The Pittsburgh I love is despised (York, Taylor: insurance, loan, house)

[Katiana]

My experience both in Pittsburgh and in Denver is that many of these houses have had nothing done since they were built. I've been a visitng nurse and I've been in a lot of houses. Some have been horribly remodeled, too. I was talking to some people from W. PA yesterday, and we were talking about how inexpensive housing is, comparatively. I don't know if you'd get all your money back on resale if you did a lot of remodeling, but you'd have the house to live in and enjoy.

[MaryS80]

Pittsburgh is doing a better job of preserving its past than most cities. I hate the tear downs myself, but sometimes for safety reasons it is necessary. Older homes and buildings out number new ones in Pittsburgh by far. Oddly enough I've seen builders putting up new homes that mimic the style of older ones.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by Katiana

My experience both in Pittsburgh and in Denver is that many of these houses have had nothing done since they were built. I've been a visitng nurse and I've been in a lot of houses. Some have been horribly remodeled, too. I was talking to some people from W. PA yesterday, and we were talking about how inexpensive housing is, comparatively. I don't know if you'd get all your money back on resale if you did a lot of remodeling, but you'd have the house to live in and enjoy.

Katiana, for the purposes of this thread discussion it's important to differentiate between cosmetic remodeling, and functional upgrades to electrical, plumbing, and heating systems.

I understand the importance of updating these functional systems, and of also doing necessary repairs for cosmetic reasons. What disturbs me are things like:

ripping out a bathroom's original fixtures, tub, and subway tile and then replacing it with a modern bath/tub insert and 12 inch tile;

painting over the original woodwork, because that dark veneer is just too "gloomy and old-fashioned";

ripping out the original kitchen cabinets and replacing them with pre-fabbed stock cabinets from your local home store because you want a "modern" kitchen;

cutting a hole in the wall between your kitchen and your traditional dining room and adding bar stools and a counter;

replacing the original double-hung windows with vinyl sliders.

It's these things that people spend tens of thousands of dollars on, which actually impair the resale value of their homes. Perhaps, in Pittsburgh, the haphazard glomming of "new and modern" on to an old house is still a value an enhancer, but not where I live.

Remember there was a time when all of those Victorians in San Francisco, and Brownstones in New York City were considered eyesores and were being left to decay and fall into ruin. Now, they are a vital part of each cities appeal. And the buildings that command the highest prices are the ones that are most intact from a preservation point of view. People who want the conveniences and feel of a modern tract home, shouldn't try to convert an older home into something modern. It usually will fail at being either modern or traditional, and will appeal to nobody.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

Katiana, for the purposes of this thread discussion it's important to differentiate between cosmetic remodeling, and functional upgrades to electrical, plumbing, and heating systems.

I understand the importance of updating these functional systems, and of also doing necessary repairs for cosmetic reasons. What disturbs me are things like:

ripping out a bathroom's original fixtures, tub, and subway tile and then replacing it with a modern bath/tub insert and 12 inch tile;

painting over the original woodwork, because that dark veneer is just too "gloomy and old-fashioned";

ripping out the original kitchen cabinets and replacing them with pre-fabbed stock cabinets from your local home store because you want a "modern" kitchen;

cutting a hole in the wall between your kitchen and your traditional dining room and adding bar stools and a counter;

replacing the original double-hung windows with vinyl sliders.

It's these things that people spend tens of thousands of dollars on, which actually impair the resale value of their homes. Perhaps, in Pittsburgh, the haphazard glomming of "new and modern" on to an old house is still a value an enhancer, but not where I live.

Remember there was a time when all of those Victorians in San Francisco, and Brownstones in New York City were considered eyesores and were being left to decay and fall into ruin. Now, they are a vital part of each cities appeal. And the buildings that command the highest prices are the ones that are most intact from a preservation point of view. People who want the conveniences and feel of a modern tract home, shouldn't try to convert an older home into something modern. It usually will fail at being either modern or traditional, and will appeal to nobody.

Yes, I agree with your premise. However, a lot of these old kitchens were such old wrecks, something had to be done. I don't really remember the kitchen of my parents' home well; it was the first thing they remodeled. I do remember my mom saying that the previous owners had their refrigerator in a hallway outside the kitchen b/c when the home was built (1918), there were no refrigerators. Dad was an engineer and figured out a way to get the fridge in the kitchen, where it belongs. That may have necessitated tearing out some cabinets or something. Likewise, a lot of these older homes were built with NO counter space. So some had to be created. If you don't value a "modern" kitchen, it may be because you are not the one using the kitchen. As I said in my post, some of these homes have been horribly remodeled. I would vote, too, for a modern bathroom. Remember not every home had ceramic tile, some of them used cheaper materials. The old "double-hung" windows had the problems I mentioned: having to take off the screens and put on the storm windows in the fall, reversing the procedure in the spring, IF they even came equipped with storms and screens. In some cases, the windows may simply have needed to be replaced, and vinyl sliders is what the owner could afford.

Here is an interesting Wiki article about kitchens.

Kitchen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the U.S., the "Small Homes Council", since 1993 the "Building Research Council", of the School of Architecture of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was founded in 1944 with the goal to improve the state of the art in home building, originally with an emphasis on standardization for cost reduction. It was there that the notion of the kitchen work triangle was formalized: the three main functions in a kitchen are storage, preparation, and cooking (which Catharine Beecher had already recognized), and the places for these functions should be arranged in the kitchen in such a way that work at one place does not interfere with work at another place, the distance between these places is not unnecessarily large, and no obstacles are in the way.

"Modern" kitchens have only been around since 1944, really post WWII when lots of houses started being built again after the Depression.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

My experience both in Pittsburgh and in Denver is that many of these houses have had nothing done since they were built.

I can't speak for Denver, but in Pittsburgh it really depends on the neighborhood. These days, it is getting harder and harder to find a decent house that hasn't been renovated in Squirrel Hill. In Regent Square, where I live, there is more of a mix, although every year there are fewer unrenovated houses, particularly if you are specifically looking at the Foursquares in the core part of the neighborhood.

I don't know if you'd get all your money back on resale if you did a lot of remodeling, but you'd have the house to live in and enjoy.

Certainly you are unlikely to get your money back right away.

[BrianTH]

I agree with most of kettlepot's list, but I would note two exceptions. One is kitchen cabinets, because a lot of these homes didn't have installed kitchen cabinets when original: in many homes they used pieces of furniture in their kitchens for stuff we use cabinets for, and that furniture is usually long gone. The other is the window issue--depending on the situation, there really may be no way to get the original windows both functional and energy-efficient.

[alleghenyangel]

Some of those older homes have amazing kitchens. Many Victorians were updated in the 1930s-1950s and have all the retro cabinets and appliances, which can be restored very attractively. The house I am buying has a huge porcelain sink with 1930s tile backsplash, and gorgeous cabinets with glass doors built into the wall. It's really a great look, and not the least bit "modern." I don't cook, though, so I'm okay with my kitchen being merely eye candy.

The "renovations" I loathe generally involve those old row houses in Lawrenceville and Bloomfield. Although in their original form they are an attractive and fascinating part of Pittsburgh's heritage, most have been aluminum-sided within an inch of their life. Combine that with those horrid awnings, historically incorrect window sizes, and acres of "wood" paneling and shag carpet inside -- I really do not know how one would restore a house like that. It's so hard to find one that is in its original condition, I think mostly because people buy them and do cheap renovations, then rent them out (and run the houses into the ground).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Some of those older homes have amazing kitchens. Many Victorians were updated in the 1930s-1950s and have all the retro cabinets and appliances, which can be restored very attractively. The house I am buying has a huge porcelain sink with 1930s tile backsplash, and gorgeous cabinets with glass doors built into the wall. It's really a great look, and not the least bit "modern." I don't cook, though, so I'm okay with my kitchen being merely eye candy.

Yep, as I noted above, when originally built in the late-19th or early-20th Century, the kitchens usually had little in the way of installed cabinetry. But I share your love of the cabinetry that was typically installed in the subsequent period--we have it in a butler's pantry in our current house, although unfortunately it has all been replaced in our main kitchen. The good news is that you can style a modern kitchen to be consistent with that look, and it doesn't cost that much more unless you really want to hunt for period originals (which to me is a bit odd, since they weren't actually original to the houses in most cases).

The "renovations" I loathe generally involve those old row houses in Lawrenceville and Bloomfield. Although in their original form they are an attractive and fascinating part of Pittsburgh's heritage, most have been aluminum-sided within an inch of their life. Combine that with those horrid awnings, historically incorrect window sizes, and acres of "wood" paneling and shag carpet inside -- I really do not know how one would restore a house like that. It's so hard to find one that is in its original condition, I think mostly because people buy them and do cheap renovations, then rent them out (and run the houses into the ground).

The 1960s and 1970s were rough on these houses in this sense, and a lot of them basically got frozen in that era thanks to the steel bust (which is when a lot of the conversions from owner-occupied to rentals occurred). Unfortunately, I agree that there is often little in the way of original work that can be saved, although at least you can make the exterior look period-appropriate, even if the interior basically remains contemporary.

[Katiana]

Considering the wonderful products out now that weren't around in the 1930s-50s, I would go with making it "fit in" rather than restoration, especially in the kitchen. The granite countertops and their "man-made" couterparts, e.g. silestone and others, are great, and wear much better than the formica of the 50s, for sure. I don't know what they used in the 30s, I do know there wasn't much home building going on in the 30s and 40s, what with the depression and the war. Appliances are way more energy efficient that those of the older eras. Those old gas stoves with the continuously burning pilot lights sure helped to heat up a kitchen on a hot summer day, and waste a lot of gas year-round.

[BrianTH]

As I recall, the big trend in countertops in the 1930s was linoleum (often with a metallic/chrome edge), and then after WWII they went to laminate (Formica being the Xerox/Kleenex of laminate). I believe tile was also used throughout this period.

By the way, it is definitely true that many modern countertop materials are more durable, although that metal edging they used helped a lot (laminate being vulnerable to chipping along its edges). Of course, laminate is relatively inexpensive these days so you could easily afford to replace it once or even several times for the price of a more expensive countertop material, but not a lot of people think in those terms. An alternative that would be somewhat period appropriate would be a mix of tile and stainless steel--if you keep the tile away from where it is likely to get wet/spilled on a lot, it can actually hold up reasonably well.

For appliances, they are actually making a lot of retro-looking appliances these days, including ones with the funky colored enamels from the 1940s and 1950s. But if you go with something in stainless with simple curves, that could be close enough.