Post by bunnymendelbaum on Feb 19, 2013 16:49:13 GMT -5
But here is the thing, you'll get upset about ripping out a clawfoot, but not a pink toilet.
I have a clawfoot. I like the look, but the thing is not functional for how we live our lives today. It has stains I can't get out (just like a pink toilet would). It collects a shit ton of gross dust under it, and requires FOUR shower curtain liners so my daughter won't splash water all out the back and I can actually take a shower in it.
In 50 years people will probably think everyone now is crazy painting their honey oak cabinets, but oh well.
If you want to live in a museum, do it, but don't get mad because not everyone else wants to.
Again, I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate here because I do believe in historic preservation in general.
But here is the thing, you'll get upset about ripping out a clawfoot, but not a pink toilet.
I have a clawfoot. I like the look, but the thing is not functional for how we live our lives today. It has stains I can't get out (just like a pink toilet would). It collects a shit ton of gross dust under it, and requires FOUR shower curtain liners so my daughter won't splash water all out the back and I can actually take a shower in it.
In 50 years people will probably think everyone now is crazy painting their honey oak cabinets, but oh well.
If you want to live in a museum, do it, but don't get mad because not everyone else wants to.
Again, I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate here because I do believe in historic preservation in general.
You know...I've always wondered about clawfoot tubs. I love how they look. LOVE. But they never seemed terribly functional. None of the pretty modern standalone tubs do either. And they take up a lot of space.
But I'd be hardpressed to pull one out of a house. I really am an awful flipflopper.
Post by bunnymendelbaum on Feb 19, 2013 16:54:50 GMT -5
I guess at least with a modern tub people have a shower too. We ONLY have a clawfoot original to the house, so if we wanted to add a shower, we'd have to really change some crap around and mess with the house.
A question for you - what defines integrity of an old house and what is integral to an old house? These terms are getting thrown around a lot in this post, which really makes me think (and I like it!). What time period in a house's life is appropriate to remodel or renovate to? As an example, in an 1880's house, is the original 1880's wood flooring you found a remenant of in the crawl space or the 1920's parquet floor that's intact but needs some repairs more integral? The previous owners have lived with the 1920's flooring for 90 years, yet that flooring replaced something in a 40 yo house.
The previous example of the 1.5 foot hallway to a bathroom and a kitchen without wall space. Do you keep those things because they are integral to the house as you see it? They are historic in theory, but it doesn't function for the way you use the house, just like an outhouse no longer functioned for the family when they installed the bathroom in the most appropriate spot at the time.
There is also a lot of historic housing stock in most cities that is now in demand that has included a big chunk of its life as a rundown home in a neighborhood where people could barely afford to pay their bills, much less do "historically appropriate" repairs and renovations. Those aren't "quality" repairs or renovations although they may be "historic". I feel that the horrible remodels we're all invisioning in our head (and in a few of the posts) are definitely not appropriate, but when the whole house is worn out, beat down and in need of a major overhaul for whatever reason (deferred maintenance, neglect, change of use from SF to a boarding house and back, etc.) people have often remodeled with what was available (80's kitchen in a 1920's house, that may have been all that was available to them to make the space functional, they may not have had access or knowledge of salvage yards that would have had enough tile to renovate the kitchen in a "period"). Many owners of historic homes also may not be as wise as all of us here on the interwebz, they just wanted to live in a cool house in a cool neighborhood close to work.
I do think it's an "I know it when I see it" thing. Which is completely subjective and why the topic is so hard. My soft spot is for all old-growth wood, probabaly because I grew up around furniture makers. I cannot forgive taking out (or painting) beautiful natural materials that cannot be replaced without major expense or at any cost. Wood windows are part of that. Before 1940, they were using wood materials that we cannot get today and can be maintained forever, basically, (as an atheist it feels weird to throw in "as God intended"), if one isn't too lazy to do it. Sash lugs, wavy glass, infinite repairability, the beautiful ease of opening a perfectly balanced sash. Sigh. And it bothers me that the window replacment industry has a megaphone and is so shady and loose with the facts. My obesession causes me embarassing moments of word vomit. I recognize that people have other priorities and might not like some of the not-quite-right things we've done to save money (drywall in the bedroom rather than plaster), so I probably shouldn't cast stones.
Pink toilet? Came after the eras that interest me; I'll leave the MCMers to make their own arguments, though I can appreciate the look in someone else's house. I certainly wouldn't buy a MCM house and rip out original stuff; I'll stick houses that fit my interests.
And I'm not surprised that an architect isn't all that interested in preservation Not a slam at all, just something I found while searching for one. Maybe it's the instinct to make something of your own rather than slaving to preservation? That would make sense. I know there's no way I could come up with something as pretty (to me) as a well-preserved A&C bungalow, so saving someone else's beauty is the way I choose to go.
A question for you - what defines integrity of an old house and what is integral to an old house? These terms are getting thrown around a lot in this post, which really makes me think (and I like it!). What time period in a house's life is appropriate to remodel or renovate to? As an example, in an 1880's house, is the original 1880's wood flooring you found a remenant of in the crawl space or the 1920's parquet floor that's intact but needs some repairs more integral? The previous owners have lived with the 1920's flooring for 90 years, yet that flooring replaced something in a 40 yo house.
The previous example of the 1.5 foot hallway to a bathroom and a kitchen without wall space. Do you keep those things because they are integral to the house as you see it? They are historic in theory, but it doesn't function for the way you use the house, just like an outhouse no longer functioned for the family when they installed the bathroom in the most appropriate spot at the time.
There is also a lot of historic housing stock in most cities that is now in demand that has included a big chunk of its life as a rundown home in a neighborhood where people could barely afford to pay their bills, much less do "historically appropriate" repairs and renovations. Those aren't "quality" repairs or renovations although they may be "historic". I feel that the horrible remodels we're all invisioning in our head (and in a few of the posts) are definitely not appropriate, but when the whole house is worn out, beat down and in need of a major overhaul for whatever reason (deferred maintenance, neglect, change of use from SF to a boarding house and back, etc.) people have often remodeled with what was available (80's kitchen in a 1920's house, that may have been all that was available to them to make the space functional, they may not have had access or knowledge of salvage yards that would have had enough tile to renovate the kitchen in a "period"). Many owners of historic homes also may not be as wise as all of us here on the interwebz, they just wanted to live in a cool house in a cool neighborhood close to work.
I'll have to think about this tonight.
I have to say...this has been a fun topic. Busiest day I've had on H&G in a while.
I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned the time and the cost. I live in a historical district in a house that is not on the historic registry. (Hell, Paul Revere rode down my street in his historic ride from Old North Church to Lexington and Concord). When we first moved in and started to renovate, the historical society wanted to strong arm us into restoring house to period like the other houses in the neighborhood.
Restoring a house to period requires using original products and materials from that period. This means wooden windows, wooden shingles, etc. Wood anything in a damp New England climates does not last as long as siding and man made materials. Wooden require biennial repainting (restraining) to maintain their condition. Sometimes getting the wood means special ordering the replacement parts. The maintenance is a time suck as well as costly. Not everyone wants to make that kind of investment.
I am very torn on this subject. Prior to owning my house I would have come down pretty firmly on the side of preservation. We initially started out trying to lightly renovate and now realize we should have been much more aggressive with gutting things. Now I even question our decision to leave the cute built in cabinets in the dining room. They're nice, but they are also the one feature causing the dining room to be huge and the kitchen tiny. If we had ripped them out, we could have moved the kitchen wall over and possibly even plopped in a sliding glass door to a deck. But it wouldn't be very 1930s.
It's hard to know what are the right choices. I try to be introspective and question whether its a shortcoming of the house that I don't have counter space to cook or a place to hang all my clothes...or is it something I should be working on myself like having less clutter out in the kitchen and purge some clothes? How much should I conform to my house and how much should it conform to me? I think there's a balance to try to strike there.
I can tell you one thing though, the back staircase's days are numbered!
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.
You know, I think that's true. And it's also one of the reasons I don't want to own a 1950s home. I don't like the wood paneling, I don't like the bathroom fixtures, I don't like the low ceilings, I don't like the color of brick and stone used... I guess I really like houses that were built before about 1940 and so for that reason I would hope that people who didn't like dense wood work, "busy looking" trim, defined and relatively small living spaces, hard wood, porcelain tile etc... would choose a different house and not take a craftsman or a Victorian or whatever and "modernize" it.
I am wondering if the colored fixtures were regional or just a matter of taste. Same with the tile walls. My mother's 1950s house doesn't have tile walls, but does have a pink/burgundy tile thing in the tub surround and the counters and backsplash in the main bathroom, and only the shower is turquoise tiles in the master bath. NBoth bathrooms have always had white fixtures. Or maybe it was the builder, because all of the semi custom homes in our neighborhood and the one behind us are similar in that regard, even if they are different styles.
I think preservation is ideal if it is something worthy of it, but honestly, I think that it should be about updating to make a home safe and functional, while respecting the original architecture and not pretending that it was never there. It is true that not all homes were well built, or have been well maintained or respected, and imo, those homes can go either way, depending on what someone wants to put into it. I don't really have issue with that. It makes me sad sometimes, but not a huge deal to me.
Honestly, I would rather see a complete remodel that modernizes both the interior and exterior of a house so that there is cohesion, rather than preserve the exterior and screw up the interior. Houses that have been remodeled beyond recognition on the interior but preserved the exterior should not have historical designation imo.
And I'm not surprised that an architect isn't all that interested in preservation Not a slam at all, just something I found while searching for one. Maybe it's the instinct to make something of your own rather than slaving to preservation? That would make sense. I know there's no way I could come up with something as pretty (to me) as a well-preserved A&C bungalow, so saving someone else's beauty is the way I choose to go.
I think you are right (although I know lots of firms that recreate old styles), but fpr me it is less about making something of my own and more about form AND function. That principle is drilled into our heads in school. Something that doesn't function inherently loses some of its beauty for me. IMO, a lot of historic homes don't function for how we live.
Or delving deeper, a lot of historic features/details served a practical purpose that is either not applicable today, or can be done better/simpler with a modern invention or detail. I'm thinking here of things like modern metal reveal trim instead of wood trim on walls. Larger open kitchens instead of bulter's pantries and closed off kitchens for staff to work in, etc.
When DH and I were getting married a couple small Frank Lloyd Wright properties were available. I felt those required a more custodial ownership than I was willing to take on. It was like living with a painting- meant to be preserved, not updated.
I must admit I've pondered why the FLW's were more worthy of preservation than a MCM home in Levittown that changed how we lived as a society.