Island Lighting

Palimpsest - the first kitchen dated yes, ugly no. Some people may find it boring, I think it rocks! About the only thing I object to is the MW over the stove.

BTW who would argue about being able to take a swim before breakfast ;>.

I don't mind dated. I don't even mind ugly if it's functional and doesn't smell bad.

On the subject of dated and NOT ugly, Palimpsest, do you have any more photos of that early '70s kitchen? Of course it needs different lighting and more drawers, but I think it's worthy of emulation!

Obviously it's new and staged in the photo and it probably doesn't look so nice these days if it's even still around, but I like it. I think I would be willing to live with a lot of extra high upper cabinets (also known as "cabinets for the spouse") if I had enough drawer space...

There is certainly a mentality that new trumps old in every case. When my kitchen was posted on Houzz, many people commented on the expense, primarily to say "but for that money, you could have had all new everything!" To which I tried to point out...but why? Why is it always necessary to obliterate what is there?

I think it's often easier, which is the real answer. But this attitude of "newer is better" causes a huge amount of genericism...the designs are all the same (the "Another finished white kitchen" post syndrome.) No offense to anyone intended here...the point of all this work and expense is to be happy with what you have, and many people truly want what everyone else has. But when everyone else changes what they want, it's back to the drawing board for you!

That instinct would cause most people to demolish the lovely kitchens that Pal just posted, even though they are tasteful, just because they aren't like everyone else's anymore...even if they WERE like everyone else's at some point.

And the recurring "how do I keep my kitchen from looking dated" post will also keep turning up like a bad penny. And all the advice will be to just do what you like, because you can run, but you can't hide...it will become dated no matter what you install!

Very interesting topic, Mr Pal. Dated=Ugly... GrandMother always said: "Ugly is as ugly does." *grin* All of the subsequent photos you used were beautiful and a pleasure to the ones who bought/designed them. Were they my heart's desire & delight?

The kitchen is my home territory. It needs to be easy come, easy go, easy clean, easy bake. Baking, cooking, canning, dehydrating are labour intensive & messy endeavours.

Wall paper in a kitchen...please, no thank you. Upholstered couches, chairs & inviting cushions most certainly invite grease stains & assorted cooking cooties. Curtains & draperies...quick be quick with the fire extinguisher LOL. And who came up with the idea of W/W carpet in the kitchen...ick-factor overload. Chandeliers, pendant lights, swag lights, chicken pox lights are too curiosity invoking for fluffs of flour which seem to float effortlessly away from kneading hands.

Being on pointe & avant garde IS important to many people. Kitchens seem to attract a LOT of attention when anything "dated" is discussed. My idea of "dated" is no indoor plumbing, no electricity, no gas. Ugly is me hunched over an outdoor fire pit, dripping sweat, with my apron & skirt hiked up to my knees to keep it out of harms way. And, I'm not much nicer lugging water back by the buckets.

I feel like it's smart to go a little generic with the "permanent" parts of your kitchen. Like, we're probably going to use white subway tile for our backsplash instead of yellow or green.

Hopefully we'll hit "classic" instead of "trendy."

Then we can do whatever we want with paint colors. With wall hangings and "knick-knacks." To make it cool or trendy or personal.

My hope is in 25 years the cabinets and the backsplash and the flooring and the countertops will still look "classic" even if the walls have been repainted and the appliances replaced.

Shaker-style inset cabinets are trendy now (as has been discussed recently) But they were trendy in 1919 when my house was built too, so I feel pretty safe. I don't think I'm picking them because they're trendy now, but because they fit the style of the house.

I don't want anyone to visit my house if I sell it some day and say "what a dated kitchen!" but I also don't want anyone to say "oooh an updated kitchen!"

My goal is to get you to think "is this kitchen original?" which of course it wouldn't be. But just a moment of doubt means I've succeeded.

As I've said before, I think it's in the eye of the beholder. In my simple little early 70's house, I'll be so thrilled to get rid of the avocado green oven hood, cheap laminate countertops, cheap cabinetry, etc. and although I do think it will be rather dark, my DH matters in decisions, and his opinion counts too; we are going with medium oak cabinetry (his choice), dark granite counters (his choice). My choice will be white subway b/s with a band of Mexican colorful tiles similar to what Sexy Mexy did to give some color, along with a lamp that has oranges, blues, etc. This house is what it is, never will be fancy, but oh, so comfortable! Dated? Yes, I'm sure it is 80's style, but who cares?

My choices include designing the living room, am having so much fun with that!

I generally agree with Pal's original post. I've seen a few "before" kitchens posted here lately that are perfectly lovely and pristine vintage kitchens that the poster derided as dated.(In some of those cases, the GWebbers endorsed the original kitchen over a superficial redo that probably would have resulted in a blandly generic kitchen, or worse, one with clashing or unharmonious stlyles.)

Of the pics Pal posted, I really like the first MCM kitchen, the 1979 kitchen (super narrow, though!), and the 1994 kitchen (except the lighting fixtures). The early 1970s kitchen was clearly edgy when it was installed--orange was trendy, but not THAT trendy--and would probably appeal to just as small a minority today as it would have then. But it isn't ugly, just too hip for me and most people in any era. Well the lights are kind of obtrusive, but some modern MR16 tracks would fix that up without, I think, undermining the 70s coolness.

The 1980 is the one that I like least. EAM44 said something in an earlier post about how it's easier to be objective about things that were before our time (I'm paraphrasing). I came of age in the 80s and find it really hard to be objective about the design of that era. I think, though, that my negative reaction to that pic is driven less by the design and more by the overabundance of accessories: Baskets! Plants! Hanging pots! A ceramic chicken! Hey, let's stage the kitchen with some extra baking pans and loaves of bread! Add all that to the otherwise tolerable pattern of the tile, and it's just overload for me.

I think there's a class element as well. A beautiful designer kitchen can hold up over time where a more affordable kitchen will likely have generic and widespread finishes, big box elements, that will date precisely because they were so widely available and therefore affordable, and because we tend to shy away from so called 'lower class' things.

I realize people can pull off great kitchens on a budget and that there are plenty of super expensive, super ugly kitchens out there, but I think dated often means 'too widely used.'

Personally I love modern style. but can't put a super modern kitchen in my house.

I would suggest that if the beholder considers the kitchen ugly, then it's equated with dated. Fascinating from the posted photos to see that a "dated" kitchen can become trendy 20 or 30 years later. Few ideas are original; most are recycled.

Years ago, my MIL told me they built a 3 bedroom home in the 60s because the architect told them that resale value would be better. So they scrunched 3 boys into one large bedroom, with the lone girl in a room by herself. When they sold their home in the 80s, of course 4 bedroom homes were in vogue.

If you're planning to be in your home for a long time, just get what you want. It's impossible to predict the likes of the next home buyer.

Interesting photos Palimpsest! Personally, I would be able to work in all of the kitchens, except the orange 70's kitchen just because of the workspace. It looks like the counters all have uppers directly above them, so functionally it would be irritating to me for prep work. As far as the color, it is intense, but it is still an attractive space.

The ninety-five kitchen would drive me batty because of the lack of counter space and the plethora of white tile with grout lines. The oven wall has too much variation for me and unsettles me.

I guess, in the end, I really don't mind dated. For me dated is separate from ugly as this thread has brought me to consider it. Efficiency and functionality rank right up there with ascetically pleasing. Then again, I am not on the design edge of things.

My old kitchen was attractive to me with hickory cabinets, slate flooring (we had replaced the original wood flooring), and granite tile counter tops. We ended up gutting it because of it's complete lack of functionality. OTR microwave that was blocked from the sink by a barrier island and a dishwasher at a right angle to the sink which left a 2 foot clearance when it was open for loading dishes. The granite tile was unevenly fitted so it would rub holes in my shirts as I stood at the cast iron enamel sink to do dishes. The cast iron enamel sink was chipped easily, I guess due to builder grade quality or lack there of. And a tiny pantry closet of wire shelving for storage. To look at, I could live with it, but to cook in was a complete reoccurring irritation.

Here's a photo of my old kitchen (build 1999), which is probably dated now, and also poorly functional (in addition it's cluttered and not really photo ready, but an example nevertheless).

And I loved our breakfast nook

The other part of Palimpsest's equation is the "generic". I am still not exactly clear on that. Does it mean most frequently seen? Or does it mean tedious? The synonyms are general - common - universal. The Merriam Webster definition is "having no particularly distinctive quality or application". So, I would suppose that a generic kitchen would vary based on geography. For instance, although we see lots of beautiful white kitchens on GW, there are very few where I live. Most are wood toned with "generic" granites. Generic can take on a negative connotation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so. For instance, in the US, we use a certain type of electrical wiring. Generic plugs. And it's a darned good thing we do! There are drugs that become generic, thus lowering costs. That is a good thing too.

Interesting things to think about Palimpsest! Thank you for starting this thread.

That is a good point. But I am not sure why the two become so intertwined as to be synonymous in some people's minds-- because that is where the mistake is.

Although not all the kitchens above are my taste, nor do I like every aspect of most of them, they are clearly not current and yet they are not ugly either. The other thing that is apparent is that all the "newer" trends: marble taking over a part of the granite market, nearly all-white kitchens, the elaborate lighting over the island, the windowed backsplash. --None of these new trends are "new" design elements. They are just more popular right now than before.

But people have been doing these things all along to some degree.

Another twist on the dated (automatically) = ugly idea is the

I don't like it so it's (automatically) = ugly.

This just is not true. There are plenty of ordinary to quite beautiful things that I don't like all that much. But one Should be able to acknowledge the beauty or utility of something you don't like. And so many people just Won't. It's like "I don't like it so it's ugly and useless and No One Else should like it either."

(I should also say that there are some things that I know are "ugly" and like quite a bit nonetheless.)

The American Institute of Architects announced the 2013 AIA/HUD Secretary Housing winners. This kitchen is very minimalist, but it fits with the rest of the home, and although it is not my taste, I do think it's beautiful. However, I think I might have functionality issues with it, as it is not clear to me where things are stored or the relationship between the sink and the stovetop for dumping pasta water. Will it become dated? What elements do you see in it? Would it be safe to call it a 2013 kitchen? Or is it so unique, ie nongeneric, that it does not fit in a clear category?

I agree with your statement of people's mindset against something. "But one Should be able to acknowledge the beauty or utility of something you don't like. And so many people just Won't. It's like "I don't like it so it's ugly and useless and No One Else should like it either." "

I wonder why that is? It makes for a very narrow world vision. And even more importantly suppresses the joie de vivre!

I attached the a link to the other 2013 winners. Very interesting architecture.

Here is a link that might be useful: 2013 winners

The thing that strikes me about the kitchens in those photos are that they are extremely upmarket. They feature design and materials that have held up well over time. I've never seen anything like them in my area, but I'll admit to coming from a builder-grade-tract-house background.

Generally, the only difference here between starter homes, and move-up neighbourhoods, is square footage - the kitchens rarely have any higher end features (appliances, cabinet quality, counter-top materials, etc.). So, for homes built in any year, there is a total generic same-same-same look across much of the market strata. One must head upwards to the custom home level to find any different "looks". Sometimes these expensive homes feature fabulous kitchens, which might some day be included in your photo library, or they might just become examples of the the kind of kitchens we love to hate here on GW - the triumph of form over function.

Anyway, with the builder grade kitchens I generally see, they become "dated/ugly" for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is just that something new has come along and is featured in newer homes (even if it is still builder grade). But often, it doesn't take all that many years before the cheapo generic materials used start to look dirty, damaged, or they simply fall apart (my old kitchen cabinetry!) In my books, nothing is uglier or more dated than deteriorating poor quality materials.

I object to the idea of "class" dictating a kitchen.

I also think we're using "generic" in relation to the kitchens we see here, since we can't speak geographically. Perhaps locally, every are has its own "generic"?

I think you nailed it on the head, cooksnews. And many have made this point, too: quality materials make the difference in many cases. Then looking at functionality and the relationship to the house. IMHO.

Unfortunately I think you have to bring up the correlation of social class and taste, somewhat.

For example, from the 1950s-1970s, vinyl flooring was used in very high end residential projects and made appearances in design magazines all the way up to Architectural Digest.

Now that it has really fallen out of favor, there are very few simple, sophisticated designs to be found in the American residential market, and many of the designs are downright hideous. They must be selling them, or they wouldn't make them. So they are being bought by the downmarket consumer.

I don't think the manufacturers make ugly products for the low end of the market to Punish the people at that end of the market for not spending more. I think they are making what sells.

Of course there is much that is appalling at the upper reaches and custom end of the market as well, so taste is not directly correlated to socioeconomic class. But there must be a correlation to some degree. If not, you would be able to buy a simple white sophisticated sheet vinyl in a number of variations from a number of manufacturers at various price points within their offerings, and quite simply, you really can't.

There are a number of offerings that are fine, but there are endless offerings of rather unconvincing stone looks in caramel-y brown and earthy green, and pages of wood look with yellow undertones. I just looked and at least the major manufacturers seem to have eliminated most of the really depressing ones.

One might think that at the least expensive end of the market things might start to get plainer and plainer, but for the most part that is not the case. In the general interior design market, for example, it is rather easy to find a shiny, flouncy black or maroon satin bedspread, not all that easy to find a simple one in a basic tailored style and color.

Thanks for the interesting link, Doonie. I've seen that first kitchen you posted many times over the decades. Totally classic. The second, with its oversized-hat attention grabber, not so much; without it, though, also classic.

Robotropolis puts part of the "dating" dynamic very succinctly, "I think dated often means 'too widely used.'"

Certainly, these days any time something shows up in a big box store in my town it means it's also showing up in all the thousands of other cities and towns across this nation alone, already well on its way to super-saturated status on the web, in middle-class magazines, etc.

Dated does not equate to ugly (except in the minds of unthoughtful people disposed to such things). Dated equates to ennui: "discontent arising from satiety."

I think generic does vary.

The generic kitchen of my geographic location is not the same generic kitchen where my sister lives nor the same generic kitchen of Gardenweb.

But in those contexts, there is a Strong push toward Conformity, and sometimes conformity is not so attractive.

If you are Gutting a kitchen and starting over, it can be rather easy to conform, because you can simply duplicate each element from the kitchen to which you must conform, and be done with it.

But if you are updating a kitchen and leaving major elements in place, conforming to the list of options for replacing the rest often creates an esthetic disconnect between the old and new, and that gets ignored. There are some awful pre-update kitchens where the best elements are eradicated simply because they are the oldest, and replaced with today's version of tomorrow's what were they thinking? I've seen strong recommendations to keep some pretty bad former updated elements simply because they are the newer ones.

There are 19,775 cabinet knobs and pulls on the Hardware Hut website. Yet how often do people recommend the exact pull they used, (and get angry at you if you don't want to use it)? Same with paint colors (even actual shades of white). Some things like granite are more limited in the choices one can make, but there are more than the dozen or so we see over and over.

And there is quite a bit of pressure to Choose what someone else has already chosen. It's easier to do so from the choosers standpoint, of course, but the pressure often comes from the individual(s) making the suggestion.

And to question the utility of something in ones Own kitchen despite the fact that it works for other people often results in being told that "If you don't want advice, don't ask for it" and all kinds of other charges of being unappreciative. I raised a question about dish drawers, lifting out the entire stack etc, and might it not be easier to have waist high cabinet-style dish storage, and you would have thought I was asking for a legislative ban on dish drawers because I didn't think they would be the best option for me, since I put clean dishes at the bottom of the stack. I was also essentially told that doing so was pointless and that I have way too much time on my hands if I can spend an extra 60 seconds each time I empty the DW doing so.

"I don't get dark floors in white kitchens" is another thread that has gotten a couple comments along the lines of "What, are you just trying to insult people and ask it in the form of a question?" I interpreted this as someone trying to find out more about the trend, and maybe explore why they themselves didn't like it. They're Allowed to not like it aren't they?

So I think the conformity not only comes from the remodeler trying to make the choices easier (and to some degree to fit in), but also from the advisor who wants to reinforce their Own decisions by pressuring others to agree with them...

My current kitchen is most certainly dated. I believe it is the original 1926 cabinets, etc. We even have the original ice box with outside delivery hatch. It is not ugly, at least in my opinion. The cabinets are shaker, currently painted white (who knows what colors they have been over the years--the interiors of the laundry cabinets are a dreadful pink). The sink is huge and very shallow made of cast iron; it is unfortunately in not very good condition. One wall has a built-in Hoosier with a cool pull out countertop. The very small amount of countertop space is yellow square tile with enormous grout lines. This tile is also the backsplash. The flooring is the wood flooring as in the rest of the house. Aesthetically the tile countertop and backsplash are not my favorites, but otherwise I like the looks of the kitchen quite a bit.

There are some real functional problems; however, that I hope we will be able to remedy some day with a remodel. The range and refrigerator are right next to each other with no counter space on either side. There are three doors into the kitchen space. There's a total of about five feet of counter space. The drawers are all quite small and difficult to pull out. And so on.

I think the challenge will be to decide how much to try to preserve, how much to reproduce and how faithfully, and how much to simply diverge from what is currently here. The current space is by definition dated, yet much of it is actually current in terms of style at this point, whether because it was timeless to begin with or because what goes around comes around.

A bit more on my dated kitchen. I suppose the "generic" fix would be to rip out the tile countertop, backsplash and cast iron sink and replace them with granite, glass mosaic tile and a stainless steel sink? None of those are necessarily bad things but they are also not particularly appropriate to this house, IMO. I suppose that's the sort of "generic" fix that is objectionable?

If the tile countertop is in poor condition and you wanted to replace it with something more functional than grouted tile, I suppose the better option would be to choose a quartz countertop with an overall plain, single-color appearance in a color that was "tile-like" of the period with a simple eased edge. There are a number of pastel colored quartzes.

Solid surface with the same sort of vibe would be another option.

I think that newer, more practical materials can be used in period-compatible ways.

Crl, you really are fortunate that so much of what's been done for the past 20 years is a throwback to your era. A real win-win in terms of affordable, readily available choices.

Generic is what's designed for and marketed to everyone, designed to be as acceptable as possible to everyone, wherever they live and whatever they live in, to reap the greatest benefits of mass production. That's not to say it doesn't look good, often gorgeous, but...it's generic.

To know what generic is, just look around you, at cabinet brochures, model kitchens at Home Depot, magazines in supermarkets, new subdivisions anywhere in the country--they're all pushing the same merchandise, with almost no variation between Carlsbad, New Mexico and Rochester, New York.

How about:
Hardwood floors, medium to dark.
Slab stone counter in lighter colors.
Relatively simple backsplash, mosaic or stacked stone.
Shaker cabinets in white or wood finish.
Professional-look stainless steel range.
Stainless steel cladding on other appliances.
Three-door refrigerator.
Stainless or mass-produced wood vent cover.
Apron-front or undermount sink with high-arch faucet. Painted drywall in a color that does not match the cabinets but is similar in value (but light/medium blue or green if cabinets are wood).
Simple, rigid window treatment, little to no pattern.
An island.
Frequently disconnected runs of counter.

I've read the whole thread and am going to respond to your original idea. I bought a house 3 years ago that was only 10 years old. It felt way older. I bought if for the gorgeous yard, decks, and reservoir it sits on. That being said, I didn't love the original kitchen. This house actually has a kitchen in the basement that is bigger and possibly better. At the same time, I couldn't imagine changing it out for something totally different. This house has magnificent walnut trees and lots of nature between the house and the reservoir. I seriously debated painting the wood trim and wood doors, but just felt that it worked in this house. I realized it wasn't "in style." Ironically, I changed it to fit me more and made it look older. This is the "before."

Is there an after? (looks nice as is)
: )

This is the backsplash I chose. I changed out the hardware. Simple fixes. Just more my taste.

The other thing that felt dated was the floors. There was carpet, then a curved tile into the kitchen. The curve felt dated. They had the curved tile at the front door entry as well. It's hard to see, but this is how it was when we first saw the house.

We put these floors throughout most of the main floor, including the kitchen. I did paint out the black TV cabinet from a heavy red oak.

oh no, I have about 7 of the items on Rosie's list. I will say that shaker doors, subway tile, hardwood floors are things I have loved (felt comfortable around) since I was a kid. I would never care if they were in or out.

Joanlast, nice job with the kitchen.

Seriously, as long as you can make margaritas... it's all good:-)
BTW most of the things on Rosie's list are what I'm working on for my condo in FL. I'll have to post pics soon of the kitchen I want to renovate. It's livable and I've enjoyed it for the year I've owned it. But, it has to go.... ALL of it.

Now this is my condo that I am going to renovate. I do believe dated equals ugly in this case. That ceiling has to go....

We are not going to do an aesthetic update on our 1926 kitchen because we prefer to wait until we can afford to and are willing to (currently have a three year old which limits my tolerance for disruption on the scale of a kitchen remode) do a full remodel that addresses the function problems. I suspect the kitchen will end up looking much the same though. If I were doing it today I think I would choose a soapstone counter and some kind of ceramic tile for the backsplash. I think those choices would be appropriate to the house. But the overall effect might be dated shortly, perhaps even dated by the time we have the work done. . . . . Not sure I care much as we don't intend to sell anytime soon.

JoanLast, I actually kind of like your ceiling, maybe because it is the most interesting thing in a very bland kitchen.

Palimpsest, I very much appreciate this thread and the thought you have put into it. We all know the difference between fabulous and hideous, but it's a healthy exercise to ponder the more subtle differences between ugly, generic and dated. Most of us have no design training yet we are immersed in deign decisions that bear significant consequences in terms of cost, functionality, project creep and marital stability.

To take a moment and pause from backsplash shopping to try to put your finger on what makes something good, or great, or awesome is very helpful. It's even more helpful with some words of wisdom and thought-provoking photos that you have provided. I do think that even us amateurs can develop and eye and a vocabulary over time, but it really helps to be exposed to a range of ideas and to try to articulate what makes something work or not. I usually feel like I am approaching basic competency just after a project reaches completion, which is the constant plight of the DIY homeowner, isn't it?

Anyway, I really don't have anything substantive to add, other than to agree with you and say thanks.

Hmm... a double post that sandwiched no's double post.
Deleting...

This post was edited by EAM44 on Mon, May 27, 13 at 10:44

There are several arguments or questions:
1. Are there absolutes in what constitutes "attractive" or whatever you may want to call the opposite of "ugly"? Palimpsest seems to assume that there are features that are inherently "attractive." I don't know. Maybe that's the common denominator of what we would like about kitchens over the years?
2. Mismatched "renovations" that taken together are incongruent and therefore "ugly." That makes the most sense to me, especially if it's impractical and crappily done.
3. Dated=ugly and by implication that new=attractive? Most certainly not although dated already has a negative connotation. What about vintage or antique? And then, there's obviously the time frame and the generational aspect. For young people the 60s or 70s are already old enough to be vintage or "antique." For me, it's still old. Think about fashion. I wouldn't wear what I wore 30 years ago. My daughter is upset that I didn't keep these clothes.
4. Form vs function. Maybe attractive is what deep down is functional in kitchen design?
5. In my opinion, ugly is low quality and shoddily done. I don't mean inexpensive. Rather, I've recently looked at houses well over 1 mio, and am shocked by the poor workmanship and that most of it is not built to last for more than 2 years but is rather geared toward looking good on the surface.
6. Related to these points; Most Americans (sorry) are looking for BIG houses with bling and not for long-term quality. That's why a 10-year old kitchen feels "dated", an people redo perfectly fine kitchens, replacing them with something that's less functional for their needs, and also frequently, less durable. I mean, how many people really need a 6-burner commercial range, double ovens, pizza ovens, etc. when people eat out more often or buy more and more ready-made food?

There are several arguments or questions:
1. Are there absolutes in what constitutes "attractive" or whatever you may want to call the opposite of "ugly"? Palimpsest seems to assume that there are features that are inherently "attractive." I don't know. Maybe that's the common denominator of what we would like about kitchens over the years?
2. Mismatched "renovations" that taken together are incongruent and therefore "ugly." That makes the most sense to me, especially if it's impractical and crappily done.
3. Dated=ugly and by implication that new=attractive? Most certainly not although dated already has a negative connotation. What about vintage or antique? And then, there's obviously the time frame and the generational aspect. For young people the 60s or 70s are already old enough to be vintage or "antique." For me, it's still old. Think about fashion. I wouldn't wear what I wore 30 years ago. My daughter is upset that I didn't keep these clothes.
4. Form vs function. Maybe attractive is what deep down is functional in kitchen design?
5. In my opinion, ugly is low quality and shoddily done. I don't mean inexpensive. Rather, I've recently looked at houses well over 1 mio, and am shocked by the poor workmanship and that most of it is not built to last for more than 2 years but is rather geared toward looking good on the surface.
6. Related to these points; Most Americans (sorry) are looking for BIG houses with bling and not for long-term quality. That's why a 10-year old kitchen feels "dated", an people redo perfectly fine kitchens, replacing them with something that's less functional for their needs, and also frequently, less durable. I mean, how many people really need a 6-burner commercial range, double ovens, pizza ovens, etc. when people eat out more often or buy more and more ready-made food?

I have learned so much from the brilliant people on this forum (like Pal, and others of you) - it's what keeps me coming back.

But I also get feedback from GWers who are ignorant, mean, and have a decidedly lemming-like mentality: "conform, agree with me, do all the work for me on three possible looks before I make any choices so I can benefit from your taste and knowledge of materials, but don't, by any means, offer an opposing view of my aesthetic or my process." I must say I do get a little kick out of the fact that they're building spaces that will be both dated and ugly. Still, it's never fun to interact with the ill-bred.

I am a little shocked to hear that those of you I look up to, even you, Pal, have gotten similar push back. I like your dish drawer observation, hadn't thought of it before, always put the clean dishes on the bottom, and am pretty sure I don't want a dish drawer now. So thanks. I also saw the white kitchens/dark floors thread and didn't even click on it because I already know the vitriol that lies within. Ugh.

Building on cawaps distillation of the thought and all of your input, I wonder again whether having been a child at the time made it difficult for me to look at two of Pal's admittedly dated but not ugly images: "early seventies", with the "eighties" a close second. Perhaps there was just too much stuff in my line of site as a kid, too many busy patterns, too many accessories, to allow me to enjoy those looks now.

Just for fun, an ancient kitchen from Thessaly, Greece, featured in Gourmet magazine that is truly dated and beautiful to my eye.

Joan, I think your condo kitchen for the most part is just "plain". Those ceilings are one of those things that seems like it is a good idea but then just ends up not working too well. But that's not the hardest fix in the world.

Nosoccer

There are really things that (within cultures) are pretty much universally recognized as esthetically pleasing. Look at things that have been appreciated for hundreds of years. Or look at things that have been commercially available essentially unchanged for a decades or a century.
For example, there are wood millwork profiles that were installed in my house in 1840 that I can still get at the local Home Depot. The essential shape of it must please people.

3. My argument is that it is NOT the case that dated=ugly and therefore new=attractive, but that Many people seem to operate within this context.

I agree with the last point that volume seems more important than quality. I've seen in real life projects, I've seen in on "Million $ Rooms" (which I can't watch) and I've seen in these forums where major skimping has to be done somewhere to make up for the sheer amount of material that is needed.

Joan, I think your condo kitchen for the most part is just "plain". Those ceilings are one of those things that seems like it is a good idea but then just ends up not working too well. But that's not the hardest fix in the world.

Nosoccer

There are really things that (within cultures) are pretty much universally recognized as esthetically pleasing. Look at things that have been appreciated for hundreds of years. Or look at things that have been commercially available essentially unchanged for a decades or a century.
For example, there are wood millwork profiles that were installed in my house in 1840 that I can still get at the local Home Depot. The essential shape of it must please people.

3. My argument is that it is NOT the case that dated=ugly and therefore new=attractive, but that Many people seem to operate within this context.

I agree with the last point that volume seems more important than quality. I've seen in real life projects, I've seen in on "Million $ Rooms" (which I can't watch) and I've seen in these forums where major skimping has to be done somewhere to make up for the sheer amount of material that is needed.

I totally agree with Doonie that something can be beautiful, yet still "not to my taste". For example, I detest marble. It looks old (and not in a good way) and cold, and I dislike everything about it. Yet other people are willing to do anything to install marble. I feel the same way about dark hardwood floors; I live in the land of red clay, so a medium-tone with a touch of red it in is so much more practical for me.

The thing is, All too many people today aren't digesting ideas and evaluating what they personally like. Rather, they're accepting the HGTV trinity: Must have hardwood floors, stainless steel appliances, and granite countertops. Any quality or layout seems to be acceptable so long as these three items are included.

NoSoccer, I think you have a very good point when you say that people mistake "more" for "better".

I totally agree with Doonie that something can be beautiful, yet still "not to my taste". For example, I detest marble. It looks old (and not in a good way) and cold, and I dislike everything about it. Yet other people are willing to do anything to install marble. I feel the same way about dark hardwood floors; I live in the land of red clay, so a medium-tone with a touch of red it in is so much more practical for me.

The thing is, All too many people today aren't digesting ideas and evaluating what they personally like. Rather, they're accepting the HGTV trinity: Must have hardwood floors, stainless steel appliances, and granite countertops. Any quality or layout seems to be acceptable so long as these three items are included.

NoSoccer, I think you have a very good point when you say that people mistake "more" for "better".

@pal.
I didn't mean to say that you said ugly=dated. I was just trying to organize the different strands of arguments that you had raised.
Yes, there are universally pleasing features; however, I'm not sure that they can be brought down to the very specific level of moulding. That being said, an analysis of what was considered attractive in a kitchen AT the original time and then seeing if these elements endure OVER would help identify these "universally" attractive features.

Another question/point: I'm assuming that "Generic" can apply to kitchen at any price level.

I agree with the "enduring" aspect--if something is appreciated over time, or at least reappears time after time with not much change, then we can kind of put that in the cultural attractiveness column. But I think that culturally pleasing can potentially go from a big picture to a small element like a piece of molding.

Generic can apply to a kitchen at any price level. It seems that on some levels, a certain amount of things get done to meet the expectations of other people.

Some houses and kitchens are clearly designed to Impress other people, and on the other hand some houses and kitchens are designed to meet the potential Needs of other people. Look at all the people who Avoid doing anything that may be construed as "too taste specific" and Intentionally Do specific things (granite when it may not be their favorite, for example) because they May need to sell their house to some non-specific buyer they know nothing about.

In this age, there is a kernel of practicality in Not putting in a purple lacquer kitchen because you may need to move unexpectedly in a few years. However this thought can be carried to the extreme where you have to put in the kitchen that is the "correct" kitchen for your demographic and does not look essentially different than anyone else's.

I have posted the top two photos ad nauseum so I apologize, but sometimes you have to use what you've got.

A lot of people would look at this kitchen, which is dated, and because it is dated tack on "ugly" to it. The updates would be, generically, hardwood, granite, a tile backsplash probably with some kind of feature, and ORB or brushed nickel hardware. Any individual item from the list would probably be fine if carefully selected, but the whole "package" would look odd in this house, imo.

This kitchen is dated, particularly the window treatments which are mid 80s. But if it had the original white shutters and the original white with black graphic flowered wallpaper (think Marimekko) this kitchen would look less dated as installed in 1969, than it does now.

The ergonomics are not great by current standards, but that is a different story:
{{!gwi}}
{{!gwi}}

But look at these two kitchens, which are of the same era:

Technically this first one is even the same style, colonial revival:

And here is the transitional kitchen from the same exact period:

I think there are more kitchens of the 2010s versions of pictures 3 and 4 being installed than the kitchen in the first two pictures. But if people don't recognize it, they are going to be contributing to the viscious cycle.

Pal, I'm not sure I'm following your point about the last set of pix.

"there are more kitchens of the 2010s versions of pictures 3 and 4 being installed than the kitchen in the first two pictures."

Picture 4, in particular, is not a look that was ever mainstream, and it is not, in any sense of the word, conservative. It looks as if an excessively patriotic Bolivian decided to express herself by recrating the Bolivian flag through linoleum. The cabinets, appliance color, and counter were all pretty mainstream, but the floor and wallpaper put this kitchen on the lunatic fringe, even when it was new.

I hardly ever see anything being done now that I would consider lunatic fringe. I rarely see anything that really shows the personality of the owner. Will those kitchens be dated? Yes. But I think it more likely that they will be viewed as bland than that they will be viewed as "what were they thinking" kitchens (well maybe a bit of the "what were they thinking" in the same way we look back at avocado and harvest gold appliances, but not in the "what were they thinking when they put in a floor that looks like the Bolivian flag" sense).

Maybe it is my "now" bias, but todays trends seem very conservative (except maybe tile mosaics). And conservative doesn't date as quickly or with as much vitriol as flamboyant does. I can see subway tiles being dismissed in 20 years as "bathroom tile ". I can see hardwood floors being spurned after 20 years of experience with them in a wet environment in favor of tile or even vinyl. But I don't see people screaming "my eyes! my eyes" and clawing at their face the way I want to do with pic #4.

Now picture 3, on the other hand, was pretty conventional when it was installed, following the gold/orange color trends of the time. The kitschy wallpaper, while overwhelming and, to my eyes, ugly, was a very mainstream choice at the time. So see your point a bit there.

Generic=having no particularly distinctive quality or application.

The question is whether the first kitchen was more "generic" than the second or third kitchen. Which, of course, could put our discussion upside down by suggesting that generic would be more timeless and "individual" would be dated faster. Perhaps rather than generic, we should use the concept of "what's in right now"

Of course, the distinctive quality of the first kitchen could be elements of longevity: white and no surfaces that try to look like something else (faux).

I saw a lot of kitchens like #3, and have even seen a couple of #4s, although 4s as you said were not mainstream.

I agree with you that we have pulled WAY back from this kind of Esthetic, but not really from the Ideas behind either of these kitchens.

#1/2 acknowledges the colonial revival with it's "board" doors and brass pulls and tole light fixture. The original floor was Amtico weathered brick or colonial brick layed parquet style, in white. The table is colonial revival in distressed pine with thick midcentury captains chairs.

#3 kitchen, also colonial revival takes most of these elements to the level of cliche. Brick is applied in non-structural fashion, scallops are applied to the range hood and the window sills rather than any cabinetry piece. The colors are based on the (now disproven) colonial Williamsburg colors, and the wallcovering is not something that looks colonial at all, it is composed of pictures or vignettes OF pictures that are of colonial things.

Kitchen 1/2 suggests, kitchen 3 rams "COLONIAL" right down your throat. You can't miss the point.

Kitchen 4 while never mainstream in its sum total has a lot of popular elements all combined. We have foil wallpaper, we have bright primary colors, we have a suggestion of trelliage, we have harvest gold, we have walnut. All of these thing are very 1970, and in this case they are all together.

We have pulled way back from this sort of palette, but the insistence of getting each "important" element all in place is the same.

So the white kitchen generally must have it's white subway tile, often with its feature area, and if it has an island it generally must have it's feature lighting, and it must have it's "hardware as the jewelry of the kitchen" Often all metal finishes must match. The floor should be wood, and dark, but not "too" dark.

The transitional kitchen must have granite, and a stone backsplash with feaure tiles in metal or glass. The floor is porcelain that has to coordinate with both the granite and the stone of the backsplash.

There isn't anything wrong with any of these things but there is a strict formula, and a great deal of pressure, self-iinflicted or otherwise to Fit It All In.

Deviate from white subway tile, or the granite with movement (if that's what's called for); from stainless appliances, or from a full backsplash altogether, and it will often get treated as if you've taken leave of your senses.

So my point between 1/2 and 3 ,4 is that while 1/2 is a kitchen of it's era, it was never trying to emcompass Every Last Element that made it 1969 colonial revival, 3 and 4 were desparately trying to fit it all in. And I think a lot of kitchens now are going to suffer the same fate because they are trying to fit it all in. They are either white or brown, not harvest gold or psychedelic but it's the same thing in a different era.

Actually the white kitchen looked like nothing anyone in the area had ever really seen before. It had an island, it was pretty much all white (and lacquered, too) , (instead of harvest gold or avocado) it had white or stainless appliances and there was nothing "kitcheny" about the wallpaper.

It was really not a generic of the time or location.

We look at it through a filter of liking white kitchens right now, and perhaps being overexposed to them, and that is what might make one think it is more generic than the others.

However, kitchen #3, the colonial on crack, was Much more the Generic kitchen of the time and place the white one occupied.

Oh, I remember #3 very well. Talk about nostalgia, even though I never had it myself. This kitchen was everywhere, but at 18 and newly pregnant in a recession I took an abrupt swing from sleek 1970 modern to #1/2, cozy traditional. Good thing. We could afford to rent a lilttle old bungalow in the city, but newer, 3-bedroom suburban homes with #3 in olive green or orange, or olive green and orange, or orange and brown were beyond our means. Even the orange counter was not unusual, although I believe most went for green or brown.

I so agree with Cawaps about this being a conservative design era. (Just look at #3. People put that paper up and orange laminate on the counter knowing they could change it.) Society as a whole swung more conservative beginning with the Reagan era and that blended into an era that continues today in which new kitchens have become far too expensive to get too adventurous with. (SUCH a shame!)

Joan! That terrific ceiling detail is begging to be a wonderful "skylight" with a glorious sky scene. Maybe even with sea gulls or a white egret? Or be different with a night sky with some cloud reflecting the glow of city lights before the eye moves on to the stars? It is in Florida, after all. I really like what you did with your main kitchen, BTW. That backsplash is just what it needed.

As for my "list," people who really like the eras they're remodeling in are really fortunate. They get to work within fine, broad ranges of quality and other factors of available materials.

Just try decorating out of the current era. I couldn't find a quality but standard light/medium soft true green upholstery fabric in all of Los Angeles one year. Literally. There was no such thing as the Internet, and I drove vast distances for days to find fabric for one lousy chair. I was too inexperienced to expect this but was eventually told that those who were, i.e. designers, would have bought up all variations long before they disappeared for their personal stashes.