Home Town - General Discussion

[DonnaMae]

14 hours ago, buttersister said:

I still like the Napiers, and I hope the producers/network back off the "let's turn Ben into Chip Gaines" thing. Pleazzzz...

How are they doing that? He seems like the sweet, hardworking, and loving husband I've seen since the start of the series.

[buttersister]

Shtick. Hamming it extra up for the camera. Inflated sense of I am so funny. There’s a line between showing some character and becoming a character. Chip crossed it years ago and became unwatchable, don’t want that for Ben. My $.02.

[RoxiP]

I've always thought Ben was the half of the couple that wanted to be on television.  He is definitely the extrovert of the two.  In some ways that definitely is similar to Chip and Joanna.

[DonnaMae]

I just think that is Ben being Ben.  He's naturally a happy guy who has fun with family and friends.  

[Barlowe]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CnhRCsDux90/?igshid=MWI4MTIyMDE=

 

Erin seems a bit snippy with the remark about the seeing other rooms.
 

On one hand, I get it bc she runs her own social media and gets plenty of invasive comments and repetitive comments but on the other hand it wouldn’t be hard for them to mention/remind in-show that they’re only doing the rooms shown and the rest will be reno’d on the homeowners time. I know on Nicole Curtis’s restoration show she would mention in each episode that they were only helping the homeowners with certain sections.

*Since the fireplace was a recreation of a design the homeowner showed Erin, I think it should’ve been framed that way on the show instead of the Erin presenting it in-episode like an idea she made on the fly. 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Barlowe

[chediavolo]

3 hours ago, Barlowe said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CnhRCsDux90/?igshid=MWI4MTIyMDE=

 

Erin seems a bit snippy with the remark about the seeing other rooms.
 

On one hand, I get it bc she runs her own social media and gets plenty of invasive comments and repetitive comments but on the other hand it wouldn’t be hard for them to mention/remind in-show that they’re only doing the rooms shown and the rest will be reno’d on the homeowners time. I know on Nicole Curtis’s restoration show she would mention in each episode that they were only helping the homeowners with certain sections.

*Since the fireplace was a recreation of a design the homeowner showed Erin, I think it should’ve been framed that way on the show instead of the Erin presenting it in-episode like an idea she made on the fly. 

 

Well, Erin, if we saw less of your crafty crap, totally fake demolition( you can barely lift that tool) and chitchat, then we could see the rest of the house. We are interested in the house. You’re telling us all about these houses and we want to see what the inside looks like. Whether the rooms are being renovated or not.

[DonnaMae]

I also would like to see the rooms that aren't being renovated.  I know the new homeowners can't afford to redo every room in those larger houses, but I'd like to see if all the other rooms will have to be renovated in the future.  Maybe the bedrooms will just need a coat of paint, but what about the other bathroom(s)?

[izabella]

It helps to understand the house as a whole, and as a home, if we can see all the rooms.  They spend so little time on the reveal at the end, and now they want to spend less time showing the home itself. 

[Grrarrggh]

I can understand why the owners of the houses wouldn't want to show off their bedrooms and bathrooms if they're not being renovated. And what would be the point? The programme is about the renovations Erin and Ben do, not the houses of Laurel Miss. 

[chediavolo]

7 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

I can understand why the owners of the houses wouldn't want to show off their bedrooms and bathrooms if they're not being renovated. And what would be the point? The programme is about the renovations Erin and Ben do, not the houses of Laurel Miss. 

They don’t even live there yet. It’s not like it’s an invasion of privacy.  We want to see the entire house because we love old homes. There’s way too much unnecessary chit chat & cutesy content on these home shows. It’s like they want to combine reality tv & renovation or house hunter shows. 

[RoxiP]

20 hours ago, DonnaMae said:

I just think that is Ben being Ben.  He's naturally a happy guy who has fun with family and friends.  

I also agree with that statement...but I do think he is the driving force behind them being on television.  Nothing wrong with it!  Earlier seasons he kind of bothered me but I've come to like him and respect his work over the years.

[Minivanessa]

31 minutes ago, RoxiP said:

I also agree with that statement...but I do think he is the driving force behind them being on television.  Nothing wrong with it!  Earlier seasons he kind of bothered me but I've come to like him and respect his work over the years.

I also like Ben and despite my post above, so far AFAIK he hasn't turned into a Chip Gaines on the show. I probably over-react because I soon tired of the Gainses, to the point that I won't watch either of them on TV, no way no how. Chip's stupid antics played a big part in turning me off that dreadful duo.

[DonnaMae]

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

I probably over-react because I soon tired of the Gainses, to the point that I won't watch either of them on TV, no way no how.

I tired of them also, and it was because I didn't like the sameness of the designs.  There was too much black/gray/white in nearly every house.  I like almost all of Erin's designs, mainly because the houses have color and look homey.  Their renovation series is the only one I watch now.

[RoxiP]

Unlike many of you I do not dislike the Gaines.  They saw an opportunity and created an empire.  I also like the Napiers and the Marrs.  I guess I'm just a home improvement show junkie...LOL.

Oh, and let's not forget the great guys at Maine Cabin Masters!

[3 is enough]

No comments about last night's episode?  It looked nice but very different from their usual episodes. I think I prefer the homes to the businesses.  

Pretty sure the owner had already been featured on an episode in a previous season where she bought a house with her fiancee.  

[65mickey]

Yes she was on a couple of season ago when they renovated a very small house for her. Now she seems to have a lot more money to spend. What I thought about the inn was those steps. They are limiting the guests to probably childless, young people who don't mind climbing the steps every time they come and go. Also with a bar planned for the downstairs what about the noise?  

Edited January 24, 2023 by 65mickey

[Scatterbrained]

My guess is they are trying to capitalize on "tv show tourism".  Once the show is over and interest wanes, it'll either become office space and/or a loft apartment.

Did Ben and or Erin use the first floor previously?  Seems like at least one of their logos was on the window prior to removal.  

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, 65mickey said:

 What I thought about the inn was those steps. They are limiting the guests to probably childless, young people who don't mind climbing the steps every time they come and go. Also with a bar planned for the downstairs what about the noise?  

What I thought was, that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to hotels and inns. Those designed or constructed after 1993 must meet the ADA regulations. I don't know how this newly constructed inn fits into that. They did some serious remodeling of the structure to create the inn.

Obviously there is no access at all to the inn for anyone unable to climb stairs. I watched most of the episode and didn't hear a word about the accessibility issue. Ben did say at one point that they weren't demolishing any walls. But they removed an old freight elevator and did some work pouring concrete and I think adding joists (or adding support for joists). Certainly this was more than cosmetics. 

I hope they did get expert advice on the ADA issues for the inn project. There are consultants (architects, engineers, etc.) who specialize in those issues. We just don't know, but to me the absence in the episode of any information on the access issues, was glaring. (Disclosure: in my so-called career I had some experience in dealing with ADA issues, so I'm probably more likely to spot accessibility issues than the average viewer. I'm not saying the inn violates the ADA, but the glaring absence of an accessible entrance - we didn't see an elevator serving the inn from street level - raises questions IMO.)

[chessiegal]

We've stayed at The Parkview Guest House in New Orleans several times. It is not ADA accessible. It was built in 1884. It's been remodeled because almost all the rooms have a private bath. I'm guessing places like this don't have to be ADA accessible.

[65mickey]

The rules for inns, hotels, etc. state that places of lodging designed or constructed and built after 1-26-1993 must be accessible to persons with disabilities. So I guess this leaves room for older facilities to be exempt from this requirement. However this was not an inn built prior to 1993. The building might have been built prior to 1993 but the inn wasn't.  I'm sure that they had this checked out but it doesn't seem like this inn complies with the spirit of the ADA. 

[3 is enough]

Interesting- it didn't occur to me while I was watching, but I do remember during the episode about the Bird Dog Cafe (or the tea farm), they made a point of showing a ramp and talking about complying with ADA requirements.  

The owner of the Inn popped up on my Instagram feed. Evidently she is no longer with her wife and has a boyfriend now.

[RoxiP]

I did consider that perhaps there was an alternate entry accessible through the furniture store, which undoubtedly has complied with ADA requirements.  I am certain that if they were required to make accommodations that the Napiers would do it - it wouldn't be good business otherwise.

[65mickey]

I think if there was an alternative accessible way to get to the inn it would have been shown. To me thery were using the fact that this building was built before 1993 as the reason for no elevator. I am not certain that the Napiers would go out of their way to accommodate people with disabilities.  They are doing what the property owners want. 

[RoxiP]

I can see that my wording was confusing...I agree.  I meant to say that I am more than sure that the Napiers are aware of the ADA regulations and if they were required to comply with them they would have done so.  If the building was exempted because of its age then I agree - they would do whatever the property owners ask them to do.

If I ever visit Laurel again I would be tempted to stay there, even climbing the stairs at my ancient age of 60+...LOL.  

[DonnaMae]

The owner said she had $300,000 to spend on the renovation.  What about all the work that had to be done before they could begin working on the rooms?  That had to be separate and must have cost a lot.

[MaryHedwig]

So, speaking of ADA requirements, in the episode today they took out a wheelchair ramp.  Really, after last week are these good optics?

 

[chessiegal]

25 minutes ago, MaryHedwig said:

So, speaking of ADA requirements, in the episode today they took out a wheelchair ramp.  Really, after last week are these good optics?

 

I didn't see the episode, but if it's a single-family home and the owners don't need a ramp or want one, I don't see a problem.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Some of the houses I've look at that have ramps, they aren't always well built, or built to code anyway.   However, if you don't need one, I wouldn't keep it either.   That ramp plywood on the floor of the ramp looked like it was in terrible shape. 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Minivanessa]

32 minutes ago, chessiegal said:

I didn't see the episode, but if it's a single-family home and the owners don't need a ramp or want one, I don't see a problem.

Same here. The ADA applies to businesses open to the public, not private homes. And as @CrazyInAlabama said, I've seen some sketchy-looking ramps on the front of single family homes that appeared to be DIY projects and probably not built to any code. 

[buttersister]

I really liked this couple and the older of their boys, and while I'm not an ALL THE COLORS person, I think Erin did a good job and Ben built some good stuff. Although, since blue was her favorite color, I'm a little surprised the bedroom wasn't a deep blue. (Although blue is my favorite color and the one room I have that's not in the white family is in the purple family;-)

[CrazyInAlabama]

I loved this episode.  The couple had a budget, kept to it, and Erin gave them the decorating scheme they loved.   The little kids were adorable.  I'm not a fan of bunk beds, but the ones Ben built were so solid, and mattresses supported, and the ladder was very sturdy. 

 I might have picked the other house for the extra bedroom, but either way this house is spectacular.   I loved Ben's exterior wooden decoration, and everything Erin did inside.    The colors were just what the couple wanted, and I loved the painting.  It was a beautiful project, and came in on budget. 

For the Buzzard's Roost conversion it was only 2 suites and 2 rooms, so if it's an Airbnb type rental, it might not have to have an elevator, or they might have needed extra time to order, and install an elevator.  Supply chain isssues and the structural and mechanical changes to put in an elevator are probably a hurdle to getting something finished for filming.   

   Remember with the Bird Dog Cafe conversion they mentioned and put in ramps.   And the tea place (Long Leaf?), even though the ramp wasn't complete for filming.   

Edited January 31, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[3 is enough]

Really liked the couple.  I'm glad that Erin gave them the decor they wanted. Personally I found the colours to be very intense, but it's not my house and the owners were happy with the result.  The end product looked great.  The little boy's excitement about his new room was lovely to watch. 

This episode reminded me of  the first couple of seasons, with a smaller budget and a minimum of silly antics. 

[CalicoKitty]

23 hours ago, MaryHedwig said:

So, speaking of ADA requirements, in the episode today they took out a wheelchair ramp.  Really, after last week are these good optics?

 

In the city where I used to live, I saw two long-established restaurants have to close down because of  ADA lawsuits by the same person.  There is one person that deliberately goes to restaurants and hotels and files law suites over very tiny situations.  In the instances I know about, the owners offered to make changes, but actually had to close down because the costs of this guy's demands were so high.  These were both historical buildings.  My point is, it only takes one person with a mission of winning law suits to destroy a business.  I certainly hope whoever is in charge of the remodel of this inn did their research.

[MaryHedwig]

54 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

n the city where I used to live, I saw two long-established restaurants have to close down because of  ADA lawsuits by the same person.  There is one person that deliberately goes to restaurants and hotels and files law suites over very tiny situations.  In the instances I know about, the owners offered to make changes, but actually had to close down because the costs of this guy's demands were so high.  These were both historical buildings.  My point is, it only takes one person with a mission of winning law suits to destroy a business.  I certainly hope whoever is in charge of the remodel of this inn did their research.

I was thinking along these lines when I posted the comment about taking out the wheelchair ramp on a private home. Erin and Ben got a lot of flak (here and elsewhere) for not making the hotel ADA compliant. In light of that, I thought it might have behooved them to say something in this episode like:

"We are taking the wheelchair ramp out because this young family has no need of it, and besides it was owner-made and did not meet all current ADA requirements. Certainty, a complaint ramp could be built in that same spot in the future if the need ever arose."

Just to assure us the Ben and Erin do think of ADA requirements when they jump in and remodel something.

[Grrarrggh]

58 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

In the city where I used to live, I saw two long-established restaurants have to close down because of  ADA lawsuits by the same person.  There is one person that deliberately goes to restaurants and hotels and files law suites over very tiny situations.  In the instances I know about, the owners offered to make changes, but actually had to close down because the costs of this guy's demands were so high.  These were both historical buildings. 

If you are breaking the law and discriminating against people who have disabilities you sort of deserve to be out of business.

[pasdetrois]

The entire point of ADA is "no excuses." People with disabilities deserve to be able to go anywhere public the rest of daily society goes. There have been quite a few lawsuits over the past 30 years or so, because sometimes that's the only way to effect timely change. (I personally would hesitate to threaten a small business, unless I needed its services regularly.) Even the federal government gets sued these days over Section 508 compliance, which requires that computer use/information must be accessible to people with disabilities.

[retired watcher]

Where is the baby going to sleep? My guess is a crib in the master. The 5 year old is too young to be in the top bunk. 

Love all the colors but I think I would have chosen the other house.

[absolutelyido]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:14 AM, RoxiP said:

I can see that my wording was confusing...I agree.  I meant to say that I am more than sure that the Napiers are aware of the ADA regulations and if they were required to comply with them they would have done so.  If the building was exempted because of its age then I agree - they would do whatever the property owners ask them to do.

If I ever visit Laurel again I would be tempted to stay there, even climbing the stairs at my ancient age of 60+...LOL.  

Keri Rowell addresses the lack of elevator in the website for Buzzard's Roost:

"As a business, and as humans, we never want anyone to feel forgotten or intentionally excluded. We know that not everyone that might want to stay with us can climb stairs with luggage. Our decision to not add an elevator was not taken lightly. Our building is over 100 years old, and so old we don't even know when it was built! Because of that, the infrastructure could not take a new elevator shaft. We would likely have to build it outside in the uneven back alley, and at this time it's not financially possible. (There is also no parking out there and would require a lot of walking on uneven ground to reach the elevator.) Hopefully in the coming years, we can add some more accommodations to improve accessibility in the Inn. Regarding compliancy, here is the code:
§ 36.404 Alterations: Elevator exemption.

(a) This section does not require the installation of an elevator in an altered facility that is less than three stories or has less than 3,000 square feet per story, except with respect to any facility that houses a shopping center, a shopping mall, the professional office of a health care provider, a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation, or an airport passenger terminal."

[Minivanessa]

Thanks @absolutelyido - that explanation is helpful.  From my prior experience working with the ADA, I know that it's not that the hotel itself is "exempt from the ADA," so I assumed/hoped that some specific regulation(s) would exempt them from the elevator requirement. Which indeed was the case.

As @pasdetrois pointed out, the ADA applies broadly and widely to, among other things, public accommodations. If a certain accessibility feature is missing from a public accommodation, you have to get down in the weeds of the regulations etc. to see if there's a specific situation that allows that omission. When I commented a few days ago above, I had that in mind. 

And of course the Napiers rarely deal with a business property on the show, so we almost never hit any ADA issues. I'm reassured that the Buzzard's Roost was remodeled with attention to ADA compliance. I hated to think the Napiers would be so dense as to overlook that law when working on a business property.

[chessiegal]

I assume that there are permits that are required for renovations. If ADA issues are needed to get said permits, they have to be addressed and were. 

[Minivanessa]

32 minutes ago, chessiegal said:

I assume that there are permits that are required for renovations. If ADA issues are needed to get said permits, they have to be addressed and were. 

That's not necessarily so, I'm afraid. The ADA is a federal law. Local governments who issue building permits don't review plans for ADA compliance. They will review the plans under the city/state building codes that apply to the project, such as those for structural, electrical, and plumbing features. I assume that licensed architects and engineers who prepare and review plans for public business facilities, will do so in compliance with ADA regulations, but what the city or county building department will look at, is only their local/state laws and codes. 

In a perfect world, the issuance of a building permit for a facility open to the public would mean that all ADA requirements were met, but it's not a perfect world. The city will care if the toilets and sinks are installed as required by the building/plumbing code, but won't tell you how many stalls have to be sized and equipped to meet ADA accessibility rules, or whether you have enough sinks installed in a way as to be accessible under ADA guidelines. 

Here's an online piece about the issue, which indicates that state laws in California actually have some accessibility requirements, but that still doesn't equal actual ADA compliance: https://www.permitadvisors.com/ada/navigating-ada-regulations/

[chessiegal]

Nevermind.

Edited February 1, 2023 by chessiegal

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 hours ago, retired watcher said:

Where is the baby going to sleep? My guess is a crib in the master. The 5 year old is too young to be in the top bunk. 

Love all the colors but I think I would have chosen the other house.

For now the older brother will be on the top bunk.   So, when the baby is a little older, he'll get the bottom bunk I bet.   

[DonnaMae]

On 1/30/2023 at 6:42 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

It was a beautiful project, and came in on budget. 

Yes it did, but there were a few things that were extra, such as that terrific painting, the bunk bed, the table and chairs on the porch, that orange wooden addition to the outside of the house.  I also wonder about all the pillows that Erin puts on the sofa.  There are a lot of extras on these shows.  

[chediavolo]

I like this one although I think the quote for the outside of the house was way too expensive. I know my husband could do it  for a lot less, a lot! i’m not a big fan of those cheap tub surrounds and she probably should’ve gotten a shower instead of a tub.
Was the  $5000++  Viking stove included in the quote? 😳

 

[RoxiP]

Some people want the top line stove (although I could care less - I've lived in my RV since December 31, 2021 and the oven has never been turned on).  I did like them adding the screened in porch - never have understood why they tear so many of them off in the south where the mosquitoes can carry away small pets!  Personally I did not like the wallpaper in the bathroom (but then again I just don't like wallpaper in general) - it was so busy - but she seemed to like it and it was her house.

On the whole it was a nicely done house done on a reasonable price point.

[buttersister]

I was also perplexed by the shower vs. stove decision, especially in a bathroom with what I took to be expensive wallpaper (not at all my taste, but good for her). I have to go back and see if that was a double oven version, which goes for nearly $20K.

[Shelbie]

I found the wallpaper overwhelming and made the room seem smaller but she seemed to love it.
The screening on the porch was fantastic. I’ve always wondered how many people end up re-screening once they’ve tried to be outside in bug season.

[ECM1231]

On 2/6/2023 at 9:56 AM, chediavolo said:

Was the  $5000++  Viking stove included in the quote? 😳

 

I really loved that stove! I didn't realize it was a Viking brand. Didn't Erin say that the stove was made in Mississippi? Is that where Viking appliances are manufactured?

I loved most everything done in the house except for the busy bathroom wallpaper and the tub surround. Erin has done sheet vinyl flooring in bathrooms before, as a cost saver, but would porcelain tile really be that much more expensive? Tile is much easier to clean, imo.

Edited February 7, 2023 by ECM1231

[chessiegal]

53 minutes ago, ECM1231 said:

Didn't Erin say that the stove was made in Mississippi? Is that where Viking appliances are manufactured?

Yep, Greenwood, Mississippi.