Why Stop With the Inside? (Pittsburgh, Butler: hardwood floor, rentals, home)

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

There's a reason why so much of Bloomfield looks like a third-world country, yet somehow due to the "2013 Great East End Housing Crisis" people are paying HEFTY amounts for these remuddled pieces of trash due to the lack of supply.

It doesn't look like a third-world country. lol

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Our Polish Hill rowhome (that we rent) is identical to yours, including the "rape tunnel", which, in our case, has a door midway down it that leads down into the basement AND sub-basement (if you want to get REALLY rape-y). It was built in the mid-1890s.

We're different from you, though, in that we DO care about what the exterior of our rowhome looks like. Imagine if EVERYONE shared the sentiments of you and fleetiebelle of "the inside is all that counts". There's a reason why so much of Bloomfield looks like a third-world country, yet somehow due to the "2013 Great East End Housing Crisis" people are paying HEFTY amounts for these remuddled pieces of trash due to the lack of supply.

It's not so much that people don't care about the outside appearance of their home, it's that they have to prioritize their budget. It's expensive to pull off siding, not knowing exactly what you'll find and how much it will cost to repair. Resizing windows is also not cheap, nor easy if you need to match brick or stone. These are old homes and people probably prefer to use their housing dollars on more important things like plumbing, insulation, roofing, and electrical. Most people probably place kitchens, bathrooms, and finished basements and laundry rooms above exterior appearances. Restoring an exterior is pretty expensive and low priority when you consider that it is almost entirely cosmetic.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

It doesn't look like a third-world country. lol

Naturally I exaggerated a bit, but I stand by my overall sentiment. Rowhouse after rowhouse after rowhouse in Bloomfield is adorned by mismatched horizontal front-facing windows (some of them even being GLASS BLOCK), insulbrick, vinyl siding, etc. to the point where the neighborhood COULD have looked elegant (if properly preserved throughout the generations) instead of looking so, well, low-class today.

Those rowhouses on Vinial Street are gorgeous. That's not really a "high-end" part of town, either. Bloomfield should look like that. Not like something Archie Bunker tossed up in 1968 and hoped would stick so he could get back to watching football on a Sunday.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Naturally I exaggerated a bit, but I stand by my overall sentiment. Rowhouse after rowhouse after rowhouse in Bloomfield is adorned by mismatched horizontal front-facing windows (some of them even being GLASS BLOCK), insulbrick, vinyl siding, etc. to the point where the neighborhood COULD have looked elegant (if properly preserved throughout the generations) instead of looking so, well, low-class today.

Those rowhouses on Vinial Street are gorgeous. That's not really a "high-end" part of town, either. Bloomfield should look like that. Not like something Archie Bunker tossed up in 1968 and hoped would stick so he could get back to watching football on a Sunday.

Even Shadyside, Highland Park, etc. have countless ugly houses. Granted, the beautiful ones help to balance it out.

[PghYinzer]

My grandparents remuddled many a houses in their day, albeit not in Pittsburgh, but in Western PA. I asked my father about this not long ago, why they woudld so such a thing, and it was a pretty simple answer.

In the 1950s and 60s no one looked at a house from 1915 as a historic structure, but rather as their old house. Growing up in these houses, they didnt have carpeting, large windows, and all the "upgrades" we do now. As these became more affordable to the masses, my grandparents were more than happy to cover thier hardwood floors with carpet, put in bigger windows, and drop the ceilings. Now 50+ years later these houses are historic, and some people have money to try to return them to what they once were. At the time however, people wanted to modernize them because they were drafty, outdated, and oftentimes a symbol of being working class. Imagine having the one frame house on your block in South Side with new siding, and fancy new wall to wall carpet. You were the talk of the block. The little old lady who couldn't afford to "upgrade" was considered poor not a forward thinking preservationist.

[Geeo]

It's true that it was a very different time in the 1950s and 60s when these rowhouse neighborhoods got the awnings and insulbrick. PghYinzer is right about the circumstances. People in those days were of more modest means and lived within their budgets. Saving to update their homes was a big deal. The houses were getting old and needed some work, but in those days there was no such thing as "maintaining the character" of the house or much historic preservation, especially in working class districts. If you replaced windows, you got the new styles. If you sided, you got aluminum or insulbrick. If you replaced the bathroom, you got rid of the ancient claw foot bathtub and got powder blue sink and toilet. If you had a shower installed, you were living high.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Geeo

It's true that it was a very different time in the 1950s and 60s when these rowhouse neighborhoods got the awnings and insulbrick. PghYinzer is right about the circumstances. People in those days were of more modest means and lived within their budgets. Saving to update their homes was a big deal. The houses were getting old and needed some work, but in those days there was no such thing as "maintaining the character" of the house or much historic preservation, especially in working class districts. If you replaced windows, you got the new styles. If you sided, you got aluminum or insulbrick. If you replaced the bathroom, you got rid of the ancient claw foot bathtub and got powder blue sink and toilet. If you had a shower installed, you were living high.

[SuburbanPioneer]

Finally, some sense of reality in this thread

[Aqua Teen Carl]

A lot of people seem to want the best of both worlds: beautiful architecture and class of "old" America while maintaining creature comforts of the "new" America. I rented an apartment that was built in the 20's in the city. It had beautiful hard wood floors, light fixtures, and a fireplace all in great condition. It also didn't have air conditioning, didn't have a shower (just a bath), and had radiator heating that kept the place freezing because the whole building was controlled by one 80 year old tenant who we all thought was dead. It also had knob and tubing wiring and seemingly any decent power draw (the vacuum or microwave) would trip the breaker.

Some people don't realize that to have the best of both worlds requires you to have a lot of money to not only remodel old properties but to maintain all of the old "charm" that breaks down over time. Many people (especially in Western PA) don't have that kind of money.

[new believer]

Part of the reason they replaced the original double hung windows was because they were putting in drop ceilings. That might be the one mid-century renovation that pretty much made the horizontal windows a necessity.

I totally understand why my parents and grand parents wanted to "modernize" old houses in the 50s-70s, but that still doesn't mean that they made good design choices. In most cases, the original structures were much more attractive and these renovations were clearly made in pretty bad taste (windows out of proportion, etc...).

It wouldn't make sense to take a mid century suburban ranch house, add a bunch of Queen Anne details and try to to turn it into a folk Victorian, would it? So does the reverse make any more sense? I think its just a case of fitting round pegs into square holes and trying to make a building into something its not. Good renovation & design should blend seamlessly with the original.

As far as the original post... I'd say the inside of that house pretty much matches the outside. It all looks pretty bland and cheap, but at least its new, which is the kind of thing thats attractive to a prospective tenant. It all makes sense for a rental property, so I'm not so sure whats so hard to understand...