Where to start?

[Don M]

Nothing is wrong with granite or marble; my kitchen in SC has granite; I just think it's funny that many folk's "must haves" include granite & SS even though the kitchens shown look just fine as is.

[Daniel Meyer]

Nothing is wrong with granite or marble; my kitchen in SC has granite; I just think it's funny that many folk's "must haves" include granite & SS even though the kitchens shown look just fine as is.

Ah, yep, I agree there. Kind of like the "harmony yellow" appliances with orange countertops in the 70's. Everybody HAD to have them LOL!

[Schag]

I'm not closing this topic just yet.
It really hasn't gotten bad at all, and I've seen some really bad ones over the years.
This is a fairly tame difference of opinions for now.

[steponmebbbboom]

I'm going to be controversial and give my opinion that the trend toward large American kitchens is more about ostentatious display of wealth than actual functionality.

I'm going to be super controversial and restore my house to the raw materials that came off the train.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
Kunstler gave an entertaining TED talk about the folly of suburban sprawl and the ideology behind it. It might be a leap, but what we're seeing here might be a product of the disconnect that exists between suburbia and civic design. It does contain some profane language, but has value beyond simple inflammation. The issue is of public realm and the value of this house beyond its inhabitants toward the community in which it exists and the common good that is upheld with its preservation as a national historic site. When this important relationship with the public realm is disrupted in favour of the individual, the result, to borrow the phrase, is a place not worth caring about. When I go to a historic site, or pay tax dollars toward the preservation of a historic site, I do not want to see it altered so that the current owners can better entertain their guests in the manner to which they are accustomed. I bought my old home because of the historic record contained within its bones. If my house is approved as a municipal heritage site, in my town, I will be eligible for an interest-free loan of up to $10,000 for the purpose of restoring designated historic elements of my home. If I gut it and alter the floor plan to suit my needs, that does nothing for anyone else. I won't have a hope in hell of getting it designated and I can kiss that $10K goodbye.
If that's your bag, why not just move to the suburbs and build a new house and leave this one alone?

[PowerMuffin]

I totally agree with Lisa. And I am sick of the everything-is-disposable attitude that we Americans seem to have. Rip it out and throw it in the landfill. I guess the only good thing about this non-recession that we are having is that people I know who would never have gone to Habitat Restore, a flea market or the recycle centers are now going.
I apologize for getting a bit off topic.
Diane

[KHT]

FIrst, I'd like to say no offense taken with respect to the folks who passionately present their views and were concerned about driving me off. There's no reason that we cannot passionately disagree with each other and remain civil and respectful of each other's humanity. Rather than answer each of the posts, I would like to make a comment or two.

A new roof is surely needed or at least significant repair on a portion of a new roof. There is tarp up on an eighth of it because there is very little roof there.

When the home was built in 1756 it was one level. Sometime after that a second story was added. In the 1870's wings were added to the home. In later years additional modifications were made for electricity, plumbing, and heat. All internal to the house. It is clearly evident that the floor plan has been modified in several places already. The staircase was moved, ceilings were dropped so there was space for wiring, bathrooms were put in and subsequently moved, closet space was made, a wall in the entry room was added and a kitchenette was put in the house, an open porch was closed in and added to the house for indoor space. All this has happened over 200 years. Some of the rooms still have plaster but many seem to have been drywalled some time ago. Certain parts of the place are suffering from neglect and the house is in a general state of disrepair over the last decade. The out buildings appear to have gutted and renovated / added to maybe 30 years ago and one of them has a severely buckling foundation. Very little of what is original remains in them other than the windows, floors, some of the hardware and plaster, and what can be seen of the original clapboard.

All these changes have occurred since the original 1756 creation, and have been done over 250 years with significant changes happening as recently as 50 years ago. Each owner has modified the home to suit themselves and their needs and / or desires. In some cases it appears they have done so with complete disregard to preserving the "history" (both floor plan and fabric) that has been passionately argued for.

If we move forward with this, great effort will be made to stay within the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Any changes we make will be part of the same history, and some we make may actually rehabilitate things back to the way they were.

- KHT

[Don M]

Hi KHT,
I agree with your response; no one here would disagree that we have original homes that have never changed over the years. Obviously we all have kitchens, bathrooms, plumbing, electric, HVAC, sytems which have been added over time. Our houses are not static & certain modifications have to be made to allow us to live in these homes; they are not museums. We all try to repair and restore our homes to what they were; removing poorly installed modifications & make rooms fit more closely what might have been installed originally in keeping with the original intent of the builder. My 1830-40s vintage farmhouse has 3 baths, closets, etc. but the original floor plan is basically unchanged from original. It has original floors, windows, doors, shutters etc. The original wood shingle roof is under the 100 y/o standing seam metal roof which is still in excellent condition. Anything we have done in the last 13 years to the house or the 5 original out buildings have been repair or replacement with materials similar to original. We have done several standing seam roof installs using original standing seam tools & methods for a porch roof, a new breezeway & replacement of the roof over the back wing on the house. The most drastic change made was conversion of our large dairy barn to a horse stable. If you keep these ideas in mind you would do well with your old house. Don

[ivanho]

We're rehabbing an 1888 Queen Anne. It was in "interim protected status" when we bought it. It was partially gutted, with freeze damage, so all the radiators had burst. In other words, conventional financing was impossible. Not only that, but there was the morass of three mortgages on the property, so it was a short-sale as well. The only offer on the property was from a developer who was going to tear it down. He pulled out when the house was placed in interim protection status, and we put in an offer. An architect nearby wanted it, other folks wanted the house, but nobody could pull it together. It had been on the market for 1.5 years and the only potential buyer with the means to buy was going to tear it down.

The house is now in the heritage program for our city and the exterior cannot be altered. It's 3 stories, 4700 sq. ft. and we (mostly me) will be doing the vast majority of the work ourselves. The next project on the docket is jacking up the East side of the house, excavating the Plattville limestone foundation, and putting in new footings and a block wall foundation. I won't be doing this part. This will alter the exterior, but the city is ok with that, as the house has settled 7-9 inches on the East side and left the house substantially compromised and difficult to rehab.

The interior was 5 apartments at one point, so part of putting the interior back together means $4,500.00 in millwork and attempts at stain matching, ton's of flooring work, rewiring, finding appropriate lighting, removing extra walls and closets. There are many, many projects we'll be embarking on to restore an aesthetic integrity to the interior and exterior.

We just bought a built-in hutch from the same period as our house, with a patina that matches the original trim, and architectural detail that matches our staircase. This hutch will be going between the kitchen and dining room. That spot used have a second set of stairs, originally.

I think if KHT is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars rehabbing the property, then opening up a wall to have a family room off the kitchen is a fair exchange, in my opinion (if that's what they choose to do).

Our house originally had an 1888 kitchen, whatever that was, along with a second set of stairs between the kitchen and dining room. Those stairs are long gone, and had we not found the hutch, I would've reconfigured the wall between the kitchen and dining room to open it up a little bit in there. We certainly won't be working on restoring the kitchen to it's 1888 roots.

I'll attempt to define a bad interior remodel to a circa 1900 house : http://www.edinarealty.com/homes-for-sa ... 9229/popup

[Don M]

Yep; that's really a crime! They sure want a lot for it too.

[KHT]

The Latest

We spoke with W who owned the house prior to the owner who could not keep the house up and lost it in foreclosure. The house was owned by W and his family for over 50 years. W's an historian of sorts. Next week he will be giving us and hopefully our architect and preservation consultant a personal tour of the house and its history.

We have made a couple of more trips out to the house and have taken detailed measurements. From these we've drawn a roughly to scale floor plan. We found out that the old kitchen (now an out structure "apartment") was at one time connected to the house. Currently there is a large covered patio where once stood a summer kitchen. The summer kitchen was connected to the winter kitchen (now the out structure.) This is the place that we proposed making an addition, i.e. enclosing it and making a modern kitchen. Given that it was once enclosed our historical architect believes the ARB would be in favor of seeing it restored that way. The double door going out to the patio and window next to the door make this a natural place to have a relatively open kitchen / family room area.

We can use the room on the left wing of the house as a master bedroom by converting the already connected, enclosed porch that is off the room into a bathroom / closet.

There are other possibilities to adjust the floor plan, but we think this one meets our needs and leaves the house intact with very few adjustments. There is room for a garage on the right side of the house. This makes it convenient to the new kitchen.

The dining room will be a bit out of the way, but it will be a very nice large dining room that is more formal and closed off with large doors than can be closed if desired. One neat thing is we can remove the small kitchen that was added to the house sometime more recently. This would restore the entry way to a grand hall that extends from the front to the back of the house.

We still need to go room by room and figure out what plaster can be saved, what electrical, hvac, and plumbing is needed, and so forth.

One concern upstairs is that a large portion of the ceiling on the top level was collapsing. Much of the lath is showing and bowed in that area. It appears the plaster all around continues to crack and fall. The area is about 20 to 30 feet across and I would guess has an 8 - 12 inch sag over the span. It's being held up in the attic with some sort of beam / rafter / truss. We'll see what the architect or engineer says about it, but I'd hate to leave it like that, even if it could last like that for another 50 years. It would be nice if the problem that caused it could be identified and the whole section restored.

That's it for now.

- KHT