Opinion: Historic Design & Architectural Elements

[munkii]

Do you think owners of historic properties, registered or not, should maintain historic elements that lend to the historic aesthetic of the house? Why or why not? Feel free to add examples.

I am very loosely using the term historic here. Really, I mean to include any era-specific house that people may not consider historic properties, such as MCM (although, FTR, there are MCM properties/neighborhoods on the registry).

This is inspired by littlespitfire’s fireplace AND the Cambridge project on TOH. It is not a post meant for attacking, just thoughts and opinions. 

[boiler717]

That was a really nice way to open the topic Munkii.

I think registered properties should do so.

For unregistered properties, it would be nice if people did so. I don't think there's any way to really enforce it all, though. It's also how design and style evolve over time and how we get an eclectic mix of styles in an area. Eventually there's no more room to build something new, and if there's an area where you have to live for work or whatever, should you be forced to live in a non registered design style not of your taste? Of course not. When something is rare/valuable/etc I think there is a personal responsibility (again, not enforceable) to salvage or update in a way that still preserves the original feature.

[mrs.jacinthe]

I'll be honest. Although I am all about preserving a historic home, I am also all about finding a property that works for you and making it ideal. I liked the Cambridge project. The home was in VERY rough shape when the owners bought it and while they didn't preserve all the interior architectural details (of which there were very few left), they did their best to preserve what remained so that those who needed/wanted those pieces could obtain them - via salvage.

SO - my opinion is - make the home your own. But preserve important details/woodwork for others, if you don't want them for yourself. In the end, it's just a house.

[boiler717]

Munkii, have you see the house in Forest Hills that was on the MK home tour with us last year?

[munkii]

Unfortunately, I didn't do the MK tour last year. I made time only for the Indy MCM tour, which was not as good as the Columbus tour in 2011.

What I will say for the Indy MCM tour is that the updates that were made complemented the previous/existing design.

[demandypants]

So I have a MCM style house. It is uniquely laid out and it's historical elements are part of what drew us to the house in the first place. However, that being said I really doubt that in our living here the main bathroom will retain its dark green, floor to ceiling 4x4 square tiles and builder grade mega mirror. I hope to be able to respect the style of the house while we make updates to suit our style. But I won't be following all the current trends for painted woodwork or granite counters because I think it would look really out of place. 

I do have a big conundrum in the kitchen, which is hard to explain but the oven, cooktop, and fridge are built into the backside of our fireplace/chimney. So giant brick wall in the kitchen. It is weird to cook in what amounts to as a hole in the wall (though resting my forehead on the brick wall is nice when I am tired and stirring oatmeal on the stovetop) but it is also a pretty cool and unusual feature of the house. Someday I will post with pictures and a WWYD, but the kitchen is so not in the budget now and we are just making due with what we have.

[rondonalddo]

For unregistered homes, I think people should if they can (especially if they can cover without damaging rather than remove), but ultimately, homes are living things. I don't doubt that the original owners of my 110-year home would change stuff if it was more practical to do so. I might be a bit biased here, though, as my 110-year old home has most of its original stuff covered up with vinyl siding/drywall/wood paneling/acoustic tile ceilings/etc.-- just looking at it, you wouldn't know how old it is unless you noticed the window sizes on some sides of the house and the stone foundation under most of the house.

It's a funny thing, though, preservation. I work at an institution which owns a few historic properties and the curator of those spaces has to always determine what era of the house they want to present, even for a property built in the 50s, because people lived in the house and made changes over the years.

[hausfrau]

Registered historic homes are registered for a reason, so the integrity of the historical structure and finishes are an important part of that building's history. But with an unregistered property, I don't think that the homeowner is beholden to keep the historical details, although my own tastes would be to do the best I could to preserve/refinish what is architecturally unique to the house and period.

Despite that, I don't think a historic home has to be a museum. Houses and their conveniences and architectural details have changed drastically over time, and I don't think anyone should feel particularly tied to certain elements only because that's what was there originally. I don't think it's fair either to constantly think about the next owners when you make choices -- it seems exhausting really.

I'm thinking of one house in particular in our town that was an early 19th-century small home to which the owners added around it a modern, open addition. Inside, there are the historic elements of the outside of the house and some of its interior architecture, but the new modern pieces meld into it. It's particularly cool and a great way to preserve and update the place.

A lot of the hubub on the Internet about that particular TOH project seemed to come from the preservationists who want to see a home kept exactly as it was originally intended.

[boiler717]

Feb 19, 2013 11:49:19 GMT -5 munkii said:

Unfortunately, I didn't do the MK tour last year. I made time only for the Indy MCM tour, which was not as good as the Columbus tour in 2011.

What I will say for the Indy MCM tour is that the updates that were made complemented the previous/existing design.

I think it's a good example of a beautiful, well design home that doesn't for existing elements. Check it out sometime. It's a stunning home, I absolutely love it, but it doesn't fit with the rest of the architecture of Forrest Hills. I know your post was about features, not entire homes, but they knocked a home down to the foundation and built this in its place, so it's kinda like removing a feature.

People are totally 50/50 on it. On one hand, it updates the neighborhood, brings in a new style, is beautifully well done, was built keeping environmental concerns top of mind, etc. On the other, the knocked down a home to do so and this home is clearly different than others in the neighborhood (which is an eclectic mix of homes, although all from the 20s).

[mrspez07]

I think the intent of the register is to maintain the historic integrity of the home, which in many cases is the exterior. However, if you are buying such a house, often you care about the historic elements within as well, but demandypants makes a good point that some stylized things from a historic period just don't work functionally or aesthetically with today's lifestyles. In many cases, an older house (often within a historic district or just an older home not on the register) will also have been changed so much over time with other remodels, that there may not be much integrity left, then I think it's more acceptable to not respect the era as much.
It's a tricky situation for sure, I volunteer in a historic house where the family lived there in some capacity for nearly 90 years, when they renovated for the museum, they chose a period of sigificance, which was 30-40 years after the house was built but 50 years before the family turned it over to the historical society. How do you even determine what is historically significant on a 100+ year old house that has been "lived" in? The family wallpapered and decorated as they saw fit throughout the life of the house, and used the rooms differently over time (TV in the formal parlor in the 70's, electric stove instead of coal stove in the kitchen, etc.). They didn't live in a museum of suspended decor through the 90 years and two generations of family, and neither should someone who owns a historic house, it needs to function for the people in real time.

[wawa]

I think in MOST areas, it is a shame for somebody to buy a house with historic features and obliterate them. But I think that because in MOST areas there is no shortage of bland builder "colonials" so if you want that look...buy that house. It makes no sense to me to buy a house with interesting historic features and turn it into a house that looks like it was constructed in the past 10 years since there are TONS of houses out there that actually were constructed in the past 10 years.

But if you are looking at a very focused geographic area, and the houses available in that area in your price range are from a time period that you don't care for...you do you man. When it comes down to it, it's your house. Doesn't mean I won't judge the everlovingshit out of you if you paint over all your craftsman moldings or put an ikea kitchen in your 1800's farmhouse - but what in the world does my judgement really matter?

There's also the matter of general quality. There is something to be said for the aesthetic of the time period that my house is from...colored bathroom fixtures are still coveted by a select handful of people after all. But I certainly made little to no effort to preserve that. My house was builder-basic in the 1950's...so I don't have many qualms about dragging it kicking and screaming into this era. My original wood trim was just plain orangey clamshell/ranch oak with peeling varnish and less than awesome installation. My original 1950's pink and green bathroom was crumbling, and had already been "fixed" at some point with not-quite-matching pink tiles in the shower. None of those things were worth saving in my book - though it's possible that somebody else would think otherwise and shake their head at our decision to just gut the sucker.

I'd never hesitate for a second to rip out avocado shag carpeting from a 70's house. Shiny brass+oak from the 80's/90's can go ahead and die. There are certain things from certain eras that just aren't worth preserving to me. Even older era homes - I love the feel of distinct rooms with real craftsmanship in the details - but that doesn't mean I would be all gung-ho about preserving the teeny cramped and usually dark kitchen layout. Would i try to find a way to modernize the kitchen without compromising the overall style? Of course. But I'm not a slave to restoration to the point where I'd live in a house that doesn't function for me just for the sake of preserving it. I'm not a museum keeper.

At the same time, I do think it's important to at least nod to the era of the house. I'm extremely unlikely to install super sleek modern anything in this space, because it just doesn't GO. The layout, the scale of the rooms...it wouldn't work for me. The closest I'll get is the mix of glass and marble in my master bathroom that feels very classic+modern to me (rather than just plain old stuck in the middle transitional).

This was all very rambly. I have many feelings on the topic apparently.

[Deleted]

I'm unable to comment on this topic without getting nasty. Suffice it to say I wish more people viewed themselves as caretakers. My house was built out of Muir Woods for goodness' sake. Irreplaceable ancient trees. I think that deserves some respect, but the former owners apparently didn't. I curse them and their whiny "but I don't liiiiike it" attitude. Ok, that's a little nasty.

[munkii]

Since I posed the question, I should respond.

I love houses. Love. Interiors. Exteriors. All types. Even if it's NMS, I will respect a house and it's aesthetic. To me, that means restoring what can be restored AND honoring the house when things have to be ripped out.

Now, I am not saying everything should remain the same. There are so many resources available that even if one has to renovate, the renovation can be done with contemporary products in an era/type-respectful manner. Personally, I would rip out shag carpets but would make an effort to replace it with something period appropriate.

The Cambridge project broke my heart. I love what they did, but it all belonged in a different house. They could have updated the house but still honored the age of the home. To each his own, right?

[wawa]

I could have just saved my breath and posted this: When it comes to this topic - I love SBP and Juno. Every time I think I'm overstating the issue, they chime in and get me all fired up.

[SusanBAnthony]

I can go both ways, if the original is already destroyed, whatever, don't stay true to the period. Too late. But if possible, I would prefer to keep the original (or appropriate reproductions). However, those often come with a very high price tag. Even something simple like wood floor, which are easily available and not a specialty thing- most people just can't afford it. So do you want only people who can afford to spend twice as much on every house project to buy old houses?

In our town, we chose to buy in a new subdivision right outside of town. In the town, housing stock is limited due to geography (a college n the north end, a river and train tracks and highway on the south end, and the west side is protected land, and the town expanded east until it hit the neighboring town, so there is no more room for houses in town). Part of the decision is that for the same house price, we got way less space, and way more pricey projects. 

So, the town is full of really old, huge amazing houses. Many are from the mid 1800's. They are gorgeous, and largely intact because the town was thriving, located on a canal. Then railroads were built and didn't come thorough the town, so the town kind of died- there wasn't money to be messing with your house. Then about 20 years ago, it became a desirable small town to commute in to the city, and most of the old houses were restored. I haven't been in tons, mostly just the ones that were for sale. It was a mix- some were true to the style. Many many many were odd, bc modern conveniences were added later, and it just didn't work. Like a hallway to a bathroom that was about 1.5 feet wide, bc they had to fit it past a chimney. Or kitchens with no wall space to put cabinets in- just room for a sink and a range. What a you supposed to do? The house needed a bathroom. An outhouse was not a good option! And you have to figure out a place to put some kitchen counters, you know?

So all that said, I still wish everyone could keep old houses perfectly true to style. I just think it isn't realistic.

[munkii]

Feb 19, 2013 14:17:05 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

I can go both ways, if the original is already destroyed, whatever, don't stay true to the period. Too late. But if possible, I would prefer to keep the original (or appropriate reproductions). However, those often come with a very high price tag. Even something simple like wood floor, which are easily available and not a specialty thing- most people just can't afford it. So do you want only people who can afford to spend twice as much on every house project to buy old houses? 

No one said this.

WRT to my opinion on this topic, I am specifically thinking of people who spend a lot of money on updating an old house into something that diminishes the integrity of the original home. Here's an example: talktotucker.com/property/property.asp?noheader=&PRM_MLSNumber=21164679&PRM_MlsName=MIBOR.

Outside:


Inside:

[wawa]

Feb 19, 2013 14:35:25 GMT -5 munkii said:

Feb 19, 2013 14:17:05 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

I can go both ways, if the original is already destroyed, whatever, don't stay true to the period. Too late. But if possible, I would prefer to keep the original (or appropriate reproductions). However, those often come with a very high price tag. Even something simple like wood floor, which are easily available and not a specialty thing- most people just can't afford it. So do you want only people who can afford to spend twice as much on every house project to buy old houses? 

No one said this.

WRT to my opinion on this topic, I am specifically thinking of people who spend a lot of money on updating an old house into something that diminishes the integrity of the original home. Here's an example: talktotucker.com/property/property.asp?noheader=&PRM_MLSNumber=21164679&PRM_MlsName=MIBOR.

Outside:


Inside:

EXACTLY.  These pictures make me weep.

As an example - Mrs.J installing what she can afford over her trashed original hardwoods is just....it is what it is.  It's not ideal, but even the most meticulous restorer is going to occasionally have to do things that are less than ideal because they can't find what they need or they can't afford it.  It's not like she came into her house and said, "oh fuck this old looking shit.  I'm putting in ipe!"  That's the kind of thing that just makes me dramatically throw my hands to the sky and ask the renovating gods why they would allow such a travesty.

[SusanBAnthony]

I know no one said that, but that is the reality. The old original stuff wears out eventually, and you can either replace with period appropriate stuff and spent more, or you can put in laminate or wall to wall carpeting. You can either find someone to fix your original windows and pay more (yes I know that is not always the case, Juno!) or you can slap in some double hinge from HD. Many people cannot afford option 1.

[wawa]

I think the pictures SBP posted earlier are also good examples of sad-making renovations (not that they were before and afters, but imagine they are) that were by no means cheap.

I also think it's short-sighted to think that the only way to stay in budget on a reno is to trash any existing character. Salvage yards are wonderful, and elbow grease makes up for a LOT of budget if you're trying to work with what you've already got in a house.

This is not some sort of class-warfare thing. You can stay true to the character of a house without spending a ridiculous amount of money (though it'll take legwork and research and patience), and you can EASILY drop a load of cash on destroying the historic integrity of a home.

[SusanBAnthony]

So basically I a,t asking about general upkeep and replacing worn out stuff, and you are talking about major renovations. In the case of major renovations, I agree with you. But even for a major reno I imagine the three choices are keep it true to style ($$$) do a fancy reno ($$$) or do a "whatever is cheapest at HD" reno.

[sweetpea508]

I'm with SBP, Juno, and Wawa on this one. My house turns 100 this year. I'm lucky that there hasn't been too much ripped out. On the negative, the beautiful wood trim was painted over, poorly. And on the positive, the porches were turned into a sunroom on our first level and a master bath on our second. I may want to "modernize" it in that I want to move our laundry from the basement into my master bath. I don't mind changes that make it more liveable in a sense. But we've had plenty of developers come in my neighborhood and rip out every damn historical thing in the houses. One literally looks like an office building. You just have to find the right people for the house.

[wawa]

Feb 19, 2013 14:46:04 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

So basically I a,t asking about general upkeep and replacing worn out stuff, and you are talking about major renovations. In the case of major renovations, I agree with you. But even for a major reno I imagine the three choices are keep it true to style ($$$) do a fancy reno ($$$) or do a "whatever is cheapest at HD" reno.

But what "wears out" that is integral to the character of a historic home?  Electrical and plumbing are all behind the scenes (though getting to them has lots of impact on stuff like original plaster work and that is $$$), Appliances fit into the "modern shit we have now that you just make work as well as you can in your historic home" category...

I guess trim, doors, light fixtures and plumbing fixtures are the big things I could see being an issue since historic reproductions in that category are ridiculously expensive - but 1 - most of those are easy to trade in and out if you do have more money later (or with moldings you do the basic now, and add to it later), and 2 - there are chances for salvage in all of those categories.  

That leaves...flooring?  I don't buy that restoring is automatically $$$.  Since in my experience that's not true at all.

[Deleted]

Ack, nonononono. Just when I was starting to feel all warm an fuzzy. Leave old windows out of this. RIPPING OUT OLD WOOD WINDOWS IS NOT SMART. They were built to be repaired for centuries.

[Deleted]

Feb 19, 2013 15:34:33 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Feb 19, 2013 15:21:55 GMT -5 @juno said:

Ack, nonononono. Just when I was starting to feel all warm an fuzzy. Leave old windows out of this. RIPPING OUT OLD WOOD WINDOWS IS NOT SMART. They were built to be repaired for centuries.

Yeah, but in both of the old homes I've lived in, they were kept up so poorly, they had to be replaced.  Painted shut, dry rot, broken panes, frayed pull cords.  And I think people are also going to come down on different sides with respect to the environmental impact of old windows.  Ripping them out and replacing creates waste and kills trees.  However newer windows are much more energy efficient which can reduce heating and cooling costs.  Aesthetically, there are options other than vinyl with fake divided lights.  Though I'm sure they're expensive. But I feel like even mainstream window companies are making more of an effort to have really nice products that can be installed in old homes and look pretty original.

Almost nothing you listed is something I haven't fixed.  Painted shut?  Putty knife and a hammer, free.  Dry rot (haven't had this)? Drill and fill.  Broken panes?  Are you kidding, they sell glass at the hardware store, $20 for a big sheet.  Frayed pull cords.  Same, I've bought tons of it at the hardware store, ~$20 I think. A permanent solution is sash chain. 

The National lab ran a study in a Vermont winter and concluded that an old window (ETA: properly rehabbed and weather stripped) with a storm is just about as efficient as anything you can buy now.  The payback on a new window can be centuries, if it lasts that long, which a modern window won't. 

I'm off track now, but IMO, replacement windows are one of the biggest sins you can commit against an old house.

[wawa]

Feb 19, 2013 15:42:07 GMT -5 @juno said:

Feb 19, 2013 15:34:33 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Yeah, but in both of the old homes I've lived in, they were kept up so poorly, they had to be replaced.  Painted shut, dry rot, broken panes, frayed pull cords.  And I think people are also going to come down on different sides with respect to the environmental impact of old windows.  Ripping them out and replacing creates waste and kills trees.  However newer windows are much more energy efficient which can reduce heating and cooling costs.  Aesthetically, there are options other than vinyl with fake divided lights.  Though I'm sure they're expensive. But I feel like even mainstream window companies are making more of an effort to have really nice products that can be installed in old homes and look pretty original.

Almost nothing you listed is something I haven't fixed.  Painted shut?  Putty knife and a hammer, free.  Dry rot (haven't had this)? Drill and fill.  Broken panes?  Are you kidding, they sell glass at the hardware store, $20 for a big sheet.  Frayed pull cords.  Same, I've bought tons of it at the hardware store, ~$20 I think. A permanent solution is sash chain. 

The National lab ran a study in a Vermont winter and concluded that an old window (ETA: properly rehabbed and weather stripped) with a storm is just about as efficient as anything you can buy now.  The payback on a new window can be centuries, if it lasts that long, which a modern window won't. 

I'm off track now, but IMO, replacement windows are one of the biggest sins you can commit against an old house.

Preach it sister!!  *sways back and forth*



But no really, reading SBP's post all I could think is "I think Juno has fixed all of those things on her windows..."  You've made a convert out of me.  If I ever own a home with original wood windows Imma fight MH to the death to rehab them instead of replacing.

[wawa]

Feb 19, 2013 15:55:48 GMT -5 FormerlyRR said:

CG lives in a 1930s home that still has most of the original windows. I've been begging him to rehab rather than replace. I think I'm making some headway. ::fingers crossed::

Is it you that had the friend who was gutting and getting rid of an original clawfoot tub?  Same person?

[hbomdiggity]

Well, my contract with the city's historical preservation board says I have to, at least exterior wise.

But we've also tried to maintain details inside as well for our 1922 craftsman. We are redoing a bath that had circa 2000 Home Depot travertine tile. We put in subway tile, which is certainly more period appropriate and we also prefer the look. We are also restoring more of the wood trim that had been painted over.

[bunnymendelbaum]

I have DD1 on my lap right now and WAY too much work to do, so I haven't read all the responses and have to make mine short and a little more radical than my actual beliefs.

I think there is too much house worship that goes on. Who is to say what is worth keeping and what is not? Wood windows are worth saving, but you can rip out a perfectly functional pink toilet?

People have this idea that EVERYTHING built before was built SO WELL and had this terrific level of craftsmanship. That's total bullshit and my house is a good example. Door hinges detailed so the screws don't screw into anything? Check. Windows BUILT sagging (not sagged over time)? Check. Poor flashing details? Check. Wasted space in the floorplan? Check. Improper drainage? Check.

It isn't 1922. Life changes. The world changes. And IMO, so should a house.

[wawa]

Feb 19, 2013 16:06:32 GMT -5 bunnymendelbaum said:

I have DD1 on my lap right now and WAY too much work to do, so I haven't read all the responses and have to make mine short and a little more radical than my actual beliefs.

I think there is too much house worship that goes on. Who is to say what is worth keeping and what is not? Wood windows are worth saving, but you can rip out a perfectly functional pink toilet?

People have this idea that EVERYTHING built before was built SO WELL and had this terrific level of craftsmanship. That's total bullshit and my house is a good example. Door hinges detailed so the screws don't screw into anything? Check. Windows BUILT sagging (not sagged over time)? Check. Poor flashing details? Check. Wasted space in the floorplan? Check. Improper drainage? Check.

It isn't 1922. Life changes. The world changes. And IMO, so should a house.

Immabout to sound like a total flip-flopper here, but this is part of what I was talking about with the avocado shag and my total lack of qualms about ripping our the original trim from my home.

Shitty quality is shitty quality whether it's from 1990 or 1890.  That stuff can just go.  

But IF we're talking about original high quality details who's only sin is not being "up to date" then I think that's a different story.  

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about pink toilets.  If I ever saw a bathroom where they were in pristine condition instead of having a mismatched white seat and permanent stains I might be all for keeping them.

In other words, I apparently think it's possible to agree with both Juno and bunny here, though I fully admit that might just be because I'm a fence sitter and I like both bunny and juno.  

[wawa]

Feb 19, 2013 16:29:50 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Feb 19, 2013 16:16:47 GMT -5 wawa said:

Immabout to sound like a total flip-flopper here, but this is part of what I was talking about with the avocado shag and my total lack of qualms about ripping our the original trim from my home.

Shitty quality is shitty quality whether it's from 1990 or 1890.  That stuff can just go.  

But IF we're talking about original high quality details who's only sin is not being "up to date" then I think that's a different story.  

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about pink toilets.  If I ever saw a bathroom where they were in pristine condition instead of having a mismatched white seat and permanent stains I might be all for keeping them.

In other words, I apparently think it's possible to agree with both Juno and bunny here, though I fully admit that might just be because I'm a fence sitter and I like both bunny and juno.  

I think we're talking about changing the integrity of the house.  Like is it "okay" to take a Victorian and turn it into a 2013 house by ripping out the "overly detailed" trim because it's so "busy" and taking out walls to make it open concept, taking out stained glass because it looks "dated."  It's the whole lipstick on a pig thing.  Or more sliding glass doors on a 19th century conservatory.  I'll give people pretty broad latitude.  I'm even willing to sit back and kind of go along with the whole white painted wood work.  But it's when people start ripping stuff out that is clearly integral to the aesthetic of the home (which a pink toilet probably isn't going to be), then I get irritated.  I'm probably going to be more conservative on that than others, meaning, I'd try harder to work with what's original.  But I'm not really going to get hacked off until people start ripping out claw foot tubs and newel posts.

I dunno...i think colored bathroom fixtures are pretty integral to the aesthetic of a 1950's home.  It's just that most of the stuff integral to that aesthetic hasn't held up over time.  I don't mean taste-wise...I mean literally, they've fallen apart.  Shiny shiny formica and "state of the art" wall-to-wall just don't hold up over time.  9" solid wood baseboards on the other hand...those fuckers HOLD UP.  So the value judgement on those things is going to be skewed.

But yeah, I agree with you.  A home that doesn't really HAVE "historic integrity" in the first place - either because it was a POS when it was built x years ago, or because it's been completely redone in the intervening period - it a totally different proposition than a home that DOES have those historic features intact.