Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are talking about homes in the US, Canada and other non third world countries that are livable, sanitary and heated.
This post is crazy. ^^^
You missed the point. It was tongue in cheek reference to which point in history does being a simple house stop for people.
Just because a house is old doesn't mean it's GOOD. Mud huts are proof of that. People don't want to go all the way back to that era, but they want to stop at a point THEY think is appropriate. Basically, just post indoor plumbing. I disagree. SOME classic houses should be left alone. But they don't all have to be retained in old form, as that old form is useless to a lot of people. And a lot of old homes were their era's cheap crap, too. No need to save them.
Not all progress is good, but it's not all bad, either. Railing against remodeled homes in general, as this thread is doing, seems to forget that, and thinks that all old homes, (excuse me all post indoor plumbing old homes) should be saved in their original state. So my post said, "Well then, why not return to thached roof mud huts?" And the answer is, because not all old is good.
Not all old homes are good, but all good homes are old.
No one is suggesting that we choose a favorite point in history, and that everything after that is garbage. The question being asked--again--is: if you don't want/like the original features of an old house, why buy an intact old house and rip those original features out? If it's about location, why not just buy a nearby house that has already been remuddled?
If it's about location, why not just buy a nearby house that has already been remuddled?
Is this really a question?
Maybe there isn't one nearby that hasn't been remodeled
Cost
The remodel was done poorly
It's a common real estate mantra that the house can be changed but the location can't.
Maybe the person doesn't give a darn about old houses.
Not all old homes are good, but all good homes are old.
No one is suggesting that we choose a favorite point in history, and that everything after that is garbage. The question being asked--again--is: if you don't want/like the original features of an old house, why buy an intact old house and rip those original features out? If it's about location, why not just buy a nearby house that has already been remuddled?
Because the old house may have a LOT of features that you still want, but not all of them. Or it's at the right price point AND location, while having a lot of the features/layout you want. Why leave it old it just beceuse it's old?? It's just a thing.
You seem to think that it's either/or, all or nothing. That if a house is being remodeled (or added to) that it's because the owner likes NOTHING in the house and wants to change EVERYTHING. Not necessarily the case. What if they like the bedrooms, bathroom locations, living room and dining room, but the kitchen is poorly laid out and the bathrooms are falling apart? Why not remodel the kitchen tomake it more useable to modern living and make the bathrooms nicer?
For example, I like my 1932 house for the most part. I like the layout of the kitchen and dining/living rooms, but the previously enclosed back porch was a perfect place to put a downstairs half bath. The kitchem materials sucked, and needed to be replaced. The garage was a later addition already and it was too small. THe master bedroom upstaris was too small, especially with the small built-in master bath. So we built a larger 2 1/2 car garage with an upstaris master suite and left the main house upstairs alone other than paint color and the materials in the upstairs full bath.
I also took off the crappy '50s asbestos shingles that were under the crappy '70s vinyl that was falling apart and returned the front and rear porch areas to their original cedar shingles. Some pics in my album under my username.
So now I have a house I like, that retains a lot of its original layout and charm, with updates that make me happy, in a location I love at a price I was willing to pay. THAT"S why this old house got remodeled.
Because the old house may have a LOT of features that you still want, but not all of them. Or it's at the right price point AND location, while having a lot of the features/layout you want. Why leave it old it just beceuse it's old?? It's just a thing.
You seem to think that it's either/or, all or nothing. That if a house is being remodeled (or added to) that it's because the owner likes NOTHING in the house and wants to change EVERYTHING. Not necessarily the case. What if they like the bedrooms, bathroom locations, living room and dining room, but the kitchen is poorly laid out and the bathrooms are falling apart? Why not remodel the kitchen tomake it more useable to modern living and make the bathrooms nicer?
For example, I like my 1932 house for the most part. I like the layout of the kitchen and dining/living rooms, but the previously enclosed back porch was a perfect place to put a downstairs half bath. The kitchem materials sucked, and needed to be replaced. The garage was a later addition already and it was too small. THe master bedroom upstaris was too small, especially with the small built-in master bath. So we built a larger 2 1/2 car garage with an upstaris master suite and left the main house upstairs alone other than paint color and the materials in the upstairs full bath.
I also took off the crappy '50s asbestos shingles that were under the crappy '70s vinyl that was falling apart and returned the front and rear porch areas to their original cedar shingles. Some pics in my album under my username.
So now I have a house I like, that retains a lot of its original layout and charm, with updates that make me happy, in a location I love at a price I was willing to pay. THAT"S why this old house got remodeled.
Re: the sentence in bold, I'm not the one posting pictures of mud huts with thatch roofs.
FWIW, it doesn't sound to me like you did anything objectionable to your old house. In my project house, the kitchen is over 60 years old, but is also falling apart, and was never special to begin with. So, I'll be replacing it sometime in the future. But, in my current house, a past owner removed the french doors between the living room and dining room. They also removed a built-in in the dining room, and covered that wall with fake wood paneling. In my neighbor's house, they removed the top piece of the woodwork over every door and window to make it look more "modern."
To me, this thread is about those latter kinds of changes. Sure, some of it is a matter of taste, but to me, there should also be some respect for what has already lasted for decades or even centuries, instead of ripping it out just because it's not trendy.
Not all old homes are good, but all good homes are old.
No one is suggesting that we choose a favorite point in history, and that everything after that is garbage. The question being asked--again--is: if you don't want/like the original features of an old house, why buy an intact old house and rip those original features out? If it's about location, why not just buy a nearby house that has already been remuddled?
I don't know why anyone cares so much, but maybe the housing stock for sale in a town is small, and one has to take what one can get. I know of a small city where there is practically no home built after 1980. The choices one would have to make if one moved there would be old, older or oldest.
And, there are plenty of older homes without any unique features, or at least any most of us would want.
The problem with this question is the underlying assumption that everything old is better than anything new. This is not a valid assumption, IMO.
I don't know why anyone cares so much, but maybe the housing stock for sale in a town is small, and one has to take what one can get. I know of a small city where there is practically no home built after 1980. The choices one would have to make if one moved there would be old, older or oldest.
And, there are plenty of older homes without any unique features, or at least any most of us would want.
The problem with this question is the underlying assumption that everything old is better than anything new. This is not a valid assumption, IMO.
I care a lot.
There is a diminishing stock of pre-WWII homes and mid century homes. We are a young country and 75 year old home are old here. As a home historian, I care a lot.
Actually, we all should.
We should all care about history.
If you want to live in a new home, be my guest! Enjoy the vinyl siding and the palladian window with the plastic trim! Soak in your whirl pool tub to your hearts content! press the remote and turn your fire place on then off! Wow! That's neat!
I completely agree. I can't stand to see or hear about tearing down walls including built-ins, beautiful trim, arch ways
etc.. in order to create that open concept, free flowing modern feel plus the HGTV kitchen and baths that the
Property Brothers produce over and over and over.....the trend is boring. Now we have this new concept of
minimalism which by the way was new back in the early 70's and was expensive to do.
I wonder how much of the original pre and post war homes haven't been stripped of all their original features
that would be very costly to replace today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. SOME classic houses should be left alone. But they don't all have to be retained in old form, as that old form is useless to a lot of people. And a lot of old homes were their era's cheap crap, too. No need to save them. 
