In addition to pal's reasons, in my area many of the flip homes have already lost their orginal details to neglect or decades old previous renovations as well and this is why they are priced low enough to flip. Older homes in good condition with many orginal details yet new electrics and plumbing sell at a premium here.

Designs and wishes for living spaces have changed. Gone are the separate and single purpose rooms. People no longer want/use formal dining/receiving/sitting rooms. Open concept so the use of a space can be easily adapted.

The labor/time necessary for those old house/architectural details are way too time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.

The woods used in those details(mahogany/white oak) were old growth and very dense. The newer types of the similar woods are faster grown and less dense. Actually, much of the original mahogany was used because it was cheap wood back then and often considered a secondary wood. White oak was often used as framing lumber. Wood was also machined closer to building areas and transportation costs were much less.

On the flip side, old houses were heating nightmares, since sealing/insulating were unheard of and air conditioning unknown. Those were the reasons for fireplaces in almost every room, since central heating had not been invented.

..cost. good crafsmanship..very skilled labor..rare nowadays, costs are very high. Even seemingly simpler stuff..every time you sway a bit more custom, say, go for something handcrafted, choose people who do what they do well..it gets much harder to source, it's much more expensive, it takes longer...you also are very invested in getting good result, and good result will mean all that. Time, money, skills, etc. Some people will have these.

We had a modest project, and it wasn't too old either, but took some tying of old and new, and we didn't ask for much-yet now I realize our builder was pretty accommodating. But. Some of his workers knew what they did, some didn't. He did loose money on us. It was two way trauma...)) since we lost time and money too

And still some details, I know I have to redo them. Or touch up or something.

And many elements in the house are still cheap, cheap, cheap.. because we excausted our resources..in the end, one compromises. Unless he's very wealthy..and no major health concerns..))

On the other hand, it pushed our builder to become interested in a bit different projects and historical restoration, so much that he won recently a regional price for his project.

So we both got a valuable life experience..we just payed dearly for that lol.

Because people are unimaginative sheep that only want what TV spoon feeds them, even if it doesn’t suit their house, or their pocketbook. The number of people who believe that TV is a documentary rather than entertainment is staggering.

The “too much House Hunters” folks are on here daily wanting to make over an entire house that they just bought—-into something it’s NOT. And at a budget that won’t even cover a kitchen remodel. So they settle for slapping gray paint on the walls and white paint over all of the woodwork. And then it looks far worse than when they started. Like gramma in her granddaughter’s outfit.

Or worse, they do that sunroom addition, without any design help.

But they can’t be objective because of the Lake Woebegone and IKEA effect. Everyon’s design skills are above average if they do it themselves.

I guess for the same reason I don't want to wear my grandmother's clothes.

I guess for the same reason I don't want to wear my grandmother's clothes.

Then don't buy and destroy an old house!

DH and I looked for 2 years for an old house we could restore. We rejected every single one we saw. A few were rejected because of stairs and nowhere to put an elevator (we are up there in age).

The majority were rejected because they had been thoughtlessly added onto so they lost any sense of flow and it would have cost more than it was worth to fix or because they had been "updated" to whatever was the current trend when they "updated" the house. And in doing so, they removed anything that gave it charm and beauty. And again, it would have cost more to fix the remuddle.

We finally built a brand new house that was influenced by craftsman houses from the period we had been looking at.

From the builder/flipper's POV,too much expense and time involved. From the home owner's point of view,mostly the same. Plus,the skill/vision needed to update older homes is hard to find. When we were interviewing tile setters for a downstairs bath,one told me that what I wanted to do was all wrong and impossible. (grout too tight,cuts & matching too precise) So I took him upstairs to see how it was indeed possible since that old bath had it. Didn't hire him though. A wise decision for both of us.

it is that difficult to find anyone who appreciates old house details and architecture, aside from some architects, designers, builders, and us few.. others.

There's a difference between out-dated and classic.

But more effort, money, thought and care is required to restore, as opposed to deface, an old property. And that's not what the Joneses did.

I don't know about the grandmother's clothes thing. For one a house is not as ephemeral as fashion, architecture never has been.

But on another level, the clothes that your grandmother wore at whatever age you are were probably better made than the various clothes you have worn and will wear as you age. My mother was a bit of a clothes horse so probably wore better than average clothes her adult life. But her better than average clothes of 40 and 50 years ago (she'd be ninety) were made almost like couture is now. And many of the details of those clothes are still relevant now.

Yes to the above but it also happens here to houses that have survived for decades and are sold and renovated and sell in the $M category.

The current preference for new houses is to have a very open floor plan, family room blended with the kitchen, large master bedroom with walk-in closet, and large master bath. It is very hard to fit many of these features into an older house without doing very major renovation, or a large addition.

Once you start tearing out all the walls and "old" finishes (plaster, worn hardwood floors, etc.) in a flip house, the cheapest final solution is to use all modern materials and forget about making it look original. If you look at many of the flip houses, they first demo everything down to the studs, and then start over with modern insulation, windows and wall and floor finishes. Its easier to find contractors who can do all this new work than it is to find someone who understands how the house was originally built.

I enjoy keeping my house very close to its original 1940 design, but it definitely takes longer, and usually costs more per square foot.

Bruce

As stated above, because of $$$$$ and people brain washed by home improvement shows. I wish I owned SW or BM. Just look the people posting on Houzz who want to slap paint on anything that doesn't move. If I see one more posting that someone want to paint there brick or stone house or fireplace, or paint beautiful wood work and cabinets I am going to scream. Not every house is suited for open concept. If you want a certain style of house, buy that style house. Don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

A great example is how Drew Scott turned his own house from a gorgeous 1920's house into an HGTV mess with absolutely no charm.

The only TV show worth watching now besides Nicole's show is Restored on DIY.

With a few notable exceptions though, you can retain a historic appearance with modern materials. People just don't know what the right details are and don't bother to learn, or don't care.

Like most everything else in America, it comes down to the almighty dollar. Although, I still think it is possible to renovate a house with respect for its age and architectural style without breaking the bank. I've seen some well done modernizations that fit the bill and which don't destroy the charm and replace it with a look that screams Ikea or a cheap made-in-China look. Aside from money, it also comes down to good taste and an educated eye. Still wish those unversed in architecture and insensitive to classic style would buy newer homes of lesser beauty and charm to renovate instead of ruining older ones.

There is a fundamental difference between "restoration" and "renovation." The former demands a respect for the original style, craftsmanship and historical significance of a structure. The latter demands only the money and desire to change it.

As to pal's comment as to retaining a historic appearance with modern materials, I detest the over use of cheap looking flat white subway tiles and hex floors applied without proper caps and a mud job more than I dislike a modern bath tile in an older house. So unless you spend the funds on better tiles, which still fall flat incomparsion to the orginals and spend money searching the country for the last guy still willing to do an old fashion mud job you can not recreate a nice replica in my opinion. :(

You can cheat by using another layer of cement board up to chair rail height and capping that :-)

Just glimpsed the Scott "renovation" mentioned above after reading a gushing puff piece on the Clown and his doppelganger destroying North America one house at a time.

Clearly, updating an older home provides fewer sponsorship opportunities than are commercially desirable. Not to mention that diy is decidedly less useful. Everybody loves a sledgehammer! Wonder why every damn "renovation" you see--and new tract homes look so alike? The owners are all watching the twins, Chip & Joanna and the rest.

Just watch something like This Old House; that kind of attention to detail costs a LOT of money. That's why it's a rich persons' hobby.

Some old finishes weren't that great. We lived in an 1880s building where they used insulbrick on the back wall as well as moulded tin (to look like stone), a wooden beam was holding up 2 stories and was sitting on dirt, printed tile board was used in the bathroom and printed carpet (on PAPER) was on some of the floor, newspaper was used as underlay, store ads (cardboard) were used to insulate a wall, the double hung windows were single pane glass and were large enough to constitute a safety hazard as they opened up onto a sidewalk below and were positioned low in the wall (such that a child could pull themselves out). The front exterior was WOOD paneling at ground level (we get snow here) and some of the windows were leaded glass which had buckled over time, allowing some of the glass to fall out. The basement also extended past the front door and there was a window well in the basement onto a very busy street with what I think was a wooden framed window (someone dropped a cigarette in there and almost started a house fire). And speaking of fires, all of the floors connected in the entire block so a fire could easily travel from building to building, and all of our sewers were connected too. Oh and by the time we got the place someone had used a chainsaw to cut away interior walls, there had been no proper kitchen added (the sink was a freestanding metal cabinet), and the wiring was so inadequate that they were using extension cords everywhere and tenants offered to leave us some when they moved out. There wasn't a lot to save.

What I don't get is when someone buys an historic home in an established neighbourhood with trees, sidewalks, etc and then demolishes the home, cuts down every tree on the property and builds to within an inch of the property lines. If you want that sort of neighbourhood, why not go build in one? Why take the exact thing that makes an established neighbourhood desirable and destroy it?

I just saw this listing today and thought of this thread. Sigh.

Outside:

But then c'mon in:

It's like living in Applebees. Poor little house.

Margins matter. Many flips here are in horrendous condition and so much money goes into cleaning, HVAC, bringing up to Code, and making it just plain habitable. There is not a whole lot left over to add back in the destroyed or neglected “old” details originally present at today’s material and labour costs.

I have lived in some very old Victorian homes and appreciated them as they are for their charm and history, but they are not my style either. I would not personally take that character out of them - I lived with it and appreciated it for what it was and passed on to the next person. To me it was my home only for as long as it worked well and then it was time to move on. But I also recognize others may not see it that way as they also see it as their home and they want their home to adapt to their wants and needs over many decades, rather than the other way around. They don’t want to move for a variety of reasons personal to them.

I have also seen modernization done very well. Yes, it might be offensive to purists, but nothing in life is permanent, and just because it is change does not mean it is not well done. Sometimes there is a tendency to romanticize the past, but there were bad builders, cheap materials used, and corners cut even 100+ years ago. Which lots of people going into do a renovation on an old home may discover, changing even the best laid plans to “restore” to its original character.

My neighborhood is adjacent to a historic area dotted with many protected structures that date back to the 1700s. Many of them cannot be sold and have sat on the market for years and years falling deeper into a state of disrepair. As much as I would love to buy one of these, my budget would simply never allow me to restore it properly and I think that is the issue most people face when looking at these homes. And my taller guests might not appreciate the charm of having to duck under every doorway.

I have seen a couple of larger lots (1 acre+) where the original home has been restored and converted to a guest cottage or hang out space and a new house with today’s amenities and square footage has been built elsewhere on the property. But again, budget *sigh*

I don't think there is anything wrong in and of itself with a modern interior in an old house.

So many houses from the 18th and 19th c. here were so distressed that they were impossible to restore, and if the interior is entirely gone, the interior is a recreation anyway, so it's not really "real", if that makes sense.

And of course there is the expense. There is a house here that was late Victorian, by a well-known architect, that was mostly intact inside, but just sort of banged up and worn out. The rumor is that the restoration budget on this one went into the tens of millions of dollars. And this was to restore what was mostly there, not recreation.

The current owners will never recoup that, they did that because they wanted to.

But the problem as I see it is when a house is a relatively well maintained or intact time-capsule sort of house that gets gutted simply because it's out of fashion or because it's easier to redo the plumbing and electric by gutting rather than selectively cutting openings and restoring afterwards. I've seen (and saved) a few really disappointing befores and afters. The latest one is a relatively rare (where I live) deco-moderne house that still had the original kitchen, bath, and electrical fixtures as well as interesting stepped cornices.

The house was bought, flipped, and although they did not do a terrible job, the new finishes are pretty subdued and work, generally, with the house--they did remove the charm from the baths and kitchen, and they did not save the stepped cornices or any of the original deco light fixtures. There are ways to preserve cornices despite removing the ceiling and most of the walls, and they had the original fixtures onsite.

Way too many "vintage" houses have been very poorly maintained. Aren't up to code. Have had numerous "fixes'- cheaply- that are sometimes dangerous. As Rai Kai notes, infrastructure is also important. There is nothing charming about antiquated systems, extremely old pipes, crumbling foundations and wiring that Uncle Charlie did.

The unfortunate truth is that very often, by the time a new buyer gets to one of these houses, they may be still beautiful structures but also very unsafe inside. For a buyer, very often the choice is to tear-down and rebuild or gut. Either of those are a more palatable way to revitalize. Even for one who will live there.

Some exteriors can be saved. But inside? Frankly, people don't live today like they did 60-100 years ago. And the choices reflect.

Laurie Schrader, I would say that, if the work done for the flip were of high, or even decent quality, I would agree with you. But often it is barely standard or substandard. A typical flip here tends to have bathrooms with inadequate waterproofing, (even tile right on greenboard with no membranes) and relatively cheap windows and poor finish work. I've seen the wiring and plumbing that goes into a lot of these houses and while it may meet local code, a lot of if is sloppily done, the wiring running loose and sloppily through the walls where it could easily be hit by a nail, rather than properly secured. My house was not a flip but I know there were several projects done solely for sale and the work was abysmal. I knew this going in, but I know several people who were interested in my house that did have $200,000 to put into it, like I am going to end up doing. They were looking at the "new" kitchen and bathrooms and carpet.

And then there are houses like this:

https://www.estately.com/listings/info/2020-robinson-road-se

I look at the basements and laundriesand secondary bathrooms in old houses as a clue to their maintenance. A house that has a basement like the one in these photos has not been poorly maintained. And yet there is an assumption that because they did not redecorate to keep up with trends, it's all been neglected.

This house is just as likely to be gutted as anything else, not because it's dangerous, but because it does not meet 2018 standards of interior decor. Most renovators don't have safety in mind first and foremost, they have current esthetics and profit in mind, first and foremost.

There's that example, as well. 3 bedrooms, 8 baths- 3 full, 5 half. Not being the function. And I'd hardly call this an example of what we've been talking about. It is very obvious that this house has been renovated to make it more contemporary. Sorry- those ceilings are certainly not 1959. And while they look bitchin', they are very, very loud. First thing I would change, even in a vintage property.

So I find this a poor example. Somebody has put a great deal of work into this place to make it contemporary. Not at all what I was talking about.

That's just not correct. The structure of this house is not heavily renovated. The kitchen is obviously newer. This house is a well maintained time capsule. I have no idea what a 1959 ceiling is. But the ceilings in this house look much like those in my 1950-60s Architectural Digests.

It's not an example of what you are talking about no. It's an example of what I was talking about. Houses in this condition are susceptible to gutting and millennializing just as much as a house in poor condition.

Give me a link that leads to your conclusions. How is it that a 1959 house is listed as "contemporary"? And let's not jack the thread.

EDIT: And yes, we agree- this house could very well be gutted. I know nobody who would buy a property that's over 4000 sq ft who would love 3 bedrooms and 8 baths. And pay over $40K in property taxes. That has got to be wrong...

I don't have a" link " but I have a design degree and multiple additional courses in interior and furniture design history including at the Met and an extensive library of 20th century design books and magazines, written contemporary to the period, not later retrospectives. There are so many little things that speak to original finishes in this house. If this is a recreation it deserves to be a museum.

The taxes have nothing to do with anything except location and someone not interested in this house because of the size the number of bathrooms and the taxes is not going to buy it regardless of what the finishes are.

I love your expertise, but your entire last paragraph ignores the reality of what we're talking about. We're talking about people who remove charm from a property, Perhaps somebody paying a couple of million dollarsfor a very large house might want something different? Might actually think they are entitled to do it, with their own property what they wish?

Perhaps this is the hell of what you're trying to convey. I can't help that, and neither can you. Some of it is a bummer, and some of it is welcome removal of eyesores, brought to us all by owners who did nothing to maintain- just waited for their ship to come in. Different markets, different situations, maybe?

We bought an 1890s home two years ago that had been renovated (on the cheap) by the previous owner in 2003. I don't know what the condition was when they bought it, but I assume it was in pretty bad shape given how little they paid for it. Presumably a restoration was simply not affordable, so they renovated instead.

Regardless, much of what they did is now starting to deteriorate, so we are trying to respect the bones of the house as we re-renovate these areas, and hopefully restore some of the original charm by using photos from the era as our guide (since we don't really know what it looked like before). We do have a photo of the façade/front porch from the 40s or 50s, so fortunately we have a guide for how to rebuild the front porch when the current one needs replacing.

Blondamina, if the house is that old, your local historical society may well have older pics, if you want them.

As for the notion that in a bungalow it's too costly not to rip out all the interior walls, sorry, I totally do not buy that. Please explain how getting a structual engineer and the necessary equipment to shift the load is cheaper than a coat of paint.

I talked to a flipper about my place - which needs work - awhile back, they offered me 500, said they would put about 80 into it and try to get 725. Since then Zillow has me up to 850, using their formula which of course assumes the property is market ready - and might also assume my .6 acre view lot is divisible (not in this neighborhood) - otherwise I don't know where that price is coming from. (Comps from nearby do not support it, most are asking 600 something. And that seems to be what they are getting).

Last year a small rambler up the street, which looked basically like a plywood box with carport (two 2 x 4's holding up a flat plywood roof) - and that did not seem to be occupied for some time - was bought for 300 something, gutted and replaced with contemporary features, sold for 700 something.

Some years ago a drab old Victorian out in a local historic country town was renovated with the help of funding from the State. Presumably the public underwriting was supposed to assure that the house was restored to period authenticity, modern codes permitting, right? Nope, they completely modernized it, to full contemporary banality, and flipped it.

Driving by since then one can hardly tell it was a Victorian, except for the basic shape.

I am really not trying to be recalcitrant, and I know I am coming off as argumentative, but I am not trying to be purposely so.

People are always entitled to do what they wish with a house, of course. But in the process of that, it would be nice if somehow the house retained some of its' original character, or at least alluded to its' character in the remodel. But a builder who is flipping a house doesn't really care about anything except their profit margin, and most people aren't particularly well educated about architecture or design. And why should they be? Except it's part of why people remodel houses that end up sort of fragmented and soulless, no matter how trendy they may look when first done.

Many people have the assumption that people who don't redecorate to current trends have neglected infrastructure. You can tell the difference between a well maintained time capsule and a house that's been neglected if they want to, if they care enough to look. I had a client who was trying to sell her father's house at the same time we were trying to sell my father's. She asked my advice about pricing and I said price it at x below what a well-maintained house is selling it for in your neighborhood and market it toward contractors. The house completely neglected. She was furious with me because she saw her house and my house as the same. I grew up in a very well maintained time capsule. My dad had a new 25+ year roof and exterior painting done at the age of 89. She could not see the difference. My father's sold without even being fully listed at close to asking in a market where houses linger for years. Her father's sold 14 months later at less than I told her to list it at to a contractor that gutted it, in a market where most houses sell in a month. That house needed to be gutted as you say. My father's didn't. The thing is being able to tell the difference and treating the houses differently, and that's where the problem is. They are all being treated the same.

I have nothing against a house that has been fully remodeled in the interior, particularly if it was a distressed house, if it's done carefully and consistently. There are some beautifully renovated Federal and Greek Revival houses that are pure mid century on the interior. However, the architects and designers acknowledged the proportions and vocabulary of the original shell in a manner that worked with, not against the building. Some may argue that the charm is then gone. Maybe it is, maybe I am seeing a new type of charm because the renovation is 40-50 years old and I may have felt the house was ruined at the time. That's hard to say.

I look at real estate on a national level every day or so, and what I see is a little different than you are suggesting above about people spending a lot of money for a house then wanting to do more to update it.

I would say proportion wise, I see more expensive properties that have expensive but older interiors that have been left intact than I see middle of the road properties and perhaps even lower cost properties that have been left intact. I am not talking about just when properties change hands. Clearly whoever built the above house in 1959, and I am taking a guess that this house is probably still in the original owner's hands unless it was resold when it is new...clearly the house was expensive and the interior decoration was expensive, and because of those two factors, they maintained it as it was. In contrast, I see many more ordinary properties that have been remodeled piecemeal at different times with each little segment fully reflecting 1975 or 1987 or 2000 independently, each very distinct, with little regard to the house or the other rooms but with great regard what was in highest fashion at that particular point.

In contrast socialites like Annenbergs, Brooke Astor and Nancy Pyne had rooms decorated in the 1950s or 1960s or 1970s and never redecorated them again.

So I would say that it's probably middle market houses that end up losing more charm during remodeling, and there are probably a bunch of factors that play into that.

(I am still not sure what you are trying to convey about taxes. I know a number of people who pay around $50,000 in property taxes because they live in large houses in areas with high property taxes, New Jersey, Connecticut, lake or waterfront properties, etc. I am not sure what that has to do with the interior of the house?)

Palimpsest, as someone who also studied architecture and design, I always appreciate the interpretation of design that you share with us on this forum.

Anyway, I also think restoring older homes while adding modern function is simply a bridge most people don’t have the know how to cross even if they have the time and money to do so. Part of why design has evolved over the decades is because our lifestyles have changed and so the spaces we live in reflect that change.

Sometimes when I work with people who fell in love with the aesthetics and bought a vintage home, they feel trapped in the floor plan after a few years and have to open it up somewhat to accommodate how we live today. I’m not an advocate of gutting every beautiful vintage home around, but there is a middle ground that respects the past while acknowledging the present. As cool and interesting as a time capsule is to visit, I’m not sure I’d like to live there.

Pal - in response to your comment on the homes of socialites, Good design stays attractive and “dates” a space in the best way possible!!!! My goal on every project is to apply the principles of design correctly so that it only has to be done once!!

I understand this, I bought a house with a very mean little main bathroom and a tiny powder room (originally, badly modified with shower cobbled out of a bedroom). And the originals were not all that nice quality wise.

I am almost gutting the entire house, honestly. We have the original proposal, and the as built had corners cut, was relatively cheaply built, the house was a rental property for 80% of it's life, the roofs leaked, the electrical was inadequate and dangerously modified. I understand completely. And no one wants to work in a kitchen with a layout suitable to 1920, or use an outhouse or heat their house with fireplaces, or have pokey little rooms that no longer have a purpose.

But while I am not restoring the house or creating a time capsule that no longer even existed, everything that I do is based upon how something may have looked when the house was new. My bathrooms don't look old, but they clearly don't look 2018. And they might trick some people into thinking they are original just because they are consistent with what is original. But people don't really understand (or many people anyway) why, that since I am spending all this money, don't I want it to look as obviously new and expensive as possible.

I work in a healthcare related field in my dayjob, despite my other degree, and I had a patient tell me that he did not want his teeth to look natural (I am not a restorative dentist, but these conversations do occur). He wanted them to be as bright white as possible and as perfect as possible so everyone would know he spent a lot of money restoring them. Same with plastic surgery. I have patients who are not at all interested in looking refreshed or natural or even young, which all used to be goals of cosmetic surgery. They just want to have flawless skin, and no wrinkles and no frown lines or crows feet. It doesn't matter if their eyes don't close all the way any more or that they are stretched and filled to bursting.

It's not a matter of looking appropriate, it's a matter of looking on top of the trend and spanking new, and obvious that money was spent for a lot of people. The problem with that is that it only looks like the top of the trend when it actually is the top of the trend,--and not for long. And this is how people end up chasing their tails.

I look at real estate on a national level every day or so, and what I see is a little different than you are suggesting above about people spending a lot of money for a house then wanting to do more to update it.

You're wrong on that, in many, many areas. I am certain now you don't know my areas. Look all you want, but many major city centers are going through revitalization/renovating/tear down. I appreciate your design sensibility, but I still think you have yet to get with reality.

Those who enjoy restoring older homes, do. Those who buy them for their location/size/beauty? They do what they want.

Taxes? Just another expense for anybody.

Charm costs extra.

Oh there are plenty of people in all locations and at all price points who buy high and remodel extensively. In LA every house looks current inside above a certain price point for example.

I was talking about percentages. I think I see more larger expensive houses with more original details percentage wise than I do middle market houses with significant original detail. But perhaps it's because the houses were better to begin with.

I don't think I am out of reality.

I still don't understand your original point about the taxes on that house and it's point you brought up,not me.

The tear down and revitalization in my city is just that. It's happening around where I live. This has little to do with Renovation. The houses are Gone. There's nothing left to renovate. A new house is being built. That's a different topic.

And my major point is really that it is not just dangerous non code compliant or poorly maintained house which are gutted and flipped and that those issues are secondary to cosmetics and the bottom line for many people. Any house, even a pristine old house is susceptible to a gut rehab because the bottom line and cosmetics are the primary goals. My purpose for posting the house above is that it wouldn't matter if it's a deathtrap or perfect. All some people see is Old and it's about as likely to be gutted as a piece of crap that is the same age.