![Going temporarily off-topic (as a preview to the direction this tumblr will take once I’m done posting personal-home updates) to talk about this piece of furniture and things like it. For reference, this is a bookshelf/table and chairs designed by Sakura Adachi for Campeggi.
I file this under Lies We Tell Ourselves. Does it look cool? Definitely. But as far as I can tell, there are two boxes worth of useable bookshelf there. The top left and right have to remain empty, if you’re going to be sitting down in the chairs, and the bottom left and right have to remain empty so the chairs aren’t impossible to move (ProTip: books are heavy).
So I guess if you have 15 books to your name, this would be great? But something tells me this appeals to people who have too many books already, and so they see this and think, “awesome, I can get extra book storage from my dining room set!” Lying to yourself! This’ll end up with books in all 6 boxes, plus stacks on top, and wow, you just bought yourself an unsteady, overpriced bookcase. Also, you still need a table and chairs.
Books are one of the easiest things to enforce the One In One Out rule with — if you buy a new book that means you have to get rid of one you currently own. I have several friends who seem to define themselves by their book collections, something I find almost dangerous on a few levels (the key one being: you aren’t your stuff).
“Pretend your home is on fire. It’s 3am, there is smoke and heat and visible flames all around. You need to get to safety, but somehow you know you have time to grab ___ items.” Whenever I do this experiment with clients (aka friends who pay me in beer to help them clean out and organize their stuff), it doesn’t really matter what I set the actual number of items to. The answer is always, “I need to get myself (and my partner/my child(ren)/my pets) out of the house.” All of those precious books that they get so emotional about when I suggest we maybe get rid of [half/a third/all but 1 bookcase]…they are suddenly not necessary.
Are books awesome? Yes. But like any other possession, if you have so many of them that they’re taking up floor space, chairs, tables, etc — you’re eliminating space in your home for other people and yourself (literally). And I’ve yet to work with someone who, when I told them their home was on fire and they could only grab three things, reacted with, “well the fire needs to understand that I just have to have all of my books.” You don’t need your stuff, especially if your stuff comes at the expense of having room for the people and activities in your life that you (probably) do more often. And you definitely don’t need so much stuff that your other furniture has to have storage compartments to accomodate the overflow.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf87u3oCVz1qbv86uo1_500.jpg)
Going temporarily off-topic (as a preview to the direction this tumblr will take once I’m done posting personal-home updates) to talk about this piece of furniture and things like it. For reference, this is a bookshelf/table and chairs designed by Sakura Adachi for Campeggi.
I file this under Lies We Tell Ourselves. Does it look cool? Definitely. But as far as I can tell, there are two boxes worth of useable bookshelf there. The top left and right have to remain empty, if you’re going to be sitting down in the chairs, and the bottom left and right have to remain empty so the chairs aren’t impossible to move (ProTip: books are heavy).
So I guess if you have 15 books to your name, this would be great? But something tells me this appeals to people who have too many books already, and so they see this and think, “awesome, I can get extra book storage from my dining room set!” Lying to yourself! This’ll end up with books in all 6 boxes, plus stacks on top, and wow, you just bought yourself an unsteady, overpriced bookcase. Also, you still need a table and chairs.
Books are one of the easiest things to enforce the One In One Out rule with — if you buy a new book that means you have to get rid of one you currently own. I have several friends who seem to define themselves by their book collections, something I find almost dangerous on a few levels (the key one being: you aren’t your stuff).
“Pretend your home is on fire. It’s 3am, there is smoke and heat and visible flames all around. You need to get to safety, but somehow you know you have time to grab ___ items.” Whenever I do this experiment with clients (aka friends who pay me in beer to help them clean out and organize their stuff), it doesn’t really matter what I set the actual number of items to. The answer is always, “I need to get myself (and my partner/my child(ren)/my pets) out of the house.” All of those precious books that they get so emotional about when I suggest we maybe get rid of [half/a third/all but 1 bookcase]…they are suddenly not necessary.
Are books awesome? Yes. But like any other possession, if you have so many of them that they’re taking up floor space, chairs, tables, etc — you’re eliminating space in your home for other people and yourself (literally). And I’ve yet to work with someone who, when I told them their home was on fire and they could only grab three things, reacted with, “well the fire needs to understand that I just have to have all of my books.” You don’t need your stuff, especially if your stuff comes at the expense of having room for the people and activities in your life that you (probably) do more often. And you definitely don’t need so much stuff that your other furniture has to have storage compartments to accomodate the overflow.
