SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
palimpsest

Keeping (Up)dated. A tale of two houses.

palimpsest
12 years ago

In the thread about the staircase there was some discussion about being a "purist" and removing an update to recreate what was there, vs. allowing the out-of-place to remain as the history of the house. There is no right answer really, but there are arguments against creating a facsimile of something already gone.

Pair this with the continual talk of what's trendy, what's dated and what will be dated, and the increasing speed at which changes are made makes me think. Do you really think the installers of that 1970s staircase in the 1850 house said "lets install a hideously inappropriate staircase that someone in the future will curse us for"(?)...I doubt it. But by the same token people espouse changing things in here all the time...don't you think that is going to make someone in the future wonder about us?

I made an offer on this house that has had two owners in 200 years with the exception of a 5 year period in the 1920s. Dull, dull, dull on the surface...but intact 1810 at its core. Get rid of the off white wallpaper and you've got a good one. Lets look at it...and the house next door. Keep in mind these houses were identical at one point. The family owned both until about 20 years ago.

This:

Becomes this:

This:

Becomes this:

This:

Becomes this:

And this:



This...

Maybe there is a reason that the one house was sold off. Perhaps they downsized into the one in the best condition.Maybe the updated one *needed* to be gutted. I doubt it, but maybe.

So we can't really have it both ways. We can update "however we want because its our own house" but then perhaps we shouldn't complain about how ugly and inappropriate the contemporary updates are that the last generation made to our own houses. *Everything goes through a period of "Oh...That" after its been popular...when we haven't had the temporal distance to appreciate it for what it was. Every permanent "update" we make has implications, good and bad.

Comments (5)