo-chicago

Well, My3dogs, the one you posted is certainly an example of do what you love and ignore resale value.

It seems to be an attempt to mix Industrial, modern and Hollywood Regency -- and perhaps not always so successfully. It's what I fear when I try mix styles. Fortunately, it's mostly just furniture and paint (and a little drywall repair) -- unlike the link my3dogs posted. The baths and kitchen are pretty consistent. The Gucci GG throw pretty much sums up Pal's assessment.

I don't mind luxury goods in and of themselves, and I believe in buying the best quality you can and using it, ideally, forever.

But it does bother me that recognizable luxury goods have been turned into totems, or such objects of desire by the middle and working classes, who can't really afford them. (I am firmly in the middle class so don't think I am being elitist or exclusionary)

If you can spend thousands on an Hermes throw like someone else spends $100, I have no problem with that. I also have a friend who wears and collects Hermes scarves and she is not wealthy and that's an indulgence.

But she keeps them stored in their boxes and the boxes on a shelf in the closet.

I have been in a few people's houses where the closets are set up like displays with the most expensive goods front and center and the Gucci, Chanel, and Prada shopping bags Open and displayed like art.

And worse, the Hermes throw prominently displayed on a chair, and in case you missed it, the Hermes box and other Hermes boxes displayed on the coffee table like a stack of art books. And I know these people are mortgaged and remortgaged to the hilt.

It's fine to have and use items like this as they are intended. But I think for the people who do this, they do not turn them into objects of worship or go into debt in order to have other people Notice that they have them.

This looks like commercial space.

i don't see any obnoxious displays of luxury goods, though. I do see a $14 bottle of La Marca sparkling wine on the bar. It's just the home of a young, decorate-every-inch couple.

You're right, I don't either, but the commercial looking area in the house above is how the master closets were set up in the houses I was in--that's what's reminded me. I looked at the rest of the pictures. There are just so many "IT" pieces--it just seems so self-aware decor-wise.

What I don't get is how those yellow chairs can be so tiny. They are lower than the arm rests of the gray sofa.

Fire the stagers.

I have originals of those chairs (no tufting). They are quite small and they are really side chairs, not lounge chairs. The lounge chair version is wide. They are very low (and very heavy). They are also slightly cantilevered so if you press really hard on the front of the arms you can tip them. They are 1970s sized chairs not 2010s sized chairs.

For 70s bodies? But are they really that low to the ground?

The seat is probably 16ish. The back and arms are low. But some puffy sofas are close to 20 in the seat now.

I think there is also some distortion in the photos. I do have friends who don't fit in these chairs, though. I am 5'4" 140 lbs. and I don't have extra room. The lounge version is bigger but not taller.

I measured. Mine are 16" at the seat, 25" high, 24" square.

Yuck