I am somewhere in the middle. I would probably keep the bones of the house you show, but I am not one to put up new wallpaper when the old is taken down. The staircase is lovely and the tile is great if it can be repaired. If not, I would try to replicate it as closely as possible. I love old bathrooms and would give anything to have one similar to those in the Omni Shoreham Hotel in DC-from the 20s, I think.

From the pics it is hard to tell if that paneling is truly old and lovely. I would be inclined to either get rid of it or paint it if it isn't heavy, solid wood paneling. I think we sometimes forget that a lot of houses weren't built with the best taste or materials just as some today aren't.

I do like to keep the feel of a place. Not sure that holds true for places built in the 70s on, though-not a whole lot of character unless the owners went very high-end and built true to a style of another era. That does not mean they aren't pretty, comfortable homes. Bear in mind, I live in a 1960 two-story ranch which is nothing special, but I love it. It has been changed some-windows and french doors all across the back in the LR and DR. So many new places, however, are just big and heaven help anyone who tries to identify a real style in the places with multiple materials and mixed up elements. I do think that is a shame.

Overall, I figure if it is your house and you love it-terrific. If you don't love it-change it or buy something more to your style. I am not big on preservation unless there is really something of value to be preserved. When we sold my parents' home outside Philadelphia, we knew it would be torn down as that is what most people are doing these days around there. It was a big (6-bedroom, 5 bath house with in-law suite built in the 1940s on an acre. Absolutely wonderful house and we were sad to see it go rather than having it renovated, but I understand the new folks built something wonderful-stone cottage style and I hope they love it. Can't wait to see it when I go home for my 40th high school reunion!

I'm going to agree pretty closely with Cyn. I think if your old house is in good shape, has great features and can be restored without great expense to you, and/or you can bear the expense........then, it is nice to honor the original design as far as you can. But you also have to realize and accept that sometimes an old house is just an old house that might be the most reasonable house in the neighborhood for someone with a limited house-buying budget. That person might move in, not loving the aging wallpaper, dated panelling, or small door openings, but their wallet dictates that purchase. A few years and job changes down the road, they decide to spend some time and money on this house, perhaps making it more similar to the 2nd vintage house you show......removing wallpaper and paneling, raising a ceiling here, enlarging/modernizing a bathroom there. YOU go in and immediately see the changes and wish it were not so. YOU long for the period details. But that homeowner, (and again, I am giving people credit for doing the best job possible and respecting what details may be of use and beauty) finally has a home that works for his needs. It's still an old house, but to him, it now works. And it has it's own charm.

Not all antiques are beautiful. Not all old details are well-advised. Not all modernizing is for the good. Each place has to be taken on it's own merit and it does need to suit the needs of the person living there.

I am certain that when someone found the old twin beds that dated from the early 20th century, the ones my Mama and her baby sister cut the posts off so they would look modern, (in 1930!) they were appalled. Sometimes change is for the better. Sometimes not so much. And most of us tend to wax nostalgic over old houses, but for myself, I like a nice size shower with a good water flow, a flushing toilet, high ceilings, and dual-pane windows. If I could juxtapose that with vintage crown molding, beautiful ceiling details and a marble topped work island, then, it would be even better.

Red

I am way more in the keep it and clean it up camp - when possible. We stripped the layers and layers of paint off our doors and trim, not because there was fabulous wood beneath (there wasn't) but just to have a fresh surface for new paint. I would keep and refresh the trim in that house. I NEVER add recessed lighting but that's me - I do not like it at all. I don't mind wavy plaster (as long as it's holding and the ceiling won't come down on me!), seeing plaster repairs in my walls doesn't flip me out, nor do the cracks that reappear. We did, however, get rid of the radiators and put in forced air heat in part because we added central air. The other reason was because the radiators were SO massive and the rooms in our house weren't large to begin with so furniture placement was a problem. I do, however, love the quiet, gentle heat from a radiator and have some regrets about that decision. We bought our house because it hadn't been updated a lot and what was done, was easily undone. We didn't create a shrine to 1936 (or 1926 depending on which record we look at!) in any way, but we tried to keep the Colonial cottage feel of the original.

It all comes down to design, materials, and craftsmanship. When all three parts are there in abundance, it's a masterpiece. It saddens me when people fail to see any of the potential that awaits beneath the crusty accretions of time and predation (of former owners/alterations) and throw the whole thing in the dumpster. Because once it's gone, that's it. You can restore a good old thing many times, but you can only destroy it once.
I did my undergraduate degree in Historic Preservation, at one of the first such programs in the country. I have spent my career as a preservation carpenter, working mainly with owners and architects who can see the potential. There is immense quantity of energy to be tapped these old places, and I am always gladdened when I draw from it. They have a quality of "essence" lacking in any new building.
Casey

Well, I'm chuckling, because the white door in the second picture is identical to the doors in my house, with what looks like exactly the same door knobs. I don't have the lovely tile though. The bathroom's been completely redone. I think the only original feature left in there is the medicine cabinet.

I think houses grow. I wouldn't expect a 100 year old house to be exactly the same as when it was built. Okay, I'd hope that at least the plumbing had been updated and that the poor cook wasn't still using a coal stove. My kitchen used to have a coal stove and therefore no radiator. When they replaced the stove with a gas one, no one thought to put in a radiator, so it can get a bit chilly in there.

I do think a there's a certain set of old houses with better quality materials than most people could afford these days. I always hope those houses get bought by someone who appreciates them.

Case in point: My dad's house and the house next door were built in 1880 by a local builder. They were identical, one built for the builder to live in and one for his parents. The builder went all out, handcarved oak entry way, wainscotting, ornate brass hardware on every door, moldings, lots of windows and porches.

The house next door was sold in 2004. The new owners tore out all the radiators, the oak wainscotting, the stained glass windows and the moldings. They tore out the butler's pantry to make the kitchen larger (it was roughly 25' x 20') and removed the two built-in china cabinets in the dining room. There were some odd little windows on the front and back stairs that they took out and made bigger. They tore off the slate roof and put on a modern one. As things were removed, they were thrown in a dumpster in the front yard.

The owners called the police, because people were coming by at night and stealing the discards from the dumpster. My dad overheard the conversation with the police. When the officer explained that the stolen radiators and wainscotting were probably being sold, the owners were stunned that anyone would pay money for what they saw as outdated, old-fashioned trash.

That house stills looks like a Victorian on the outside. But they have modernized the inside as much as possible, making the kitchen and dining room into a great room that looks like a kitchen you would see in any home decor magazine. I have a mental disconnect when I go in, because the outside leads you to expect a certain style inside, and instead it's much more of a bland McMansion style.

Not that my dad's house was exactly the way it was when it was built. Someone removed the wall between the front and back parlors to make one large living room. The kitchen and pantry had been remodeled sometime in the 1950s. The back porch had been partly enclosed and a bathroom added. The upstairs bathrooms had been redone. But the essential character of the house was left untouched. The odd little peephole windows are still there. The stained glass is still there. Under the vinyl floor in the kitchen, the orginal floorboards are still there. The house has been altered to meet the needs of new occupants, but it hasn't been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

In the house across the street, they've kept the Victorian feel of the house, except in the kitchen. You walk through the living and dining rooms, which are wallpapered and furnished in a Victorian style and then enter the kitchen, which is stainless and granite and gleaming. It's a lovely kitchen, but it seems out of place in that house. It's a personal preference, to be sure, but I think that having such a large difference between the kitchen and the rest of the house makes the kitchen stand out too much.

My brother and SIL have a child who uses a wheelchair. At one point they either needed to buy a new house that was handicapped accessible or put an addition on the house they had. They really wanted to buy, because they were busy enough without having to deal with the hassle of building.

But in all the houses they saw that were suitable, the accessible part had either been slapped on without regard to the original style of the house, creating the effect of two houses that had somehow become entangled, or the remodel had been done without regard to the floor plan or traffic flow in the house. In other words, the remodels/additions didn't work with the house.

They ended up putting on an addition, with a mud room, accessible bathroom, bedroom with large roll-in closet and a therapy/play room. They hired an architect to design the addition. If you didn't know that the addition had been built, you would never guess that the house had once been substantially smaller. The architect copied the post and beam construction of the house, copied the moldings and the flooring. It's a very livable floor plan. It does not look as if it were designed to be accessible; it just looks like a nice family house.

The "potential" house has fabulous doors & crystal door knobs. And you know those floors will clean up beautifully. The stairway is wonderful too. There is so much there that even if you did a light updating (furnishings, paint colors, window treatments, some kitchen improvements) you'd still have plenty of period charm. You'd maintain the character & integrity of the home.

The "new" home, well, it's nice, clean, bright & in turn-key condition which will appeal to many people. But if I had my druthers, I'd take the "potential" house.

I've been trying to make my 60s phony colonial look more early 19th century (or at least old & well loved). That's a kind of reversal of your premise.

Preserve.

As someone who occasionally takes on projects for other people I have been in both situations. I did a project right down the block from the first house shown, where we kept one clawfoot tub and the rest of the houses (it was two that were already combined) went back to the bricks. The difference was that those houses had already been chipped away at, with some 9 rooms each seeming to represent a decade. So, it too, could be a house from 2000 on the inside. I hope it doesn't look as soulless as #2 however.

If you look at house #1 which has had benign neglect for over half a century and then look at #2: I wonder what the condition of #2 would be in 50 years with the same level of intervention. Are plastic hollow doors, thin plated metal and plastic door hardware and the thinnest drywall they could get away with going to have the same lifecycle?

I am working with a client who (before I came on board) completely gutted a run down 140 year old worker's house. Nothing particularly fancy. Seven years post renovation, we are dealing with door hardware that is failing, railings that pull out of the drywall, kitchen cabinet installation that is failing, appliances that are failing, millwork that is bleeding knots and sap through the finish.

He could not afford to do a high quality comprehensive restoration. But the house didn't need a comprehensive gut remodeling either...he could have left a lot of it well enough alone and addressed what *needed to be done at a better level of quality.

I guess one of my points is -go ahead and remodel, not everything is worth saving...but if you are going to replace it with something of clearly lesser quality (which happens so often, particularly in spec jobs) maybe you should think twice about it.

I can completely relate to you as my husband and I are finishing a gut renovation of an 1890 brownstone. We looked at many older homes prior to purchasing this house and all too often found houses completely stripped of any original details that had been renovated during the 70's or 80's. Our philosophy was: why buy an old house if all the original elements have been removed?

We were somewhat fortunate in that many (but certainly not all) of the original elements were still remaining. Although the house had been completely neglected for decades we were happy that someone had not done a 70's renovation. We at least felt we had something to work with and "restore"/renovate. Most contractors we interviewed, however, would much rather take the easier and faster approach at ripping out everything (doors, trim, floors, walls, etc.) original and replacing it than to take the extra time and effort to try to salvage and restore things. While it is definitely a faster and cheaper approach, I feel that many of the original elements are irreplaceable and priceless.

Although we were not "purist" in our renovation efforts, we certainly tried to salvage and restore as many original elements as possible. At some point, however, one has to decide how far they will go with restoring things and if it is worth it in the end. While we were able to save many of the original doors and trim some of the doors and trim had to be replaced with new matching reproductions. We also decided to paint all the trim and doors white, rather than strip literally centuries worth of paint down to bare wood, especially since much of the wood work was not in the best condition to begin with. We also tried to be thoughtful when installing a new HVAC system and searched for an HVAC contractor that would not be placing duct work with bulkheads throughout the house (part of this utilized radiant floor heat).

I think it is possible to maintain some of the character and charm of yesteryear while at the same time still upating to some of today's modern conveniences ( a great example of this is documented at the following blog: brooklynlimestone.blogspot.com). Compromises must be made in any renovation. Indeed, a true purist would utilize the original gas light, coal heat and and maybe even an out-house which may be appropriate for a museum, but not a modern residence.

We tried to do this by keeping our old clawfoot tub but also installing an all marble and glass shower, installing glass doorknobs throughout, and some antique/reproduction light fixtures. For our kitchen we have 110 y.o. exposed brick walls, soapstone counters, chisel edged travertine floors, and paneled appliances to try to keep a somewhat old world feel. Since our house is in a historic district so I feel it is our responsibility to honor the house and it's historical elements.

If a person does not have this desire then I think they should purchase a newer home (i.e. circa 1960's and beyond) rather than "strip mine" an old house in a historic district . There are plenty of newer houses on the market.

Unfortunately many contractors buy older homes and do a quick, fast, cheap renovation to maximize their profit margin. If everyone that purchased an older (historical) home did this there would be nothing historical remaining. -Just my two cents.

This is what is still being removed from these houses.

How do I know? The entire first floor of this house ended up in the dumpster. Overall it looks to be a nice rehab on the outside but I witnessed the tile being torn out in such a way I doubt it was reused:

Is it that attractive by today's tastes? Probably not, but it could have been *partially preserved. It certainly isnt any worse than a generic granite 12x12 tile or beaded plywood that is used to replace it.

I am looking at this house soon. Even *this could be headed for the dumpster depending on who buys the house. How do I know? Because I found a Trenton Pottery cameo tile like this on the curb a couple years back. In fact there were two, but the other face was still attached to too big a chunk for me to lug to work. A tile that retails for $300 on the curb. :( . That particular vestibule got drywalled.

I think I would have found someone to help me lug that second "too big" piece back! :)

What a tragedy!! Acts like that should be illegal. I would love to have that very tile in my front entrance. As you know tile like that is very expensive. The owner should have at least donated/sold it to an architectural savage store. It pains me to see how lazy and/or ignorant people are? And you wonder why the planet earth is in the condition it's in?

"Is it that attractive by today's tastes?"

No, but it's a lot more interesting than anything you could buy today. Interesting beats generic.

I often think there should be a test given to purchasers of older homes LOL It would save so much wonderful tile if we could just flunk the idiots who would ruin that out of the class :)

I bought a historic home knowing it came with certain obligations. I take those obvligations very seriously. No it won't be a museaum, but it will be restored and preserved in such a fashion that it's a wonderful family home and a tribute to it's original owner.

I'm all for preservation but I'm also in the camp that each generation of owners has something to leave behind... a fingerprint not a giant handprint. Be it new cabinets if the old ones were beyond repair or new flooring. To just rip it all out, I just can't...and I never would. We built a new old house, fun but I can't wait for the next restoration project of a beautiful old timer. They just have so much flavor.
Didn't you post a pic of this home before? Because I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that tile!! YES, I would buy it! :)
KAT