15 Old House Features that we were wrong to abandon...

[HudsonHawk]

Oh, I understand why those went bye-bye, but I meant built-in's.

Oops, sorry. Got confused on which comment you were referencing.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

These things happen!

Oops, sorry. Got confused on which comment you were referencing.

 

[Rodney]

Quite agree with all your observations, Rodney. I see you're down Centralia way. Judging from your comments, it sounds like you've seen too many of the same sorts of newer developments as I have. Just hideous, some of them. The mantra is "Squeeze more houses onto this land and to hell with other considerations, such as which direction the windows face and whether there will ever be more than an hour of direct sunlight per day falling on this postage stamp of a back yard."

As to styles ... I'd prefer these new developments were of a more modernist architectural style. All these faux-craftsman "communities" -- with names like "Quail Run" and "Whispering Pines" -- almost hurt my eyes. The phoniness goes well beyond the names, of course. Maybe they put a bay window at the front and some non-functional gable brackets up under the eaves, and on the sides and back it's T1-11 siding and no window trim at all. Seriously, I've seen more inspired architectural design in doublewide mobile homes.

LizzieMaine: It's the same thing around here. There are two ways old porches tend to disappear. One is they get walled in to be converted to either an unheated room or extra indoor living space. The other way is they get neglected then torn off because they were expensive to maintain so they rot and the family living there wouldn't or couldn't pay to rebuild it.

tonyb: I used to do cable and satellite TV. I've been in far too many of those subdivisions. You're absolutely right. Old houses had decent trimwork everywhere. New houses put it all up front with cheaper materials on the sides and back. I'm stopping there. It's far too easy for me to get rolling on that subject.
Rodney

 

[Stearmen]

LizzieMaine: It's the same thing around here. There are two ways old porches tend to disappear. One is they get walled in to be converted to either an unheated room or extra indoor living space. The other way is they get neglected then torn off because they were expensive to maintain so they rot and the family living there wouldn't or couldn't pay to rebuild it.

tonyb: I used to do cable and satellite TV. I've been in far too many of those subdivisions. You're absolutely right. Old houses had decent trimwork everywhere. New houses put it all up front with cheaper materials on the sides and back. I'm stopping there. It's far too easy for me to get rolling on that subject.
Rodney

Here, a lot of our Victorian homes, have all the money up front, then cheaper in back. You will see oak in the front rooms and pine in the back with painted trim. My favorite is, oak forming a square on the surround of the floor, then pine, where a carpet would cover in the middle. My house looks like a mansion from the front, but, once you get past the parlor, it isn't all that big!

 

[Fading Fast]

Here, a lot of our Victorian homes, have all the money up front, then cheaper in back. You will see oak in the front rooms and pine in the back with painted trim. My favorite is, oak forming a square on the surround of the floor, then pine, where a carpet would cover in the middle. My house looks like a mansion from the front, but, once you get past the parlor, it isn't all that big!

I see a version of that in NYC pre-war apartments both inside and out. Outside, the fronts of many of these building will have more expensive stones like limestone or intricate brick work with terra-cotta inlays, etc. and the sides and backs will be simple brick.

Then, inside, the apartments tend to have nicer wood floors in the "public" rooms - the foyer, dining room, living room - and not as nice in the "private" rooms - the bedrooms. Sometimes the "public" rooms will have herringbone patterns and the "private" just straight planks. The apartment I just bought has red oak in the foyer and living room and "just" oak in the bedrooms. We have a copy of the original offering documents and that is emphasized in it. Also, the floors in the "public" rooms in our apartment have a nice border; whereas, the "private" rooms don't. (I'm just glad the original floors are all still there.)

 

[Stearmen]

I see a version of that in NYC pre-war apartments both inside and out. Outside, the fronts of many of these building will have more expensive stones like limestone or intricate brick work with terra-cotta inlays, etc. and the sides and backs will be simple brick.

Then, inside, the apartments tend to have nicer wood floors in the "public" rooms - the foyer, dining room, living room - and not as nice in the "private" rooms - the bedrooms. Sometimes the "public" rooms will have herringbone patterns and the "private" just straight planks. The apartment I just bought has red oak in the foyer and living room and "just" oak in the bedrooms. We have a copy of the original offering documents and that is emphasized in it. Also, the floors in the "public" rooms in our apartment have a nice border; whereas, the "private" rooms don't. (I'm just glad the original floors are all still there.)

Yes, always nice when the wood floors survive all the different trends through the years!

 

[Hemingway Jones]

When I started this thread I was looking at homes and watching quite a bit of HGTV. Now I own a home and it is interesting because it was built circa 1940 and completely remodeled late last year. So I still have the original radiators, built-ins, crystal door knobs, skeleton key locks, etc, but many of the modern conveniences that I prefer. It has retained its essential character.

I'm interested in the comments about homes being built beside each other as if that is a new phenomenon or has anything to do with when they were built. This is a function of zoning and lot size. Many historic cities and towns have <5,000 sq ft lots with homes side by side. I'm sure you have all seen them.

Most modern developments have minimum set-backs and other guiding principals. In my town, you need 10,000 of lot per bedroom and minimum one acre lots. I understand that different areas have different rules.

I really like crystal doorknobs and I would say that it is sad that they went away, but there are companies that still produce them and plenty of architectural salvage that provide them. I've toured a recently built house that had these, built in shelves and hutch in the dining room, solid wood crown molding. It gave me hope.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm interested in the comments about homes being built beside each other as if that is a new phenomenon or has anything to do with when they were built. This is a function of zoning and lot size. Many historic cities and towns have <5,000 sq ft lots with homes side by side. I'm sure you have all seen them.

Definitely not any kind of a new phenomenon around here. My neighborhood is made up of entire blocks of 5,000 square foot lots with some houses built so close together that one person could reach out the kitchen window and shake hands with her neighbor. The oldest house on my street was built in 1844, and the most recent -- my house -- was built in 1911. The few lots that are bigger than a quarter-acre or so are the result of fires where a neighbor bought out the burned-out property.

There were no zoning laws here when these neighborhoods were built, but there were a lot of working-class people who required housing within easy walking distance of their jobs. They were packed closely into these narrow little streets, and the layout of the neighborhoods haven't changed in the last hundred years. Even though the factories, canneries, and shipyards are mostly gone, we still appreciate being able to walk to work, and since small, old houses on small lots don't particularly appeal to gentrifiers, we're still able to afford them.

 

[sheeplady]

I'm interested in the comments about homes being built beside each other as if that is a new phenomenon or has anything to do with when they were built. This is a function of zoning and lot size. Many historic cities and towns have <5,000 sq ft lots with homes side by side. I'm sure you have all seen them.

Most modern developments have minimum set-backs and other guiding principals. In my town, you need 10,000 of lot per bedroom and minimum one acre lots. I understand that different areas have different rules.

I think that this is cultural. In the area we are moving to, most of the historical houses built pre-1900 are clustered. For instance, outside of the local village and hamlet, a distance of 4 miles, there are 3 clusters of houses. The house we bought, as well as the surrounding homes, were built on the corners of their lots so to be close to one another- as in a few hundred feet or less.

Some of this I think had to do with relationships. The house across the street from ours (our house was built by Mary and Ransom) is the oldest in the cluster and one of the two originals left standing. That house was built by Mary's eldest brother and his wife. It was bought from the eldest brother by Mary and Ransom, who then built our house. Mary and Ransom then sold the house across the street to Mary's younger sister and her husband. Hence why they'd be keen to build next to one another, being family.

 

[Rodney]

It's true that many old neighborhoods are packed like sardines. 3 ft setbacks if you're lucky in some cases. Later on in the 60s or 70s I believe, many cities changed the zoning to 10 ft setbacks or more. Now, possibly due to the large influence land developers seem to have, we're back to 3 ft setbacks again and front and back yards are smaller than ever. Sad, really.
My first house was built in 1946 in one of the first subdivisions. It was part of the housing boom due to all the GIs coming home from WWII. One side had a 3 ft setback but the neighbor's house was set back about 10 ft. The house was a 2 bedroom and the lot was about 4500 square feet. It was small but at least it was arranged to be comfortable. It still had the original kitchen cabinets and interior doors when I bought it but most of the older character had gone away over the years. Think orange shag carpet and ugly fake paneling.
Rodney

 

[tonyb]

Oh, I'm not mistaking densely built neighborhoods for a recent phenomenon. It's the norm in all but the newest American cities -- long-ago built-out urban neighborhoods of packed-in blocks of houses after packed-in blocks of houses.

What has happened in some of the more outlying districts in the Puget Sound region are developments that had been either raw land or in agricultural use until quite recently, and are now cookie-cutter developments with large (three- and four-bedroom, two-car garage, etc.) houses, each hard to distinguish from the one next to it, all packed tightly into these little "communities" surrounded by land still raw or in agricultural use. And they are almost entirely dependent on the automobile, two or three or more per household, hence those large built-in garages.

Growth-management laws are to blame, at least in part, if blame is in order. I'm not troubled by the density -- indeed, there's a lot to be said for it -- so much as the apparent lack of consideration for the placement of the structures and their relationships to each other. That, and the obvious cost-cutting measures, such as the T1-11 siding and the windows lacking any sort of trim at all. I can't imagine that time will be kind to them.

 

[Stearmen]

My 1888 house, is on just under 10,000 Sq Ft lot. I have a photo, taken from a balloon in 1909, and there are only the three Victorians and a couple of other Bungalows on my block. A bunch of new houses were built in the 40s and 50s, with some of the side lots under 3,000 Sq Ft. the houses on either side of me are from the 40s. Incidentally, my 30' x 25' garage is to close to the setback, if I tore it down, I could not build another one that big, since it would take away my Grandfather status!

 

[Stearmen]

I should add, many of the large mansion in our historic part of town, were turned into apartments in the 40s and latter and their lots were often subdivided into small lots, with several houses from the 40s and 50s, with some odd modernistic houses next to grand old Victorians. Even the Carriage houses became primary residents!

 

[pawineguy]

Oh, I'm not mistaking densely built neighborhoods for a recent phenomenon. It's the norm in all but the newest American cities -- long-ago built-out urban neighborhoods of packed-in blocks of houses after packed-in blocks of houses.

What has happened in some of the more outlying districts in the Puget Sound region are developments that had been either raw land or in agricultural use until quite recently, and are now cookie-cutter developments with large (three- and four-bedroom, two-car garage, etc.) houses, each hard to distinguish from the one next to it, all packed tightly into these little "communities" surrounded by land still raw or in agricultural use. And they are almost entirely dependent on the automobile, two or three or more per household, hence those large built-in garages.

Growth-management laws are to blame, at least in part, if blame is in order. I'm not troubled by the density -- indeed, there's a lot to be said for it -- so much as the apparent lack of consideration for the placement of the structures and their relationships to each other. That, and the obvious cost-cutting measures, such as the T1-11 siding and the windows lacking any sort of trim at all. I can't imagine that time will be kind to them.

It's really a interesting discussion, and I'm not sure which one of the methods of planning and zoning I prefer. My previous home in CT was in a town with 2 acre minimum lot sizes, so everyone owned large pieces of land, but didn't have much daily contact with neighbors. The average lots were closer to 3 to 4 acres. In PA, we have dense development, I live on a third of an acre, but the town has preserved many large tracts of open land. We also interact multiple times a day with the neighbors, much greater sense of community. I can see the advantages to each.

 

[Fading Fast]

From what I've seen, zoning is all over the map both historically and regionally. The house my dad was born in (and they lost in the depression) was a nice middle class home of its day and you could almost reach out your window and touch your neighbor (but land wasn't limited then and in that area, it just seems to be how they did it then). And the houses look nice and properly spaced even though close. But the real high-end homes of the same period (on the hill in the same town) were all spaced much farther apart.

Today, I see gigantic homes built on small lots close to other gigantic homes - It seems that, at least in some part of the Northeast, where land is tight, people want their big homes regardless of proportion to lot size or closeness to neighbor (or even major roads).

If you earn your money honestly, I have no problem with how you spend it. But for me, I like when the scale of the home fits the size of the property and the distance to the neighbor. I am not implying there is one correct ratio - as different style homes, different areas, etc. lend themselves to different ratios. But there seems to be such a desire for really big homes today, that many times, I don't think much thought at all is given to those ratios.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can't understand the popularity of big houses except as conspicuous consumption. The big houses around here that were built in the Victorian Era were never anything but that -- a signal to the rest of the town that you had Arrived, and were a Force To Be Reckoned With. The town where I grew up was a bizarre mixture of tiny working-class houses dotted with the occasional imposing mansions built by nineteenth century sea captains who had grown very rich very fast and wanted to show off.

These houses are still very impressive today, but they are impossible for a single family to maintain as ordinary single-family housing. Many of them were subdivided into apartments or boardinghouses during the "Homes For Defense" drive of the early forties, and became cheap housing for dock workers, and those that weren't thus altered have, almost universally, been turned into Bed and Breakfasts.

I boarded in one of these places in the eighties, and it had the unusual effect of being smaller on the inside than it was on the outside. The rooms were very choppy, reached by narrow stairways that seemed to have been built into unused closets, and even the living room wasn't much bigger than the one I have now. I think the idea was that small rooms were much easier to heat and use year round than big drafty vaulty rooms.

 

[tonyb]

The concern in the greater Seattle area is that development will sprawl clear up to the mountain passes. Hence the state's "growth-management" law. So denser development is encouraged.

Well, okay, it makes sense. Eventually rail lines may connect those "bedroom communities" with employment and entertainment, etc., districts. (You really need density for rail to be economically feasible.) But I can't see that happening in the waaaay outlying areas where so many of these developments I bemoan have recently been built. We're talking 50 miles or more away from Seattle. So it's more personal vehicles (cars) and more roads (and larger ones) to accommodate all that additional traffic. That's not all bad. But it's not all good, either.

My fear is that these developments will become the depressed districts of tomorrow. The precedent is pretty well established. As the cities have "gentrified," we've witnessed a suburbanization of poverty. The potential for that reaching even farther outside the major cities is certainly there. Unlike some of the older inner-ring suburbs, so many of these new developments are so lacking in architectural interest and other suburban amenities (such as larger lots, for one) that they will appeal mostly to people who can't afford to live closer in.

 

[Fading Fast]

I can't understand the popularity of big houses except as conspicuous consumption. The big houses around here that were built in the Victorian Era were never anything but that -- a signal to the rest of the town that you had Arrived, and were a Force To Be Reckoned With. The town where I grew up was a bizarre mixture of tiny working-class houses dotted with the occasional imposing mansions built by nineteenth century sea captains who had grown very rich very fast and wanted to show off.

These houses are still very impressive today, but they are impossible for a single family to maintain as ordinary single-family housing. Many of them were subdivided into apartments or boardinghouses during the "Homes For Defense" drive of the early forties, and became cheap housing for dock workers, and those that weren't thus altered have, almost universally, been turned into Bed and Breakfasts.

I boarded in one of these places in the eighties, and it had the unusual effect of being smaller on the inside than it was on the outside. The rooms were very choppy, reached by narrow stairways that seemed to have been built into unused closets, and even the living room wasn't much bigger than the one I have now. I think the idea was that small rooms were much easier to heat and use year round than big drafty vaulty rooms.

My girlfriend's parents live in a modest-for-the-neighborhood about 1800 square foot home in which they comfortably raised two kids (and seems huge to me coming from what I grew up in). But they are now putting up these 5000+ homes around them and, last year, I walked through one with her mom who was house watching it for the family that was away at Christmas.

Even though it was fully furnished, it felt empty and cold as there was just so much space that they seemed to be struggling to find logical reasons for all the rooms. Hence, the basement was a gymnasium on one side (as equipped as a reasonable public gym) and a movie theater (60" screen with plush movie seats) on the other. They also only had two kids. Again, you earn your money honestly, you are free to spend it - it just wasn't a home I would want even if I could afford it. It had space and stuff, but no charm, character or warmth, IMHO.

 

[tonyb]

Conspicuous consumption, indeed.

I like "nice" things myself. If the only purpose of housing was shelter from the elements, we'd be living in identical boxes.

It's because I appreciate such nice things that I bemoan the style of development so prevalent over the past couple of decades. Yes, there are always compromises, but these faux-craftsman style "neighborhoods" are so compromised as to be little more than shelter from the elements. If they are reminiscent of anything, it's the Soviet-style developments of the post-war era.

As I observed earlier, I would prefer a more modernist architectural approach in such new developments. Anyone with any aesthetic sense and the most cursory familiarity with architectural history knows these craftsman-esque touches slapped on the fronts these two-story boxes are essentially lipstick on a pig. I have little familiarity with other regions of this great land of ours, but in the Seattle area, which I know quite well, these developments are springing up like mushrooms after a rain. It's the developers' default mode these days.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's the developers' default mode these days.

I think that's the big difference between where you are and where I am. Our neighborhoods weren't designed by developers per se. Some were built en masse by companies as cheap housing for factory workers -- but they grew out of necessity, not out of marketing. The idea wasn't to give the potential homeowner any distinctiveness or individuality, but simply a rock-bottom-affordable place to live.

I can show you neighborhoods here where there are rows of houses that were built from Sears and Roebuck kits in the 1910s and 1920s, but a century of living has differentiated them thru additions, remodelings, etc. But their identical cheap and hasty nature is still visible if you look closely enough.