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.
This may be a bit off topic (as the thread has progressed), but I think one of the charms OF having an older home, is the thrill of remodelling it to meet your current-day needs... opening up the floor plan and changing around the materials to reflect modern day amenities.
Participating in the renovation process can obviously be a big part of the appeal for some people, and indeed that applies whether you are going for a more modern update like you describe, or a more period restoration, or anything in between. Indeed, I think for many of us, this can be a somewhat unique opportunity to participate in a creative but concrete project on a relatively significant scale.
Participating in the renovation process can obviously be a big part of the appeal for some people, and indeed that applies whether you are going for a more modern update like you describe, or a more period restoration, or anything in between. Indeed, I think for many of us, this can be a somewhat unique opportunity to participate in a creative but concrete project on a relatively significant scale.
Definitely true. But you have to be willing to be happy about committing the money and time to the renovation. That can often mean that you'll have to curtail other creative/fun activities that you might rather be doing in order to fund and support your renovation project...
It is certainly true that the original layouts of these homes is not much like what we would build today (even in a small home). I sometimes find it interesting to look at drawings or pictures of period kitchens and bathrooms, which give one a sense of why they were built that way (e.g., kitchens were equipped with cast iron stoves, tables, and cupboards, and that was about it). But I am not quite sure how those layout differences address the materials and level of craftsmanship in the home. I would note that these homes weren't literally mass-produced--that approach didn't really come on the housing scene until Sears started shipping home kits, and in Pittsburgh most people still used the Sears plans with a lot of local materials. Rather, although they were being built rapidly to house the mass influx of new residents, they were in fact being built by hand. As a final note, obviously these homes have gone through a lot between then and now, and sometimes some of the more attractive features are hidden, or unfortunately have been removed.
The only defining characteristic of row houses is that they share side walls. Of course, it is true that a set of row houses will usually share various characteristics, but on the other hand in earlier periods the individual homes in the set were often accented and customized. And the variations between sets of rowhouses before about WWI were pretty substantial, since there were not really common housing plans until that time.
Well, with all due respect he is definitely wrong about the code issue (you couldn't add it now, but existing knob and tube wiring can meet code), and partially about the fire issue as well: this style of wiring isn't a fire hazard unless you either insulate it or swap in bigger fuses and then overload it. If you instead use it in the manner and under the loads it was originally intended to carry, it is actually less of a fire hazard than modern wiring.
Edit: for more information on this issue, I would direct your spouse to Article 394 of the 2008 National Electrical Code, which covers Knob and Tube wiring.
I've been trying to post a response for an hour now, my computer crashed trying to download these pictures, so ignore them if you wish. They are shots of Pittsburgh's rowhouses.
You will see that these houses are more the same than different. As far as ornate features being changed or lost, I doubt it, especially in the row houses on the S. Side, which were built to be rental homes for the steelworkers. The statement about customization could be said for the neighborhood where we owned our first house. There are four different models there, each with infinite variations such as garage size, roof lines, canitlevers, decks, etc. Now, 30 years after they were built, there is even more variety as people have built additions, changed windows, put in landscaping and so on.
It may be true that those houses were hand-built, but then, so was mine. All houses, except pre-fabs, are hand built. Common house plans may not have been available before WWI, but to paraphrase my hairdresser, 'there's only one house plan'. (She actually said, 'there's only one haircut'.) You can play around with locations of bedrooms and bathrooms, you can call a family room a rec room, a rumpus room, or whatever, but when all is said and done, you need a kitchen, a bathroom, bedrooms, and a living room. You can call a living room/kitchen/family room combination a 'great room' if you wish, but it is what it is.
Kitchens are a particular interest of mine. I actually grew up in a "This Old House" home, which my father was constantly remodeling. As was said above, it was his hobby and he enjoyed it immensely. However, my mom used to complain that in old houses, they took whatever space was left over and called it a kitchen. I was doing some research on kitchens once, and found out she was right! The concept of the 'work triangle' was invented at the University of Illinois during WWII. It was only after WWII that refrigerators were mass produced, so that virtually every home could have one. We never had a really functional kitchen, despite everything that was done to it. Interestingly, when we were in Pittsburgh last summer, we went over to the old house, and the present owner showed us around. She has given up on having an eating area in the kitchen, because of the limitations of the design. It's not really that small, it just has about five doorways and short walls.
I also feel that you can't have a truly energy efficient house if it doesn't have adequate insulation, good windows and the like. But as most here have said, it's a matter of personal preference, and to imply that one is 'better' than the other is not appropriate.
Definitely true. But you have to be willing to be happy about committing the money and time to the renovation. That can often mean that you'll have to curtail other creative/fun activities that you might rather be doing in order to fund and support your renovation project...
As always, you are correct that there are tradeoffs, which of course is pretty much true of everything one might choose to do with one's time. Interestingly, though, if you are reasonably careful about what you choose to do, you can get a pretty decent return on "sweat equity".
I've been trying to post a response for an hour now, my computer crashed trying to download these pictures, so ignore them if you wish. They are shots of Pittsburgh's rowhouses.
You will see that these houses are more the same than different.
Interestingly, I have the exact opposite reaction to those pictures: to me they demonstrate the amazing variety possible with rowhouses. Take for example the first set of two pictures, where I believe the second shot is a closer view of some houses in the first. Those houses featured in the second shot are admittedly pretty close, but in the wider shot you can see that on the left there are a couple houses with very different trimwork, and then on the right the houses actually have completely different roofs (mansard rather than dormers).
Generally, I think these pictures do a great job illustrating what I was trying to get at before: each little set of rowhouses is similar (with minor differences), but there are significant variations from set to set. So the overall effect, to my eye at least, is quite eclectic, with the same block incorporating design and architectural elements from multiple eras and schools.
Quote:
As far as ornate features being changed or lost, I doubt it, especially in the row houses on the S. Side, which were built to be rental homes for the steelworkers.
It is hard to have a discussion about this in the abstract, but even working class homes from that period could have interesting trim or brickwork that would get torn off or covered up with siding, hardwood floors that would get torn out or covered up with carpet, interior wood trim that would get torn out or painted over, and so on.
Quote:
The statement about customization could be said for the neighborhood where we owned our first house. There are four different models there, each with infinite variations such as garage size, roof lines, canitlevers, decks, etc. Now, 30 years after they were built, there is even more variety as people have built additions, changed windows, put in landscaping and so on.
Sure, but these "apple-orange-lemon" developments never really duplicate the variety you see in older developments. The reason is that the builders really weren't working off standardized plans at all, and they would throw up two or three houses using one concept, and then a couple more using a different concept, sometimes with different craftsman who had different skills, and so on.
Quote:
It may be true that those houses were hand-built, but then, so was mine. All houses, except pre-fabs, are hand built.
Most modern home building uses a great deal of standard materials and templates, even if they are assembled on site.
Quote:
Common house plans may not have been available before WWI, but to paraphrase my hairdresser, 'there's only one house plan'. (She actually said, 'there's only one haircut'.) You can play around with locations of bedrooms and bathrooms, you can call a family room a rec room, a rumpus room, or whatever, but when all is said and done, you need a kitchen, a bathroom, bedrooms, and a living room. You can call a living room/kitchen/family room combination a 'great room' if you wish, but it is what it is.
Your hairdresser is only addressing overall layouts. There is a lot more that goes into a complete house plan.
Quote:
Kitchens are a particular interest of mine. I actually grew up in a "This Old House" home, which my father was constantly remodeling. As was said above, it was his hobby and he enjoyed it immensely. However, my mom used to complain that in old houses, they took whatever space was left over and called it a kitchen. I was doing some research on kitchens once, and found out she was right! The concept of the 'work triangle' was invented at the University of Illinois during WWII. It was only after WWII that refrigerators were mass produced, so that virtually every home could have one. We never had a really functional kitchen, despite everything that was done to it. Interestingly, when we were in Pittsburgh last summer, we went over to the old house, and the present owner showed us around. She has given up on having an eating area in the kitchen, because of the limitations of the design. It's not really that small, it just has about five doorways and short walls.
Yep, the "modern" kitchen is more or less a post-war development.
Quote:
I also feel that you can't have a truly energy efficient house if it doesn't have adequate insulation, good windows and the like.
Of course if you are starting with a brick rowhouse, the fundamental energy efficiency is quite good. The major problems will likely be roof insulation and windows, and both of those are relatively easy to address.
Quote:
But as most here have said, it's a matter of personal preference, and to imply that one is 'better' than the other is not appropriate.
Indeed. Interestingly, though, no one here seems to be trying to argue that new homes are bad. Rather, people who don't like older homes seem to be trying to catalog all the downsides with older homes (which exist, but we older home owners know that already).
I've been trying to post a response for an hour now, my computer crashed trying to download these pictures, so ignore them if you wish. They are shots of Pittsburgh's rowhouses.
Interesting. Rather than serving as a counterpoint to what I said about Pittsburgh housing, these pictures seem (to me, anyway) to demonstrate exactly what I like about it. Although these rowhouses are all alike in the sense that they are, well, all rowhouses, when you look at the pictures the street comes across as being very vibrant and eclectic rather than conformist. It's something about the many differences in color and other exterior decoration like molding, and the small details like one house having an old-fashioned number gilded over the door or a piece of interesting stained glass or whatever.
Now compare these pictures to some places of mass-produced housing where I used to live (Colorado Springs):
Urban Sprawl At Its Finest (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbcnwa/887067389/ - broken link)
I dunno. To me, the rowhouses just don't have the same flavor of stagnant conformity as this "sprawl" pic. Even if three rowhouses on the same block are alike, the houses on the next block are all different from the 1st three, as opposed to 15 miles in every direction of houses all exactly alike and painted with HOA approved shades of light beige, medium beige, and dark beige etc etc.
However, this is of course a subjective opinion. If you believe that all the houses in Pittsburgh are just as conformist and alike as the houses in the suburbs of Denver, ok. That's your call. I personally happen to disagree with that opinion, but that's why I live in Pittsburgh and not Denver. You may also like to live in a sprawling subdivision where the houses are all alike rather than a neighborhood filled with row houses, and that's fine too. Plenty of people do. Personally, I don't love the row houses that much either (I'm a Tudor kind of girl myself), but I'd live in one before I'd live in a mass-produced suburb.
Interesting. Rather than serving as a counterpoint to what I said about Pittsburgh housing, these pictures seem (to me, anyway) to demonstrate exactly what I like about it. Although these rowhouses are all alike in the sense that they are, well, all rowhouses, when you look at the pictures the street comes across as being very vibrant and eclectic rather than conformist. It's something about the many differences in color and other exterior decoration like molding, and the small details like one house having an old-fashioned number gilded over the door or a piece of interesting stained glass or whatever.
Now compare these pictures to some places of mass-produced housing where I used to live (Colorado Springs):
Urban Sprawl At Its Finest (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbcnwa/887067389/ - broken link)
I dunno. To me, the rowhouses just don't have the same flavor of stagnant conformity as this "sprawl" pic. Even if three rowhouses on the same block are alike, the houses on the next block are all different from the 1st three, as opposed to 15 miles in every direction of houses all exactly alike and painted with HOA approved shades of light beige, medium beige, and dark beige etc etc.
However, this is of course a subjective opinion. If you believe that all the houses in Pittsburgh are just as conformist and alike as the houses in the suburbs of Denver, ok. That's your call. I personally happen to disagree with that opinion, but that's why I live in Pittsburgh and not Denver. You may also like to live in a sprawling subdivision where the houses are all alike rather than a neighborhood filled with row houses, and that's fine too. Plenty of people do. Personally, I don't love the row houses that much either (I'm a Tudor kind of girl myself), but I'd live in one before I'd live in a mass-produced suburb.
But if you could pictures of what row houses looked like when they were new, I'd bet my bottom dollar they were all alike. It's the living that have made them different. And -- it'll take time, but those brandy new homes will, too.
I don't ever want to live in new construction though. I, like a previous poster, couldn't abide the cookie cutterness of it all.... my next home will be a "contemporary" ranch style from the late 50's early 60's. Hopefully not screwed up either. I want to screw it up myself. I love some of those odd touches like the multi-post "walls".... too weird and fun.
My other thing about new construction -- at least out here -- I'd have to redo all the walls immediately. As in -- tear them out and rerock. All new construction out here in California have a plaster finish called Knockdown. It's beyond ghastly. They splatter coat the walls with plaster and smooth down the pointy parts with a trowel.
It literally looks like someone threw up on the walls and they painted over it.
Beyond ghastly.... and all the little dents and folds and blobs hold dirt and dust. I've never had to dust WALLS. I have to at the place I work...
But if you could pictures of what row houses looked like when they were new, I'd bet my bottom dollar they were all alike. It's the living that have made them different. And -- it'll take time, but those brandy new homes will, too.
You know, I never thought of it that way. I'm sure that's true - they probably were all alike once upon a time, but people have individualized them over the years, and that's what makes them cool.
So maybe what I like in housing is just "old-ness", in the sense that older places have had more humanity passing through and leaving their mark on them.
But if you could pictures of what row houses looked like when they were new, I'd bet my bottom dollar they were all alike.
I might take that bet. The one thing that probably was not as different as today would be the paint. But the rooflines, trimwork, and any other architectural details probably were still different. Again, that is because these guys weren't really working with a plan, and the recent Italian immigrants building on one set of houses wouldn't do the same thing as the recent German immigrants building the next set down the line. In fact, that first set of Italians probably wouldn't do the same thing as the crew of Italians on the other side from a different city in Italy, and so on.
I think a lot of those houses were built by the steel companies. I know this is true for Aliquippa.
Quote:
J&L laid out the borough in a series of “plans” identified by number such as “Plan 6,” “Plan 11,” etc., and settled people from various racial and ethnic sources separately in each plan.
History (http://www.aliquippapa.gov/history.htm - broken link)
I thank Tallysmom for saying what I was trying so hard to say; these rowhouses, when built, looked alike, at least all the houses in each set looked alike. And how that is "different" from a subdivision built 30 years ago that has since matured is way beyond me. I don't understand what the difference is.
Quote:
It's something about the many differences in color and other exterior decoration like molding, and the small details like one house having an old-fashioned number gilded over the door or a piece of interesting stained glass or whatever.
What is the difference between the above and what I said about my old neighborhood:
Quote:
The statement about customization could be said for the neighborhood where we owned our first house. There are four different models there, each with infinite variations such as garage size, roof lines, canitlevers, decks, etc. Now, 30 years after they were built, there is even more variety as people have built additions, changed windows, put in landscaping and so on.
In addition, those houses are of many different colors as well.
I do not live in a subdivision where all the houses look alike. I actually live in an area where the homes were built by different builders and therefore there is a lot of variety. That is my preference, frankly.
The comment about my hairdresser was meant to be an analogy. A house has bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom and some sort of a living room at a minimum. A standard two story floor plan is living room and kitchen, with dining room if any on the first floor, bedrooms and bath on the second. A standard ranch house has the kitchen, living room arrangement on one end of the house and the bedrooms on the other. Kitchens are usually in the back of the house. What else can you do? Do you want the kitchen upstairs?
There always have always been lots of posts on this forum about how old houses are somehow 'better', either for people or the environment or something. Just look through some on this thread. The thinly veiled sarcasm about lving in 'suburban sprawl', the comment that people shouldn't have more house than they need, etc. Just who decideds how much house anyone needs? I'm sure there is some government agency that has decreed just how many square feet everyone should have and so on, but someone living alone has a lot more house available to them than a family living in most "McMansions".
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 03-26-2008 at 01:14 PM..
Reason: addition
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.
