Is it supposed to look like the blue man is being shot? Because that is what it looks like to me.
Other than the interesting choice of sculpture out front, the home is your pretty typical multi-million-dollar modern mansion. Oh except that it’s in Oakland, which is another interesting choice.
Could it be that one gets more… bang for the buck… in Oakland? Yup, looks like a head shot, Marty. Also looks like the “Bam!” and “Pow!” blurbs in comic books. I know I’ve seen the artist’s work before, but I can’t think of his name, nor have I had any successful searches. Using the image above to search got me nothing but info on the house, rather than the sculpture.
Yes, it seems to be a “typical multi-million-dollar modern mansion,” although it’s fairly nice. The home’s interior style matches well with its decor and it certainly isn’t over-decorated. It borders on minimal decor, but manages to avoid that outright. And that’s a heck of a multi-floor staircase – stunning image of it, too. The views are indeed gorgeous, though I fail to see why they need 5 of the 23 photos to feature it.
Besides the questionable social choice of Oakland for a big money house, I also question perching something that large atop any hillside in such a seismically active area. At least it’s not as likely to have the double threat of earthquake and wildfire+heavy rain=landslide that’s more common further south. Yippee?
Nothing at all unusual about a multimillion dollar mansion in Oakland. It’s a big city and has lots of ’em.
The place has its share of problems, but it’s hardly as if it’s nothing but one big ghetto. It has its better neighborhoods and its worse ones, like any city its size.
@David B.: Greetings, David – welcome! You make a valid point. Perhaps it would behoove the city fathers and mothers to make that fact more widely known. It would be good for business and for attracting new quality residents. As someone not from the area, all I’ve ever heard about are the less than stellar citizens and how many of them there seem to be.
I’m curious, though… was I right in thinking that houses, especially larger houses, up on the hills are in more peril during an earthquake than those in lower rise/flat sites?