An Indoor-Outdoor Escape in Los Angeles

The real hero of this feature is the welder of the kitchen fixture, Mr. Anastassiades, who charged more for 16 feet of metal tubing and wire than a Toyota Prius, with all its groundbreaking technology and union assembly. Bravo, sir!

Oh how I wish I lived in a heat and humidity and bug free environment. Open the doors wide with no screens in VA and your house instantly fills with stinkbugs, mosquitos, flies, oh my! However, we do have butterflies, ladybugs and fireflies, so there are compensations.

With all the money spent on this project you'd think they would have been able to figure out a way for their little girl (4)and boy (1) to each have their own room not to mention a more suitable sleeping arrangement. "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends children under the age of 6 not be allowed to sleep in the top bunk. This means a bottom bunk may be the right solution for your toddler, but he or she may need to wait a few years to occupy the top bed."

Beautiful house no doubt but I am always curious where the money comes from. To own houses like that at age 32... what did I do wrong???

Am sort of om board with other responses.. a little embarrassing to read of the familiy's nice $2.1 million 'fixer-upper' and get-away. I have no conclusion but worry about my own life alongside homelessness and HUGE income disparity.

Gorgeous! I wish I could afford that lifestyle!

Is it OK for my kid would like to come over to play with your kids? He is going to bring his Tonka truck and play on that expensive looking plexiglass table with rocks.

I wouldn't care how this couple spends their money if we taxed inheritance at 95% and put the money towards true equal education for all children. Earning your way to the top from a truly equal start is something to be respected. Starting out with an unimaginable wealth advantage while many children are stuck in dangerous and unchallenging schools is not. Markets work. But only if you actually pay for what you gett.

tastefully done. Kudos to the architects. Gorgeous house for gorgeous family.

I don't understand why the comments on these articles are so focused on the costs. Of course the prices are high: this is top-of-the-line interior design, not DIY/Ikea stuff. And that's okay! I'm never going to see a home like this in person, so why not invite me in with a lovely slide show? Maybe I'll get inspiration: there's plenty here to re-create with a lower budget, from the green cabinets to the divine pink curtains in the bedroom. It's a beautiful, restful, art-filled home.

Yes, the NYT focuses on wealthy people in their homes. That's why I look at the photos, to look at beauty and art that's new to me. For example: a carpet was done by Nanimarquina. I googled that and saw amazing art that I could never afford, nor walk on. But the same goes for the art I see in museums. While I enjoy these articles and photos, it would also be fun to see what someone on a limited budget does decorating in NYC--from simple to crazy creative but on a limited budget.

Beautiful and thoughtful renovation. Reading some of the other commenters, I wanted to point out that the items selected for the house are in line price-wise (or less than) many furnishings in architect /interior designer / decorator designed homes. This is what things cost in the high end design industry. Many of the items are from Europe, well crafted, and made from high end materials. Of course, we can all discuss whether people should have this much money and whether it should be redistributed. But that seems a topic meant for another section, not the Design section.

I see a lot of jealousy in the comments. Please keep in mind that the renovation of this home paid a lot of salaries for the skilled workers hired to make the changes. I have a family member who supported himself for many years as a plumber building 20,000 plus sq. ft houses for the one percenters in northern New Jersey. The same goes for the people who made that astonishingly expensive kitchen light fixture. That said, I googled Zachary Lara and found his CV listed him as a real estate developer, among other unusual things. So , it is entirely possible that he will be flipping this house.

The house doesn't look grandiose. It doesn't look expensive either. The renovation costs of over one million puzzles me. Construction costs are higher in the US, especially in high cost cities like LA? Or is it because of architect and designer fee?

If these two didn’t pay taxes at ordinary Income rates on all the money it took to build this home then I consider it the people’s house. They took a little from all of us. Enjoy your tax break while millions drink leaded water

When you hear that they've got a house in SF and this would be a vacation home, you already know that they have money to burn. Not a surprise that there's a $24,000 lighting fixture. I doubt this couple is reading nor cares about the comments here. Real estate in LA is expensive (though probably less so than SF) and the rich will spend mightily on fixing up their houses. A friend of mine sells carpeting in LA, and she told me about a woman who ordered $40,000 worth of customized carpet for her nursery. Baby spit up be damned!

To invest this kind of money in this area,, you have to be daring. . To invest this kind of money in renovating and decorating a house like this, anywhere, to the degree this was done, you are not a common Joe. You have limitless money. And, you are willing to go outside the box. These are folks who are looking for a super cool, artistic driven house. Within an easy drive of great plays - they aren't too far from the music and theatre scene. And, they were willing to fund it and do it. They rock. Wish I had that level of money and cool -

Oh, the horrors of having to climb stairs in your multi-level hillside home in San Francisco! Thank goodness they resolved that issue and have found suitable kitchen illumination as well...

Shame you focused so much attention on the cost of the light fixtures. This home is beautiful. It might not be what one thinks of as 'child friendly', but for sheer elegance, it's perfection. Simple, understated, interesting.

Second home "fixer upper" - $2.1 million. Chandelier to fix it up - $24,000. Lack of self awareness - priceless.

Gorgeous home and completely gross use of funds at the same time. It is simply immoral to have so much chump change. Not sure how these people sleep at night; thousand dollar sheets would give me nightmares.

I imagine the author of this article chortled to himself anticipating how people would get worked up about the absurd cost of the highlighted furnishings. Sort of like how Donald Trump enjoys provoking decent people by saying gratuitously outlandish things. Was the point of the article home design or price porn?

This is where I don’t get the NYT. They position themselves as ultra-progressive advocates for the common folks against those greedy one-percenters, then turn around and glorify those same wealthy people, with their outrageously priced light fixtures and “pool reconfigurements”. I’m a one-percenter myself, and I’m appalled at the wastefulness exhibited by this couple and at the NYT for thinking their self-absorbed hedonism is worthy of publication.

I don't know why so many NYT readers comment on these renovation project pieces in such a negative way. You want social commentary? Go to the opinion pages. This is the Real Estate section. Of course there are over the top homes and renovation ptojects. So what. Without fail there is endless griping about the societal implications of crazy expensive light fixtures and unrelenting bitterness in the comments section.

So rich and yet no taste. If you look at her Instagram photos- PVC thigh high boots or snakeskin boots with clashing polka dot tights you know that this woman's taste cannot be trusted.

You have to the love the NYT ... all for the proletariat on page 1 but dig a little deeper and you get to very wealthy San Franciscans who need a weekend getaway house in LA. I just returned from a business trip to rural South Carolina where Democrats and Republicans alike have less in common with the readers you target with eye candy pieces like this than whatever microbes might be crawling around beneath Mars' surface.

I also find the prices to be an unnecessary, polarizing distraction. I do not begrudge people spending whatever amount of money if they can afford it. Those who do should skip these articles for their peace of mind or focus on the design. Besides those who spend huge amount of money on themselves might also be generous philanthropists. Redressing the balance between the haves and haves not is not achieved via harsh comments in the real estate section of the NYT but through political engagement

The house is beautiful and everything in it as well. I see a lot of people complaining about the cost of individual items. It is sad we live in a country where so many people can afford a second home like this while others struggle to put a roof over their heads. But that’s what we’ve become. The haves and the have nots.

Retaining charm? They trashed whatever charm was in the house. Within a few years it will be the equivalent of avocado and harvest gold appliances. Sure it looks cute from the outside, but it only makes me sad that the equivalent interior was lost. Cold and uncomfortable is what I see. But they ensured that the architects and contractors made their boat payments so there's that.

The home is beautiful and if the Times didn’t publish those outlandish prices readers might focus on the inspiration instead. There are much cheaper options out there where a similar look could be achieved.

Cost of house: $2.1 million. Cost of renovation: $1.26 million. Cost of two chandeliers: $30,000. Trials and tribulations of one percenters craving "more creative energy" and a little bungalow with a pool for the kids: shameless. Before the rich became 0ne percenters they loathed the wealthy who humble-brag about their perfectly ordinary lives, like vacation home-hunting and discovering a gem of a must-have colonial fixer-upper for a song (that for the rest of us is equal to 3 full operas, a concerto for piccolo and bassoon, and two Broadway musicals). T "But as creative individuals, they wanted to put their stamp on the house. For help, they turned to Síol Studios, a San Francisco-based architecture and design firm." Help me here. Did they put their stamp on the house because they're creative individuals or because they plan to live (or vacation) there? For $1.26 million I guess you can do both. They hired Starchitect Robo Gerson as their personal stamp. In fact, Mr. Gerson is a Five Starchitect, a distinction earned by genius designers who can take "some quick, target changes" up to a $1.2 million rebuild. That's chutzpah. That's creative. I'm thinking this savvy and smart looking couple (beautiful kids) actually don't get why this is a very bad look (form-wise not design wise) and tone-deaf. At least they should say it's how they spent Trump's tax bribe. Otherwise it's like boasting they're on a lifeboat while all around folks are drowning.

$24,065. for a kitchen lighting fixture? Goodness...I'm speechless!

Ah, the eternal fascination with the reading about the lifestyles of the super-rich ...

Oh to have a few million laying around. Sigh.

I think its obscene that anyone would spend $24,000 for a chandelier. Talk about excess!!!!!!!