Hey stranger! Long time no see. :)

First, what does "Folk Victorian" mean? I have only read FV by your screen name and never thought it was an actual style.

I think she should have been more specific. Now if she's just talking about the modern changes in the bathroom only, then yeah, she needs to back off.

But if she's talking about gutting the whole ingterior to make it modern, then I'd have to agree with her.

It would be like if Igloo bought her beautiful Victorian and turned the whole thing into a modern mirror and steel monster. I'd have to spank her. :)

Do you think she was just talking about the one room or the whole house.

Never the less, you're right. Even if they did gut an old home and changed it to modern, it's the homeowner's right to do so. Even if I don't like it. lol

Only recently have we become so strict about staying true to period when it comes to kitchens and baths.

I would say that I am guilty of not liking to walk into a house that has a Vegas-styled bath, or all the current trends of surfaces and finishes in a house that is otherwise different. but I don't agree that every house before 192x has to have a clawfoot tub, or every 50s house should have a pink bath.

I looked at a house with original original bathrooms that were decrepit. The long corner tubs would have needed to be reglazed and fired offsite, and there was *one* reproduction standing waste style tub filler than I could find...to the tune of almost $3000K. And I never take baths.
The whole thing would have to have been created as a museum piece and still would not have been very practical.

In "My new ex offer", the house has the "original" bath and kitchen...from the 1960s, although the house is circa 1810. There WAS no bath in the house til the 1960s, and the old, original kitchen was probably a gas range shoved inside the fireplace in the basement. So what *is* a period bath in a house that predates bathrooms--who knows? The closest you can get is something that references the first bathroom that *may have gone in the house, --or maybe you just put in something modern that isn't too jarring.

The earlier owners simply would have put in whatever the latest technology was and not worried about it. Its a fine line, I do balk at seeing kitchens and baths that do not play well with the rest of the house, but on the other hand I see no need to be such a purist that you actually become revisionist.

Hi, Oakley! From what I understand, a Folk Victorian house is one built during the Victorian period by ordinary people -- no fancy work except for what could be made by hand. Our house was built c. 1890 by a man who emigrated to America (Wisconsin) from Norway with his family. The living room floor has a beautiful inlaid pattern and I just imagine the long winter days he spent working on it.

OK, back to the main question! Yes, I agree with you that it wouldn't be the best idea to gut a period house and make it all 2010 modern, but I thought it was strange that this gal wrote an entire column on how others decorated their homes for their own use. We can't all afford to live in museums. (Wasn't there a posting on this forum some time ago about a sweet little old clapboard cottage for sale in California that had an ultra-modern interior?)

Palimpsest, "Vegas style" sounds exactly like what a black and gold bathroom would be! Too funny. Yes, I guess we old-house lovers all have to decide where to draw the line between renovation and revision, as you mention. So when you get your new 1810 home (not "if" but "when") I can't wait to learn what you'll do with your bathrooms. I remember your posting about the 1960's bath and I liked it a lot as is. If you tear out a perfectly clean, modern 60's bath and replace it with a 2010 bath, someone will rip out your 2010 bath in 50 years and put in a....well, I'm not sure. And, unless your 2010 bath is hand made by artisans, the components won't last as long as your 1960's components would, I'm guessing. I suppose the magic of owning a house that was built before indoor toilets is that you can arbitrarily decide what decade to make the bathroom "from". I'd wait on the $3,000 tub filler, though. ;)

(1810? Can you just imagine what life was like when the house was built? The Civil War wouldn't begin for over 50 years, the traffic jams in front of the house were caused by balky horses instead of double-parked taxis, and Charles Dickens wouldn't be born for 2 more years. Would your house have had a servant or two? Is that their room under the attic eaves?)

The house is question is not on one of the main East-West streets or on a North-South numbered street, but on an in between street. In the later 19th c. there was definitely a hierarchy of wealth/large houses on the main streets, fairly affluent tradespeople business owners on the numbered streets and servants/working class on the little in between streets.

The houses on this block though, are larger, and the time frame a bit earlier, so I am thinking that these may have been for tradespeople who were making a good living, but not affluent. As opposed to the large building I live in now, that had less elaborate trim as one ascended but still had cornices and marble fireplaces until the top floor, these houses have two fancy rooms with cornices and marble mantles on the first floor and the rest is pretty plain. The street is just wide enough for one car, so it was likely the occupants were not too high on the social scale, however, they may have had a servant or two --people were servants in those days simply to have a place to sleep and a bit of food, as I understand.

This house does need another full bath, (probably to replace the solitary toilet cantilevered off the third floor landing). The adjacent 3rd floor bedroom is the smallest, and it would make sense for that to become a bath and closet for the front bedroom which is large and retains its wooden Federal mantle. I don't think I would go for a full on Victorian bath, but I think I would do something pretty nondescript with basic traditional details that worked with the house.

I would agree that it is important with renovations be mindful of the style of the rest of the house. But I find it ridiculous to think that someone has to put up with something that does not function for them in their own home.

My house was built in the 1970s. Hardly a period filled with decorating "gems" in my opinion. Should I have kept my small harvest gold bath tub and toilet and harvest gold tile? Should I cancel my dreams of removing the asbestos popcorn ceiling texture? I suppose I've ruined yet another well maintained gem of the era. In 50+ years, will house hunters be lamenting my white fixtures? It seems like there is a lot more in the quality, functionality, and style of a given feature that makes it a "classic" or a "gem" than just its age. I imagine there is bound to be a period of time between when something is "up to date" and something is "classic" when it is less than widely loved. Isn't it also some of the uniqueness/infrequency of finding something original that is well preserved that makes it so special?

Yes, there are some true old gems out there with unique and high quality older materials that have been preserved. But I also do not think there is anything wrong with renovating or redecorating to suit your needs. But, just in case, I will be waiting for a knock on my door by the renovation police. I might even consider gifting them with the remaining harvest gold toilet if they're so included.

Thanks for the thought-provoking topic.

That's a little like seeing a house built today with 'old' features...is that a crack in the plaster or just a faux painting effect? You've walked into many a brand new build trying to replicate an old Italian villa, haven't you? Those are (still) the rage around dear old Dallas.

Old home owners want more modern conveniences and new home owners want charm, style, and character. lol

The editor does come off sounding superior and a wee bit snotty. You are right, it's the owner's home. They can make it how ever fits their needs, wants, and wishes.

There is a fine line, yes, but you also have to make the house functional.

The previous owners did really well with our house (built in 1910, late Victorian, interior is arts & crafts). The first floor is all original, except the kitchen. All hardwood, all beautiful wood trims, built ins, etc. In the kitchen they left the wood trim but added all new cabinets (NOT stained honey oak), granite floor, and granite countertops. It blends in with the house nicely.

All bathrooms were updated with ceramic tile, new toilet, new walls, and the two full baths have two new tubs. They also blend in fairly well.

I am forever grateful that the PO's both updated the functional spaces (kitchen and baths) and kept most of the historical details and trimwork in place.

So, you can definitely do it right.

When I look at realtor.com at some of these old houses around here that people redo, it makes me cringe. They rip out the wall for the kitchen, vault the ceilings, etc. etc. I would be instantly turned off to an old house like that.

The fact is that even though old Victorians had "rooms" instead of one big open space, as long as the doors are taken off all of the rooms, the spaces actually flow quite well. And we use the huge dining room as our family room.

There's nothing more off-putting, IMHO, than an old house where a kitchen wall has been taken out and replaced with a breakfast bar. Just doesn't fit.

It is weird when people make gaudy, flashy updates to an old house. You don't have to be expensive and fashionable about updating. They used stock cabinets in the kitchen, cheap tubs, etc., and it looks just fine and regular, not overdone.

There is a fine line, yes, but some people don't get it, and there's no reasoning with them.

If people *really* wanted charm in their new homes, instead of getting a 3000 sq ft house, they'd get a 2500 sq ft house for cheaper, and updated/replace all the trim with better trim, have a few built-ins built, etc. It's not hard. But people choose not to spend money on it and instead want bigger and better.

I think people should be able to do whatever they want to in their own home. If a homeowner is concerned about what might happen in the future, try to put your home on a historical register, and then there will be stricter guidelines.

Personally, I would LOVE to have a clawfoot tub and hope to have one, when I remodel my old farmhouse. That being said, if I'd always wanted a Vegas-style jacuzzi tub, I'd probably get one of those, instead :)

I think my bigger concern would be the pea-green interiors that you mentioned, earlier. Hey, everyone should do what they want, but please tell me they actually like this and aren't choosing this color, because it's so often featured in the magazine! I like blue and white kitchens, brick fireplaces and wood floors, so no matter what the style in the next few years, that's what I'll probably end up with in my farmhouse. LOL

Probably the most important part of renovating, and decorating, an old house is to keep things "real". i.e., if the floor is generally hardwood, when it's time to update the kitchen, don't use vinyl tile. Use something "real" like slate or granite or even ceramic.

That is also where some of the problems are in newer houses. And since it is a home decorating board, a lot of the problems people seem to have are incongruous flooring....there is hardwood and then you step into a room with vinyl tile and it's difficult to reconcile the two different looks.

I guess I'm more of a purest when it comes to the old homes in the united states. I think we don't respect them enough. That black tub would upset the hell out of me as do many modern changes, like pals bathroom.

In Europe and the united kingdom they have "listed" homes (similar to our registered homes). Changes, inside and out are closely watched by local "historical police" and I love that. Many people think the listed homes are just mansions and castles, but that isn't the case. A humble farm building can be listed right along with buckingham palace. These countries respect their history and we seemingly don't quite often.

I would like to see folk Victorians protected from horrific tubs lol. Not every one, but if we don't maintain some of their charm we will lose their history.

Homes in those countries are allowed to add baths and update kitchens, even to add on, but it's done carefully.

My home is protected by national and local covenants (so no worries oaky lol) mostly on the outside, but if I followed the letter of the law the inside is as well (and I do). And thank god it is. It would be a haunt worthy sin to put in that black tub, but that does not mean I can't have a jacuzzi...I just have to do it carefully, likely in white with chrome verses black with gold (yuck). That might mean a bit more expensive of a fixture than I might do in my 1980s townhouse, but on the plus side, the balance of the room would be much cheaper because you aren't using high end granites or whatever modern stuff is popular because they didn't use much more than ceramics and marble back in the day anyhoo.

When we make changes we try to think like the original owner. This house actually had central heat (in 1889) as well as bathrooms. Would mr James be cooking on the old majestic now a days (not that he probably ever cooked mind you lol) but we like to think he would have had something modern, but we will pick that with his design style in mind (which means no wall ovens). It takes a bit more work, but the outcome of doing things this way is both pleasing to us, and friendly to the house.

I wish there were more ghost old house police and they'd haunt the people who desecrate their Victorians with big black tubs....but if rules, like those attached to my house would work, I guess I'm for that.

Who's house is it? I guess I think it's both my house....and your house as I've chosen to take on a bit of our countries history and should happily understand the responsibility that comes with that.

Am I an old house snob or what lol

Whose home is it anyway?

Well, I consider my house mostly to belong to the young couple who built it in 1922 and raised their family and lived here for 55 years until they died. I've been here for 4. Not equal footing if you ask me.

But seriously, I agree with everything krycek has posted here.

I think once the house becomes old enough, the current owner is only a steward. If the house is 200 years old, you are just passing through if you move as much as the typical American does now.

The problem in the Northeast in areas such as Boston or Philadelphia, is that there is a lot of housing stock that predates interior bathrooms and kitchens.

In the house I am making an offer on, the 1965 blush colored bathroom *IS the first bathroom in the house, and the current kitchen may be the first that wasn't in the baement. In the mid sixties the possibility of finding the parts for a clawfoot tub, hex tile and subway tile...all the things to do a "first period" bathroom in the house were about zero. So, to take out the Real first bathroom in order to put in an erzatz Edwardian bathroom seems kinda phony. It puts me in mind of what the Victorians did to the walled city of York. It was a plain flat topped wall and they added embellishments and ramparts and crenellations (sp?)--all the faux castellated elements to make it look more Medieval, and "romantic".

That said, when I *do put a second bath in, it will at least be something plain and sturdy and traditional so that it does not stand out a great deal --but there is no point in fooling anyone with an erzatz historic bath. In 1820, one relieved oneself in a bucket, tossed it into the gutter and probably bathed twice a year whether it was needed or not.

The thing that worries me about this house, is that it is being marketed as a chance to take an "heirloom" and transform it into a "contemporary masterpiece". And my realtor says unfortunately most people would do a near gut on this house to make it conform to the the current concept of the latest necessities...Go ahead and do that to a house where there is nothing original inside anyway, there are plenty of those. I hope it doesn't happen to this one.