I think much of the problem stemmed from the fact that many people associated living in cities with poverty and moving to the suburbs with affluence. When my brothers and even parents made their exodus to NJ and left NYC, they bought sterile homes with alot of property, which they never seemed to utilize. No woodwork, no moldings, no wood floors and rugs or linoleum in bathrooms. But rooms were large with family rooms, but small dining rooms. A move away from valuing all things of days gone by. Now the trend is back to urban living and an appreciation for those older homes with character. But now to have a house with character comes at a hefty price. When we bought our first home it had molding on the walls. Imagine our shock when we came home one day after leaving my dad painting it for us(he was a housepainter)to find he ripped off all the moldings. His generation wanted to forget the poverty they lived with. Wood floors, moldings and 6 panel wood doors were reminders of their struggles. In came bi-fold doors, shag rugs, hung ceilings, wrought iron banisters, and jalousy (sp?) windows? Aluminum siding covered brick. Oil burners were dirty so in came forced air heat so you can have CAC and heat at the same time. My husband's dad did all of the above, so when we bought each and every house, they all thought we were crazy. Even when I was buying furniture I opted for antiques. My mother didnt' talk to me for a month. I live in a beach community. There are quite a few McMansions. Many would have torn down our home and some frustrating days we felt that we should have. On those days I still think back on the elderly neighbor who said "you kept it a real Rockaway house". It still makes me smile.

Here was another one. I looked at this house *after* it had been cleaned out by a developer. Not gutted, but with a lot of things 'peeled away'. Although there were three kitchens and three other baths in the house...this was the one that remained. I wonder if the developer had kept it so that the owner of that condo unit (which never materialized) could make the choice as to whether it would stay or go.

As a design junky, if you read my posts, you will find that I am not particularly "anti" design styles of a particular type, materials of a particular type, eras of housing--I think there are good examples of the use of practically anything. I do argue against homogenization, inconsistency, and lack of effort.

What a great tile pattern on that floor. Love the shape & color of the tub too.

paint chips...there's nothing wrong with granite...except the things robin_g mentioned. (I don't care for granite either.) Honestly...if one likes it it's a fine surface. But I've heard way too many people say they won't even CONSIDER a house that doesn't have granite counters...

seems silly to me. That's all.

Forgive me for being combative, but I don"t understand why anyone cares what someone else does with THEIR OWN HOME! Sorry, but I think the bathroom in the above picture is ugly and I'd tear it out in heartbeat if it were mine. I live in an old house with lots of character, but at the end of the day, what does that mean? We like it, we're comfortable here, it reflects our personalities but as the Germans would say "Ja, und?" Many people are going after what they can afford when they renovate an older home. DH can't pass an old house with a bad addition without going on and on about it but if they needed more space and they couldn't afford the architect and materials to make it look like it was always there...who cares? It suits their needs. Why do we have to judge them because the couldn't or wouldn't do it another way?

Soulful? Soul-less? Or just an effective form of birth control? ("I'm not getting in that thing!"):

{{gwi:1675198}}

There is really nothing inherently wrong with *any* countertop material: each has a list of strengths and weaknesses, however the predominant orthodoxy of the moment is granite.

Twenty years ago quarries were still closing, and granite was for headstones. Now, in many markets it is the ne plus ultra of countertop materials. And people get Angry at you if you want anything else.

When I was programming a kitchen remodel for a client, I asked her what she wanted, and she went down the list: "Cherry cabinets, black granite countertops, and ceramic tile floors" (This was and still is a top contender in this market). "But" she went on to say, " I am kinda worried about the kitchen being dark, keeping that black mirror finish clean, and my knees and fasciitis, you know, standing on that hard floor."

I said: "Then it doesn't really sound like what you want at all". "Oh its not really, but thats what all the local design magazines and my friends said it has to be. You know--resale and all". "You just bought the house, you planning on selling it already?"

We started over.

The point is there is nothing wrong with that particular combination if thats what you want. But it thats Not what you want, there is a whole big world of options out there.

I don't think a discussion about standards of design or design trends is the same as "judging" those who live in such places. One of my best friends has the most hideous house in the world. But she loves her view, her pets, her family, and I'm not fussed about her peachy-pink ultra-suede sectional.

Disliking cookie-cutter houses isn't the same as deciding that those who live in them are related to Hitler.

Geez, now I'm all depressed.

Yeah, there is a better use of most people's resources, labor, and energy than designing their homes.

But on the bright side... as long as there is ugly, unloved, and not-yet-designed, there is a place in the world for creative people like us! :O)

I would for sure keep the floor in that last photo you showed.

I think my Brazilian Cherry flooring is going to become very dated. Its so trendy. But its hard to think of someone walking in 15 years from now and gasping at how ugly and soulless it is.

By the way, Palimpsest, are you a guy? You've had two posts now with photos where its hard to tell. In one you showed a blurry picture of you as a small child. Can't tell boy or girl. Is that you in the mirror? Just curious. I enjoy your posts.

I think hiring a designer to 'do' a room has an element of soullessness, too. When the designer selects all the art, furniture, and knick-knacks then the room is the designers, not the owners. It doesn't matter who wrote the check.

I was watching an episode of Divine Design the other day. the finished room was gorgeous, but I'm not sure it reflected the owners at all. Will they love it? Sure. Will they have a good story about where the beautiful piece of sculpture came from? Not unless the make something up.

Soul comes from the love and thought--the depth of memory-- in the room, imho. Soullessness can be cheap design, but it can also be expensive and perfect, too.

Fascinating thread. I've enjoyed the comments and the thoughts all day.

"We even had it in our kitchen!"

yikes! i had carpet in 2 kitchens. put it in by choice. i loved it! wish i could find good kitchen carpet today... that's probably what I'd put in my next place! my first was in browns and gold, in the early 80's I did the 2nd in blue and gold (those harvest gold appliances then).

" train caboose"

dang - I'd love one of those!

"I just could never walk into a JCPenny and buy a whole room"

I couldn't do that either. I remember back in the 60's when people I knew would buy a new LR 'set' about every 2 or 3 yrs. pay a few hundred for it and get a matching sofa and chair and then 2 end tables (step up) and a coffee table to match them.

"shows on television are the ones that neutralize a home for resale. What a crock that you must "depersonalize" your home, paint it all taupe or tan or sage"

i think those people are nuts. or people buying now have no imagination... I looked at a house where every step going upstairs had something on it (on it's way up...or down) and the kitchen counter was covered with stuff everywhere - dishes mostly (not old food or anything). I bought the house. I could see past that stuff... now people can't see past a p*aint color they don't like!

"I'm glad to have her hand-me-down headboard that Hub's parents used in our guest room."

I have the head and foot boards to beds that belonged to my x's mom and gma. I'll be using them in my new place. it's been yrs since I've had them set up and in use... I miss them. I'll have to reconfigure 2 singles to queen size now.

"If I've heard one person whine about the counters not being granite...or the bathrooms not being "updated"... "

shoot, they want the p*aint color to be already on in their choice of color... like someone KNEW they'd be along to buy THAT house and did it just for them...
i often wonder if there are real people like that out there...

I figure half the fun of a new place is picking the colors i want. and i've never lived in but one place where i did any major changes. one we redid a bathroom, divided a 1 room upstairs into 2 bedrooms and put - carpet in that kitchen! I didn't even mind that the counter was red and didn't match anything... I was only there 2 yrs tho - the counter would have been changed soon if I hadn't decided to move west.

" And I will break things often because I am clumsy."

me too. my sister has broken lots of glassware on hers in just the few yrs she's had it. can't imagine having it with kids around... I do love her granite tho. just not in my house! I can 'visit' it at her place tho.
I don't want to be cleaning up shattered glass from everywhere it can fly into. or chance me or my furbabies stepping on a sliver i missed.

I'm real comfy with laminate tho and found a few I really, really like.

I really like that jade color tile in that bathroom. I like old stuff tho. should have lived back then I think... I seldom shop for furniture (or anything much) except in antique stores, salvage yards, flea mkts...

we have lots of those cookie cutter developments out here now. back around 2000 when a lot were being built close to me with walls of glass on at least 2 sides - up and down on the 2 story homes - even the west side of them. I wondered how long before the price for heating and a/c would sky rocket and they'd be unbearable to maintain financially. It didn't take many yrs to happen and will only get worse in the future.

I dunno...my problem with much of what I see as design is the point palimpsist illustrated...people who buy what they are told they "must" have "for resale value."

I know BOTH of my sisters have stainless steel refrigerators that they hate. Because they anticipate selling in the not-to-distant future.

I'm going to need a new refigerator in short order. A friend was shocked when she found out I'm looking at *gasp* WHITE REFRIGERATORS. But they are out of style! (Really? I don't care.) What about RESALE? (I'm hoping this is my toe-tag house. If it's not...the new owners can deal. Or buy a new refrigerator.) It went on from there...

I finally told her I LIKED white refrigerators and my crazy refrigerator magnet collection.

Hey, palimpsist...any chance you will be coming to NC? I'd LOVE to pay you to come up with a new kitchen design. I won't be able to implement it for a few years...but I think we'd work well together! ;^)

It doesn't matter whether the house is old or new, if it's poorly designed and badly executed by unskilled people, whose only impetus is money, or by people who lack the knowledge to do a proper job, then the result is, or seems, soulless. I live in a city in Southern California where they have torn down literally hundreds of older homes and replaced them with jaw-dropingly out of place Mac Monstrosities. They call these things custom homes. The common denominator is they were all built by unlicensed builders who were marginally literate and with crews of workers from other countries. They are ubiqutious here because they work for unskilled labor wages (that's what they are)and are paid cash, under the table. They tell you that they use the best materials and do custom work but the materials they use are the ones that take little skill to employ. For instance, my kitchen counters are ceramic tile with coving wherever two surfaces meet and also around the sink. These new workers don't do work like that because they lack the skill. If I were to offer my house for sale, the realestate agent would tell me to take out that counter and put in a more up to date one. They would tell me to remove my Armstrong Designer Solorian kitchen floor and put in a fake wood floor, strip off my wallpaper and paint the walls a neutral color, and upgrade my leaded glass windows to some cheap vinyl junk.

Keeping up with the Jones' is a soulless act, so...

Joneses. Not possessive case. Freudian slip!

This has been a great discussion thread - perfect for a decorating forum.

I have another theory about why so many of us are buying into the generic "safe" choices. Might it be a backlash from the themed rooms that we saw in our older relatives' homes in the 60's, 70's?

In a recent thread on "decorating obsession" someone wrote that she decorated her home to her satisfaction and called it done. I think that's what the majority of Americans did for decades, before the post WW2 building boom. People furnished their homes for practical uses, mostly paying for furniture/appliances with cash they saved for the purchase.

Then people became more exposed, through TV & travel, to decor that was different from their neighborhood and region. Women began working full-time, there more discretionary funds for decorating, and they began trying to emulate looks they liked for the pleasure in it. And the results were often bad.

One of my aunts had a "Tiki room" in her basement - she lived in snowy New Hampshire. Another, here in New England, was so besotted with her sister's Florida home that she painted all the rooms in tropical hues and even had faux palm trees in her DR. A neighbor of ours, in Maine, had a Southwestern cactus mural handpainted on their LR wall. I remember it because I used to go there to watch "Peyton Place" as a preteen, LOL.

Anyway, I'm just thinking that a lot of people my age, who were at the forefront of the neutralizing trend, are not secure about decorating and are willing to default to the safe choice rather than take a chance they might be remembered as the people with the tacky home.

The German quote has nothing to do with Hitler. It's based on a cartoon postcard given to me by a dear friend when we lived in Frankfurt. There are two pigs, one male one female and the female is saying to the male, "Aller Maenner sind Schwein" (all men are pigs) to which the male responds "Ja, und...?" meaning "yes, and..?" or "your point is...?" Funny, no? Not all German references relate back to the Nazis.

I very much enjoy reading the OP's posts on design since I don't know much about it and I'm especially fascinated with his/her perspective on bringing together architectural and interior design elements. Very interesting stuff here. The "what they can afford" quote was based on DH's view of jarring home additions, and nothing else. I agree that preservation can be less expensive than renovation.

But, I would argue that this isn't simply a discussion about design. Some of the posts turned what was a lament about finding an affordable, untouched property by someone who very much cares about preservation to a full out criticism of what some people choose to do with their own house and that's what I don't get. Hope you find what you want soon, Palimpsest.

I don't ever really want my threads to veer into judgment but sometimes its hard to talk of the abstract without getting into the specific.

I think in general, it is worthwhile to take a look at what you are dealt with the house in question and allow it to give you some cues as to go from there.

If your house is a basic 70s ranch with hollow core doors and minimal trim (high interest rates, remember), perhaps the best solution is *not to fill it with the paneled doors and colonial revival mouldings so popular now, but to upgrade the house with Solid slab doors and Nicer but plainer trim than you would put in a fancier house. Don't keep the Masonite tub surround, but think twice before doing the classic 1915 "sanitary" bath with clawfoot tub.

I once got a response to one of my posts that interpreted what I was saying was if you have a dull tract house the inside should be a dull tract house to be appropriate, but if they ( the responder ) wanted to put a "twee Victorian" kitchen in that tract house no one was going to stop them. Right, no one can stop you, but you may wonder after a while why it doesnt look right or looks "dated". I don't think any kitchen that looks appropriate to the house is ever wrong. A kitchen that is Not appropriate to the house may appeal for the years that the look in IN, but then it starts to stick out like a sore thumb

I don't think that any house has to remain as dull as it starts out, and I don't think the vast majority of us want to live in a museum, (I live in an 1838 house with a 1965 open tread stair spiraling up through it...do you think that is historically accurate? :)

And I am not even talking about decor. I think if you really want to, you could fill a farmhouse with French Deco and you could do it in a good way. Just don't start sticking French Deco interior architecture to the house.

There are thoughtful ways to approach the givens of any house, and I think that is an instinct that has been lost, in many ways.

"I think hiring a designer to 'do' a room has an element of soullessness, too. When the designer selects all the art, furniture, and knick-knacks then the room is the designers, not the owners. It doesn't matter who wrote the check."

Not necessarily. There is a lot of gray area in between no designer, and a totally 100% bought room. In my case, I make all my own purchasing decisions; I use a designer mostly as a sounding board. "Does this work? CAN this work?"

I am also not a fan of accessorizing, but I have a lot of accessories, most of which are meaningful in some way to our family. Heirlooms, souvenirs, art, that sort of thing. But I really want someone else to tell me where to put them. I have no confidence in my ability to arrange that kind of stuff. (DH actually takes the lead on that.) I'm more of a big picture girl. ;-)

That's "Mr." Palimpsest to us :)

Wish there were more guys on the forum. They bring a slightly different perspective that I enjoy very much. Pal in particular is a treasure with his professional take on things and generous advice.

I guess architecture and interior design, like any art form, is something you're either sensitive to or you're not. I couldn't drag my mother to an art museum or a symphony concert to save her life. But she has a tremendous interest in and an exquisite eye for clothing, couture actually. I think she has every nice piece of clothing she ever bought going back to the 40s, most of it incredibly beautiful and not cheap. It's not an interest I share. My approach to clothing is mostly pragmatic, much like many of the average homeowner's approach to home design. My mom, btw, has zero interest in old houses and interiors -- dislikes them, in fact.

I only mentioned Hitler because sooner or later, in any discussion, once the word "judging" appears, a comparison to Nazi Germany is sure to follow. Nothing to do with any German quote.

In general, I think many people of our generation (I'm in my late 40s) grew up in tract/ranch style houses that our post-war parents thought were modern and streamlined, compared to their own parents' Victorian/bungalow/Sears catalog houses. My parents loved their stylish one storey house, and every time we went to Grandma's, I wondered why her house was so comfy and fancy and ours so bland and dull.

And thus, every single place I've lived has had charm and character out the wazoo--Storybook, Spanish revival, Queen Anne, DC townhouse, and now a 1903 raw loft. More is more for me.

" When the designer selects all the art, furniture, and knick-knacks then the room is the designers, not the owners. It doesn't matter who wrote the check."

I also have a comment on this; if you have a designer that has better taste than you, his/hers propositions should wow you; I know it happened to me. My designer brought me to another level, he has exquisite taste. I learned and developed my own taste/style after working with him a few times on my homes. Sometimes it's a question of being exposed to other things than what is in your comfort zone.

I like the exchange happening on this thread, palimp has a knack for starting meaningful threads.

Very interesting thread with many pithy comments, thanks, all, this is very timely for me. Tonight, I will (again) attempt paint alchemy as I try to find the perfect color for the k itchen hutch. I am still on the hunt for a color that speaks to me and transforms our large, traditional, inset door, lots o' molding hutch into a soulful element in the room.

And I do think popular design can be soulless, tho I don't have cable and have never seen all those HGTV shows, I think they contribute, as do the design mags. Last month's House Beautiful (thanks to the kid selling mags for her class, I have a subscription) resembled - to a T -the latest RH catalog, all that bland, bleached wood and supersized c locks that I've heard called "Belgian" (I guess "French Country" and "Tuscan" are getting a little long in the tooth, so it's time to move on to a new faux Euro design craze). Kinda makes you wonder what came first, the for profit catalog hawking their wares or the for profit mag hawking the wares of their advertisers?

Anyway, to answer the question, I guess I find so much design either snooze-worthy (aforementioned Belgian look) or overdone (Little Charles Fauntleroy or Bunny Williams, gad, they make my teeth ache), and either way it's soulless to me, for others it's perfect, and that's cool. I, for one, am very pleased that we all have the privilege of debating topics such as this and don't have to forage for food to feed our families every day.

sandyponder

There are good designers, and famous designers, who have a signature look, and the clients gravitate to them for it.

But a really good designer does not design a room for their own needs, they design it for yours. They create something that is a reflection of your taste--but it should be better than you could do on your own, its what they are trained to do. They are also not there simply to validate your own ideas, they should be using your ideas as a jumping off point to an even better room.

I don't know why their is a certain amount feeling that the client should really almost be able to do it themselves-- as if people who hire them are people who have money enough to pay someone else to express themselves in their stead. Its disparaging: as if someone else implements it...it really isnt *your house*. Why? Most people do not design their own clothes, virtually no one designs their own cars...and yet these choices are considered to be a form of self expression. (and forms in which the buyer or client has many less choices)

I'd like to say a word in defense of designers.

Caveat: I worked as a designer; I trained in an architecture school, and I have studied and kept learning, because I am fascinated by the idea of home, and because I believe beauty and grace are food for the soul and balm for the heart.

What palimpsest says is true. A good designer spends enough time with you, asking you all sorts of odd questions, looking through zillions of images with you, to puzzle out what it is you really want. Then s/he makes it happen for you, because s/he is trained to do it. The moment I always hoped for, after an installation, comes when a client says, oh, yes, this is what I dreamed of, but I had no idea how to do it.

A good designer also saves you money in the long run by preventing expensive mistakes, by determining what has value and what doesn't, by applying your budget in the best places, by staging a job to do the most important underlying things first and the rest as you can afford them, and by using lots of simple tricks to get the most bang for your buck.

And a good designer is a teacher, too. Your eye will be trained to see things you hadn't seen before, you'll understand the reasons for certain choices and the processes of the work, and you'll be able to make better decisions from then on.

So we may be a luxury, and for many an unnecessary one, but at best we are like a great cashmere sweater. A little costly, but worth every nickel.

"But a really good designer does not design a room for their own needs, they design it for yours. They create something that is a reflection of your taste--but it should be better than you could do on your own, its what they are trained to do. They are also not there simply to validate your own ideas, they should be using your ideas as a jumping off point to an even better room."

Yes, this is exactly what happened with my kitchen. It was the other parts I was talking about, and I haven't used a designer to do a full room - we have enough furniture, so it is more a matter of using my *stuff* as a jumping off point. You know, what goes where, what stays/what goes, the few pieces I buy to round things out. That uses a designer's vision, but I'm pretty picky about my actual "things" and I've learned that in *most* instances it's crazy for me to pay someone $100 an hour to shop for me. I want to do that part, with specific direction and occasional help.

"Most people do not design their own clothes, virtually no one designs their own cars...and yet these choices are considered to be a form of self expression. (and forms in which the buyer or client has many less choices)"

Um, to me that doesn't analogize. To me, designing a room is more like designing an outfit than designing the clothes. Someone else designs the individual pieces (the couch, the table = the blouse, the skirt), then the individual chooses them and puts them together. That's the self-expression part.

Some people are better at it than others. Some people don't care at all. Some buy good bones, but don't mix them very well. Or buy matching things and never separate pieces. That's where designers (or stylists) come into play. Sometimes people have personal shoppers buy the pieces *and* dress the client. If you're really lucky (rich), you can have someone custom design everything! ;-)

But that isn't our stratosphere here. I would guess most of us are on this board because we do want to do some of it ourselves. If you wanted (and could afford) to turn over the whole enchilada to a designer, I don't know why you would be here?

I hope that wasn't offensive, I am not necessarily disagreeing -- I just think there are many possible levels of collaboration with a designer.

Palimpsest, I'd suggest this: keep an eye on that house with the green bathroom and get to know the meth dealer. Find out the closing date of the house, if you can, when it sells. Give the meth dealer your cell phone number and a little encouragement ($?) and suggest he call you when the dumpster arrives and the old fixtures are chucked out. Promise more $ if he....um....delivers. Not that meth dealers are generally known for their qualities of astuteness or honesty, but it's worth a try.

Nowthen. Please, please don't say that something is so bad it's good. The green bath fixtures are beautiful and easy on the eye. Would you say someone is so fat they're skinny? Would you say my cat is so black he's white? When I hear someone say something's so ugly it's cute, all that tells me is that they're afraid to just say they think it's cute, as they don't want their companion to say Oh my God, you like THAT? Just go for it and say you like it. OK, now I'll go take my meds.

Meanwhile, back to the original question. Has popular design become soulless? I'm glad you asked this. I recently had a revelation about style and I think it fits your question. In the 1950's, when the GI's were home from the war and raising their families, the country was very prosperous and travel became a big draw. Everyone wanted to get their kicks on Route 66. Have you ever seen those old post cards for the little motels at which you could stay, all over the US? The owners went out of their way to make them homey to let you know that you could leave home but still be comfy cozy. Now hotels are completely soulless to make you think that even if the place was built 20 years ago, you're the first person to occupy the room. And, beginning in the 1980's, home design and decor took that to heart and many modern interiors became totally soulless. I look at some design mags' kitchen and say to myself, are these houses even lived in? Some friends just built a new home and as they don't have strong feelings about decoration (and that's an understatement), I think they simply went with the finishes that were suggested to them (and I know Resale Value was drummed into them). Cherry cabinets, black granite countertops, and cherry laminate flooring. The family room has a gorgeous view and acres of windows, but the kitchen end of the room is a complete cave with all those dark finishes. Ug. Why oh why?

There are many of us who would not/have not used a designer for many reasons (speaking personally, I'm a way cheap control freak, so no designers for me), but I totally get that designers play a role for many people and I'm not dissing those who use a designer, if it works for you, go for it.

sandyponder

Just a question, if I may. In many of the posts I have read references to Ranch style homes. Does anyone know the design parameters that delineate a Ranch style home according to the original architect Cliff May, which was basically followed by contractors who built these homes in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? If so, please explain. I think that many tract homes that people think are Ranch homes, in fact, are not.

You are probably right. The designation ranch was extended to mean a single floor house that is rectangular in form, usually with a combined living/dining space (Perhaps an L shaped space.) They may be tricked out in all kinds of traditional details, but they are called ranch. (Raised ranch is on an English Basement, in essense; a Rambler is a large ranch that may have different form: L, bent, T, but all on one floor). But they may only share the rudiments of form with Cliff May's original intent. Kind of like the Graham cracker of today would make Dr. Graham roll over in his grave.

Tract home is a house in a development that is basically the same as the other houses in the development, so a Neo Palladian McMansion of three stories can be a tract home if they are all essentially the same.

I've got a classic ranch, L-shaped LR/DR and all. With a full daylight basement. I never thought I'd live in one...but I love it. Incredibly practical design.

LR in my ranch:

In 1935 I believe, Cliff May published, in Sunset magazine, his design for the modern Ranch style house that he was building in San Diego. It became the basis of the ubiqutious Ranch style homes that proliferated throughout the U.S. This was the style home seen in many TV sitcoms and contemporary movies. The elements that defined this style are these. 1. Single story. 2.The shape is either T or U shaped with the wings extending into the back yard. 3. Sliding glass doors that open into the back yard patio. 4.Casement windows. 5. Little or no ornamentation. 5. Wide overhanging eaves. 6. Shake, shingle, or asphalt roofing. 7. All natural building materials like wood, stone, or brick. These homes became the embodiment of the easy California lifestyle and now have become a desired style for many buyers, especially if they have not been remodeled.
An example of inappropriate fix to a Ranch house would be to put molding around the door with plinth blocks.

Hmmm, personally, I think that people should be able to do what they want in their homes, unless perhaps they've purchased a historic register type of home.

There are a lot of factors that go into deciding which home to purchase. Sure, some of it may be based on the style and character of a home. But there's a lot based on price, neighborhood safety, neighborhood amenities, proximity to work and family, size, and general condition.

My first house was built in 1928 in the city. It was a Tudor, and had lots of charm. Beautiful moldings, rich wood trim, built-ins, etc. It also had ancient electrical and plumbing, horsehair as insulation, enormous raditors that needed repair, 25 windows and all but 2 needed repair, etc. The house had a lot of charm, but some months it felt like a money pit. When the neighborhood started deteriorating, and we decided to have children, we moved to a "soul-less" house in the suburbs, in a housing development.

I wanted to spend my children's early years hanging out with them, not fixing things. I wanted them to have windows that opened and a bathroom with heat. (And no, there's no way I could have fixed every issue with that house. I could have sunk the purchase price of the house into it for renovations and still wouldn't have been done, especially if I were trying to buy things that were both appropriate and functional rather than buying standard things at Home Depot, etc.

I admire anyone that has the time, energy, and love (not to mention money) to restore an older house in the way that has been described as appropriate on this thread. But for me, at this stage in my life, a soul-full home is one where very little of my time and attention are focused on repairs/maintenance, and more is focused on my family.

I do have to say, in my own opinion, I don't see what the big difference is between someone expressing themselves by painting their rooms non-neutral colors, and someone expressing themselves by putting a plinth block (not that I know what that is) somewhere "inappropriate." I personally would hate orange walls (in any hue, in any room) but if that's what floats someone else's boat in their home, that's okay. If someone wants to echo a period other than the one in which their home was built with their moldings or flooring, what's the difference?

I don't think we are talking about whether someone is allowed to do something or not...we are talking about how this "dilutes" design, in its theoretical sense. People are free to express themselves in any way they see fit, or not care at all for that matter, but when the "anything goes" mentality starts to creep into design mags and in what are supposed to be "good examples" of something...there is a lessening, somehow.

Its happening all over our culture. Some companies have retreated from casual dress codes because they have found that if people dressed Too sloppily, productivity went down. I once wrote a letter to a respected magazine complaining that they used the phrase [He] should of done [xyz] ---I got a reply that there is nothing wrong with that editorially, its a vernacular speech pattern. BUT ITS NOT. The correct, and real way of contracting "should have done" is "should've done". It SOUNDS like should OF...but there is a Correct way to spell it. Editors should know better.

So sure your home is your castle. Just don't expect me to buy it if its a ranch with a plinth block.

This has been a fascinating thread. I especially enjoyed bronwynsmom's posts...

Thanks to all! I hope it continues, am looking forward to reading more tomorrow.

You mean, "it's not." Is this magazine still published? Yikes.

"I don't think we are talking about whether someone is allowed to do something or not...we are talking about how this "dilutes" design, in its theoretical sense."

At least one of us is also talking about how our souls are being deprived of nurturing as a result of soul-less design. Our egos & other aspects of our psyche may be served by soul-less design, but our souls require different "foods" so to speak.

To use food as an analogy, a soul-satisfying meal often includes foods that are traditionally, historically, or ethnically derived, evoking memories & emotions. Some meals merely serve the purpose of filling the tummy, but a soulful meal touches us, moves us, makes our minds wander, & not necessarily because it is elaborate or expensive.
However, the quality of the ingredients is important. Canned or packaged foods do not resonate with the soul.
Imagine how banal life would be if we fed ourselves daily with frozen dinners, & fast & junk foods!

In my view, soul-less design depletes us & our culture in a similar fashion. It fails to nurture us on important levels. Our culture is starting to value "healthy eating." Designers are starting to incorporate "green design" into their work. Both efforts are well & good, but not to be confused with soul-ful eating or design. The soul is not on a self improvement campaign. That is the work of the ego.

"Has popular design become soulless?" Yes, most of modern life has become soul-less. Don't look for too much in modern life to guide you & support you in your quest for soul-ful living. That's not what modern life is about.

I love this thread.

And I dislike granite too. That's all I have to add to the conversation.

I totally disagree with people saying that 'granite', 'glass tile', 'ebonized', 'stainless steel' does not belong in a 100 or 150 year old house.
why, you ask? well, what doesn't belong in such an old house are electricity, computers, cars, appliances, phones etc!

Authenticity is not limited to decoration. Throw out the refrigerator along with the polished granite, then you will have an authentic period house :)

Pharaoh, I think there is something you and I don't get here.... But I have been thoroughly enjoying this thread.

Sure, there have been a number of threads about this. Houses evolve and change, so new technology can be anything...but evolution occurs forward, not backward. The first kitchen in my first condo was put in in 1965, in an 1840 house. Anything that is newer than the house itself is a natural evolution. Some may argue levels of appropriateness, but really, you're right, there is no reason to have an 1900 facsimile kitchen in a 1900 house.

The opposite, however is where the the disconnect becomes apparent. A kitchen from 1920, 1950, 1970, 2000 may all look okay in a House from 1920..its natural growth.

The disconnect would be a kitchen that looks like its from 1920 put into a 1970 glass box. The kitchen may be stylish, but if doesnt reflect a natural evolution of how that house would have grown. Once it is no longer stylish it may start to look more out of place than something that reflected the era (or a later era) would.

Just catching up with this thread. A lot of interesting thought.

Though as someone who just put in a new kitchen with granite countertops (well, quartz) and stainless steel appliances, I take exception to the idea that granite is inherently soulless. There is great beauty in stone, in its colors and natural variations. I *love* my countertops - I feel like a put a block of some sort of gemstone on top of my cabinets. In addition, I was originally going to go with white appliances because of concerns about fingerprints and the "cleanability" of SS, but I fell in with the SS aesthetic, and for me, I'm finding it attractive and easy to take care of.

Those are just my opinions. I recognize that not everyone has the same taste, or the same preferences in how things feel to the touch. If you drop things a lot, or have kids who drop things, or just don't like granite - that's fine.

I just don't think anyone should call granite & SS soulless because they happen not to like it.

(Don't mean to insult anyone or start a flame - I just saw this expressed in msg after msg and it was bugging me. ;-))

I think that no one here means to demean granite counter tops or the people who choose them. Some of them are quite beautiful and add to the house they are installed in. On the other hand, they are not the end all, be all, that they are touted to be. I like my ceramic tile counter top that was installed when the house was built in 1960 and if I were to get a new countertop, it would be ceramic tile. Granite is a design choice, not a requisite. I think palimpsest has it correct for the most part, but if I were to change the floor in my house I would not choose Brazillian Cherry. Not that it doesn,t make a good floor, it just would be out of character with a 1960's Ranch style. I would not replace my casement windows with double hung vinyl windows nor would I have clay tiles put on my roof. I wouldn't remove my walnut trees and replace them with palm trees. I wouldn't add a split level with a shed roof. I wouldn't use marble for a fireplace surround or put it in my entrance way. For me, the character of the house is important and I try to keep it in character by choosing things that are sympathetic to that style. If, on the otherhand, someone wanted to put in a granite countertop because they think it's beautiful, they are right, it is.

someone2010-- Some of them are quite beautiful and add to the house they are installed in. On the other hand, they are not the end all, be all, that they are touted to be. I like my ceramic tile counter top that was installed when the house was built in 1960 and if I were to get a new countertop, it would be ceramic tile. Granite is a design choice, not a requisite.

Exactly! Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I think that is what I am reacting against...the thought that certain things are requisate, and that any other choice is "wrong".

Just to toss out another idea to ponder. If you live in a area with a strong regional style, I think it's okay to decorate with a nod towards that style, even if it isn't strictly appropriate for the house itself.

My 60s phony colonial tract home resides in a lovely part of Connecticut with many beautiful historical homes and many excellent historical reproductions. To me, the 60s tract homes in my development seem out of place. They don't relate to the area and have an anachronistic feel. My neighbors have maintained their homes well. But some of the modernizations, especially of the interiors, strike me as off -- you just don't get a sense that you live in Connecticut. Everybody loves living here because of the historical charm & the abundant natural beauty, but walking into some of these homes, you might as well be in Des Moines. Or Provence. Or the Upper East Side.

Two years ago we needed to sink money into the house as most of the original materials and mechanics were failing. I thought about the inappropriateness of some of the changes we were making. Was I trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? (Yes) Could I successfully transform a 60s house into a genuine colonial style? (Not really) Would I be destroying the architectural integrity of the home? (A purist would think so). These houses were never plumb & square anyway. Mine sags in the center even. Why try for spit and polish, or even maintaining the 60s feel, when rusticating it could blend in the quirks and flaws? Low unlevel ceiling? It's a feature!

So we went ahead with the changes: shingles that mimic the historical houses, traditional colors, native stone. We got rid of the triple track windows with the hideous aluminum storm covers, replaced the skimpy moldings with wider ones, replaced the flush doors with 4-panels, banished the bright brass with black iron or ORB, ripped out vinyl flooring and put in stone-like tile, replaced shiny for rustic, sleek for textured, contemporary for old. Eventually we'll put in wide plank pine flooring in the family room.

On the whole, nothing could be mistaken for antique or genuine. It's more a nod to the past with modern materials. So yes, the house is still a 60s phony colonial with a too flat roof and asymmetrical window placement, but at least it now feels like a Connecticut home. It seems to relate to the area better, both in looking at the home and in looking out of it. (Maybe that's something I missed having lived in 2 contemporaries with big, low windows, that sense of connecting with the outside.) By trying to nudge the house towards a more historical, local, true colonial feel, I did all the "wrong" things, but the house seems more right for it.

That is well stated...and I think there are "right" ways to do the wrong thing. The right way you did it, it sounds, is by having a comprehensive plan for the whole house. Houses of this sort are often hybrids anyway. A friend/client of mine lives in a 1950s community of ranches and splits with a lot of colonial revival details--and bands of awning windows in the bedrooms and a Gigantic picture window in the LR--and it all coexists kind of peacefully. They are a typical American compromise: a modern floorplan and elevations with some "historic" details to make us comfortable.

I should also disclose that I worked on two houses in that development with that client. The first one we ended up tearing down. For what they wanted, it made no sense to keep the house. She divorced and bought the sibling to the teardown--since her needs had changed we kept what was worth keeping and scrapped the rest.

I have both granite and stainless steel in my townhouse and it's not a soul less home...if anything it's got soul screaming at you every time your turn a corner, which often confuses people who prefer a home with very little individuality. :o)

Would I put it in my 1880's register home? Well actually, let me show you an original buttlers pantry from a home built at the turn of the century...

{{gwi:1675202}}

Sure it's a silver sink (can you see it in the clutter?) but it can be easily replicated in SS and have the same feel.

I'd use a non-polished granite in our historic home...likely I'll use a mix of zinc, wood and marbles, but I may mix in some soapstone and I'm thinking of onyx in the buttlers pantry. It's about using materials that have the feel, and if someone wanted, taking the home back to it's origins easily. So if I use onyx, (which was in the baking kitchen in that same home...I don't have that pic on this computer) and someone feels marble or glass or whatever is more appropriate, they can easily swap it out without ruining the historic value of the home.

(I'm seriously leaning towards honey onyx and ivory cabinets LOL so maybe I'm justifying this).

I have to disagree with a statement made above about old homes needing molding to cover flaws..... that would not be true of any historic home I've lived in. I just took down all of the trim pieces in my dining room here and restored the plaster as necessary (spot work) and the work done in 1889 is still fabulous, and finished, both beneeth the molding and on the main walls in a much higher level of craftsmanship than I would ever expect to see in my 1983 home (and I saw every cranny there too). the same could be said of the 1920's cape I lived in, and the 1890's folk victorian....shortcuts were not taken to hide flaws. They were trimmed out well because that's what craftsmen did, verses spraying on knock down or orange peal texture to hide their lack of effort in doing the plaster, etc.

And we have more breakdowns in our 1983 than we do in our 1889 hands down!!! I am fully enjoying my life with my 4 year old, even in the middle of restoration here and much more so than I did in our remodel of the townhouse. In a victorian you just work on the room and close the door verses stupid open floor plans you can't close off to finish while still living there! I love my townhouse, but even done as it is, in much better shape than when started, it can't hold a candle to a historic home with real plaster and lath as well as real wood trim :)

This house has SOUL and my only worries about that is that we might stir them up and they'll come a visiting LOL

Baby-boomer here...grew up in a San Diego Bungalow/Spanish style community with those fabulous tile built-ins and I am still strangely attracted to them....along with boomerang and large tropical print fabrics. :-)

Shhhhh...palimpsest...just pose as a dealer, slip into that house and tear out the tile inserts, tub, sink and toilet to send me. Let the druggies know you are not competing with their business as you are dealing in retro decor items.

I am seriously thinking about mid-century modern for my guest bedroom as I am having trouble decorating to match the furniture...but will try to install some SOUL into it. :-)