Author Topic: Re-envisioning old house layout  (Read 3609 times)

pnw_guy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Re-envisioning old house layout
« on: August 14, 2023, 08:38:25 PM »
I have a very old house that needs a lot of work. New roof in the next few years, new siding ASAP, flooring, etc. Another issue is that I think the layout may not be optimal.

Before jumping into all that work, I'm interested in seeing if the layout of the house can be re-envisioned and used more efficiently for our family's needs. I don't have a lot of imagination in this area, so I'd like a professional to take a look and make some suggestions about better layout designs (e.g., moving a wall here or there, reconfiguring a bathroom, etc).

Initially, I was thinking that I should try and get ahold of an architect. I'm sure that there must be architects that specialize in making old craftsman homes have a better flow etc. However, this is a starter home and my stereotypes is that architects might want to completely gut the place and replace things with high-end finishes. I don't want to spend so much remodeling it that it is worthy of being in a magazine. I just want it to be more efficient and have a nicer flow with some updates (even if those updates are from IKEA). In this case, should I instead just ask a general contractor - the person I hire to do the remodel - what changes could be worth making? Or is there some role in between these two extremes?

sonofsven

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2634
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2023, 09:18:07 PM »
As a rule, no, don't ask a GC (I am one!). Some could be talented designers, but most aren't. The contractor is best for questions of practicality: "Can we remove this wall?'. Things like that.
You also don't necessarily need a licensed architect, but if you find one that is a talented designer, then go for it.
In between these two is a designer, some might be licensed architects as well, or general contractors!
There are also construction firms known as design/build: they do both.

I've worked with many clients doing simple changes (especially "remove this wall", but on bigger projects that are near to a whole house remodel, the best results (in my experience) have come from a committed owner, who has done their homework and has a good sense of what they want; a talented designer to work with the owners to come up with a plan that fits their needs (and hopefully their budget) and draw up the plans, and a good contractor to implement the plan and work closely with the client, as many decisions need to made on the fly, and compromises are always present.

Start talking to any colleagues, friends, family, realtors in your area, or even home tours (remodeled homes) and take notes. Go look at the other jobs the contractor or designer have completed. Tell them what your goals are.

When I lived in a city I did a lot of this kind of work on old craftsmans. I worked with one designer a lot, I liked him and his designs and he liked my work. So when a client hired him I knew it was pretty likely that we would all get along and share the same goals.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2023, 04:55:57 AM »
I'll echo sonofsven's points, and yes you can absolutely find designers/architects who are very skilled at renovating older homes, and who can be steered away from wanting high end finishes on everything.

But First!... It will help you immensely to do a very critical analysis of your family's needs and wants. A good exercise is to do a path analysis of all the tasks you and your family does over the course of the month, and where they are inefficient or otherwise lacking. As a personal example, in my previous house every day each person would shower, walking from their bedroom downstairs to get a towel from the linen closet and back to the bathroom, then across the house to the laundry area before going back to their bedrooms. Instead of "bigger bathroom!" (the default reaction) we realized most of the 'path' could be solved by renovating a closet adjacent to the main bathroom to be a linen closet and hamper with access from within the bathroom. A $500 one-weekend project rather than a $25k bathroom remodel. 

IF stuff is piling in certain corners or people have to walk behind the person cooking dinner several times to get where they are going - these are the signs you are looking for.  Even if you personally do not have a solution, it will help you immensely to go to an architect/designer and say "we need a way for people to get to the bathroom/office without disrupting meal prep" instead of "we need a bigger kitchen".  Because more space is rarely the best answer, only the easiest (and often most expensive).

Jon Bon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2023, 09:10:39 AM »
As a rule, no, don't ask a GC (I am one!). Some could be talented designers, but most aren't. The contractor is best for questions of practicality: "Can we remove this wall?'. Things like that.
You also don't necessarily need a licensed architect, but if you find one that is a talented designer, then go for it.
In between these two is a designer, some might be licensed architects as well, or general contractors!
There are also construction firms known as design/build: they do both.

I've worked with many clients doing simple changes (especially "remove this wall", but on bigger projects that are near to a whole house remodel, the best results (in my experience) have come from a committed owner, who has done their homework and has a good sense of what they want; a talented designer to work with the owners to come up with a plan that fits their needs (and hopefully their budget) and draw up the plans, and a good contractor to implement the plan and work closely with the client, as many decisions need to made on the fly, and compromises are always present.

Start talking to any colleagues, friends, family, realtors in your area, or even home tours (remodeled homes) and take notes. Go look at the other jobs the contractor or designer have completed. Tell them what your goals are.

When I lived in a city I did a lot of this kind of work on old craftsmans. I worked with one designer a lot, I liked him and his designs and he liked my work. So when a client hired him I knew it was pretty likely that we would all get along and share the same goals.

This is good advice.

First it sounds like you want some design sketches, and not blue prints. Big difference between the two. A professional can  often pull together some designs with a few hours work of work.

The value add is they know where to put the light switches, they know what the choke points will be in the kitchen, they know the require clearances around a table and if those stairs can be moved. Little stuff like that becomes a massive problem when its already installed versus when they fix it on paper for you!

For instance my architect was talking through tasks you do in your home. Like ok its 6am, your coming downstairs to a dark kitchen, need a 3 way switch here, coffee maker has an outlet here, water for pot is here, don't want to bump into the fridge getting your cream, make sure the mugs are near the dishwasher.... etc etc

Anyone can design a kitchen, but to have one that stuff does not bump into other stuff is a skill.




ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8307
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2023, 01:49:26 PM »
If you hire an architect or GC, you will end up with an interior that looks like a freshly renovated apartment, with the obligatory open floor plan that shows off your kitchen clutter, 50 can lights in an attempt to offset the shade-casting of can lights, the kitchen bar where nobody ever sits, black and white paint job, and plastic flooring. You may not even want these things but you'll be steered toward them because these are the cheapest way to "renovate" a space and because it's in style, which is the same thing.

The alternative to spending all this money to turn an original craftsman home into a modern apartment is to embrace the character of the house, and adapt your envisioned ideal life to the house instead of the other way around. People in the early 20th century weren't stupid, they just lived in a different way that is no less valid than the ways we live today. In fact, their lifestyles were cheaper, produced far less garbage, and relied less on disposable gadgets and appliances. What if we could benefit from adopting some of their practices, using this as an opportunity to become wealthier, healthier, and less wasteful?

Closets are too small? How about questioning how many clothes you really need and actually use? What if winter coats went to the attic during the summer and shorts / flip flops went there in the winter? What about under-bed storage boxes, extra dressers, or wardrobes? It can be done and it is routinely done by people who live in old houses. Go minimalist!

Kitchen is awkward? Maybe your 15 appliances that didn't exist a few decades ago are to blame, or maybe having enough drinking glasses for 50 people could be to blame. Maybe an appliance shelf, some roll-out cabinet racks, or some simple rearrangement could improve things. How about a little cutting board island or a pots and pans hanging rack? Could you put some items like plates, glasses, etc. in an antique china cabinet in the dining room? In general, ask how much money could you save if you quit buying new things to bring into your kitchen and require space and how much kitchen stuff do you never use?

Everyone has an Open Floor Plan and you don't? First of all, recognize that OFPs were not a genius way to make a small space bigger, they were an attempt to save money by not having to build and finish another wall. Second, recognize that living in an OFP involves constantly being in view of the dirty dishes, the stained hand towel, the clean dishes piled on the drying rack, some groceries that were left out, and maybe a trash can. An OFP also means not being able to hear the TV or a phone conversation when someone else in the house runs the microwave or dishwasher, and hearing the refrigerator kick on and off while you're trying to read a book on the couch. The people who built your house planned to keep the mess, smells, and noise contained to the kitchen, and to do their entertaining in the living room and dining room. The LR and DR were often separated so that in the event of parties there were multiple rooms where people could converse without having to yell. Maybe give the old way of doing things a try?

Bathroom is awkward? Your bathrooms may have tight walkways but our slimmer, more physically fit ancestors navigated through them effortlessly. They also didn't need to keep hundreds (thousands?) of dollars worth of beauty products and supplements in closets and they didn't have 5 sets of towels they rotated through. Also, their bathrooms were small enough that they weren't drafty. I'll NEVER own a house with a large bathroom again, because it's just so much more comfortable to step out of the shower in a cozy place. Your architect might recommend killing a bedroom to make a large luxury bathroom plus closet, and you should hold onto your wallet instead.

Instead of turning your craftsman home into another bad late modern style remod, focus your attention and money on the exterior improvements. When you fix the siding, take the opportunity to run new wiring and insulate all the wall cavities! Pick a vintage color combination to make the place really pop from the street. When you replace the roof, consider spending a little extra to obtain longer-lived materials that are a better deal and better for the environment, like 35-year metal roofing or tile in light colors. Then pick vintage colors for the interior instead of trying to do what's stylish for crappy apartments. Consider refinishing your hardwoods too! Crappy apartment floor plans are everywhere, but a nice well-kept old house is a treasure, because it lets you live in a different way. Either lean into that awesomeness or buy a modern garage-with-house-attached.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2023, 02:04:20 PM »
If you hire an architect or GC, you will end up with an interior that looks like a freshly renovated apartment, with the obligatory open floor plan that shows off your kitchen clutter, 50 can lights in an attempt to offset the shade-casting of can lights, the kitchen bar where nobody ever sits, black and white paint job, and plastic flooring. You may not even want these things but you'll be steered toward them because these are the cheapest way to "renovate" a space and because it's in style, which is the same thing.

Have to strongly disagree here. If you hire an architect and wind up with a generic design that you hate then either your architect wasn’t attentive or you failed to adequately describe what you were going for, or likely both. They work for you - the client - and if you don’t get designs you like part ways C promptly. Even moderately competent architects spend considerable time designing lighting schemes that aren’t uniformly placed can lights but illuminate work surfaces with switches that fit logical usage.

lhamo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3820
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2023, 10:04:11 PM »
Not directly answering your question, but see if you can find a copy of Susanska's wonderful book "The Not So Big House" before you engage anybody.  A lot of space can be created by good design, and she has lots of examples of older homes that were renovated in thoughtful ways.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2023, 09:52:36 AM »
You are welcome to post your current floor plan here, and there are members of the forum who will throw ideas at you for free :)  It's happened before!

Louise

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2023, 12:56:54 PM »
My bias is showing, but I live in an old Craftsman and I love the old layout and quirks. So many renovated houses around me rip out the beautiful built-in buffets, or put in a half wall with the breakfast bar between the kitchen and the dining rooms, or worse, paint over gorgeous quartersawn oak! All the charm is destroyed. I mean it's your house, but I assume since you called it a starter home you plan on selling in the near future.

I'd be careful about doing too much renovation that modernizes an old house too much (basics like electric upgrades, siding and roofing excepted of course). Where I live, it's reached a tipping point where the houses with the original details intact are now hard to find. The houses that do fly off the market and usually sell for over list price (especially the classic Craftsman bungalows).

Just my unsolicited two cents.

walkingmiller

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2023, 03:38:49 PM »
Quote
But First!... It will help you immensely to do a very critical analysis of your family's needs and wants. A good exercise is to do a path analysis of all the tasks you and your family does over the course of the month, and where they are inefficient or otherwise lacking.

As someone who has recently renovated a 100 year old house, I completely agree with this statement. Before doing anything to the layout (including talking with a designer or architect), live in the house for a while. Over a minimum of a few months, make notes about the things that annoy you (even if you don't have a solution). Changing layouts can be expensive and time-consuming, so you want to make sure that you actually need to do them before starting. And, with an old house, if you don't have to dig into a wall, just don't (you never know what issues you will find and have to fix).

Bartlebooth

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2023, 03:47:45 PM »
As a personal example, in my previous house every day each person would shower, walking from their bedroom downstairs to get a towel from the linen closet and back to the bathroom, then across the house to the laundry area

A new towel every day?

And to stay on topic...put me in camp leave-it-alone.  Refurbish or replace what is worn out.  If you can DIY and have the vision then go ahead and mess around.

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3963
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2023, 11:21:03 AM »
Not directly answering your question, but see if you can find a copy of Susanska's wonderful book "The Not So Big House" before you engage anybody.  A lot of space can be created by good design, and she has lots of examples of older homes that were renovated in thoughtful ways.

I have really enjoyed Laura Fenton’s writing about small spaces and sustainable living, and her book Living Small. Lots of good ideas!

beekayworld

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Location: SoCal
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2023, 07:09:09 PM »
I'm 67 years old and have seen trends come and go.

We are living in a very visual age.  People don't think about smells or sounds, only looks. They want the visual expanse of an open floor plan....seeing the entire kitchen from the front door. 

Never mind that someone cooking in the kitchen may be banging pots and pans, have the exhaust running, and is playing their favorite music.  It isn't conducive to kids doing homework nearby or family members watching tv or talking on the phone.

It FEELS bigger, but you lose a lot of space. In old houses with dining rooms, there was a wall for a china cabinet, a wall for a console , a wall with a window, and a wall with a door.  This also gave space for a couple of extra chairs in the corners or flanking the door, and even a closet to hold the extra table leaves. There were also walls for artwork. 

A modern layout where the dining table and chairs are in the middle of a space don't have walls for any of those things.  Dishes, trays, napkins and tablecloths were right there.  If you don't have a dining room wall for a china cabinet and/or console, you need a bigger kitchen to store that stuff.  Where do you keep extra chairs and the leaves?

Older houses that have front entries keep the cold air from blowing into the living space and keep people at the front door from seeing the family members in pajamas or otherwise not-ready-for-company.  A front entry typically had a coat closet where gift wrap and coats and umbrellas, etc. could be stored. 

The backside of the coat closet was a wall in the living room where a desk or armoire could nicely fit.  It often also held a table with a tray for mail, newspaper and keys.

Many home renovation shows immediately open up the front entry and lose all of the storage and walls.  They want to feel as though the living space extends all the way to the front door, but there's no way to use that space if you don't have walls. Now you have to find someplace else to put coats, umbrellas, gift wrap, flashlights, board games.  You need bigger bedroom closets for starters.

People want hard floors now as they seem cleaner, not realizing how wall-to-wall carpet absorbed sounds. The same with popcorn ceilings. People want to scrape those off so they LOOK cleaner. We're in a visual age.

We used to clean the kitchen after dinner, start the dishwasher, close the kitchen door, and sit down to watch tv in the living room. Without a door on the kitchen, you have to plan when to run the dishwasher.


former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9141
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2023, 02:32:16 AM »
To add to beekayworld's post the fashion for open-plan came from modern architecture, where big open spaces in new buildings could be accompanied by 1) modern insulation and heating/aircon systems designed from scratch to suit the space and 2) big cupboards/basements/bonus rooms etc. to hide the inevitable clutter of human life. 

Too many people have been fooled by fancy staged photo shoots of beautiful empty white spaces which have as much relationship to reality as a couture fashion shoot has to clothes worn on the commute to work.

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2023, 11:16:22 AM »
If you hire an architect or GC, you will end up with an interior that looks like a freshly renovated apartment, with the obligatory open floor plan that shows off your kitchen clutter, 50 can lights in an attempt to offset the shade-casting of can lights, the kitchen bar where nobody ever sits, black and white paint job, and plastic flooring. You may not even want these things but you'll be steered toward them because these are the cheapest way to "renovate" a space and because it's in style, which is the same thing.

. . . .

Kitchen is awkward? Maybe your 15 appliances that didn't exist a few decades ago are to blame, or maybe having enough drinking glasses for 50 people could be to blame. Maybe an appliance shelf, some roll-out cabinet racks, or some simple rearrangement could improve things. How about a little cutting board island or a pots and pans hanging rack? Could you put some items like plates, glasses, etc. in an antique china cabinet in the dining room? In general, ask how much money could you save if you quit buying new things to bring into your kitchen and require space and how much kitchen stuff do you never use?

. . . .

Bathroom is awkward? Your bathrooms may have tight walkways but our slimmer, more physically fit ancestors navigated through them effortlessly. They also didn't need to keep hundreds (thousands?) of dollars worth of beauty products and supplements in closets and they didn't have 5 sets of towels they rotated through. Also, their bathrooms were small enough that they weren't drafty. I'll NEVER own a house with a large bathroom again, because it's just so much more comfortable to step out of the shower in a cozy place. Your architect might recommend killing a bedroom to make a large luxury bathroom plus closet, and you should hold onto your wallet instead.

I agree with much of the advice so far, and I agree with the primary point here, but I very much disagree with the comment about kitchens, and somewhat about bathrooms.  Back when my home was built, people had servants to do the cooking and cleaning, so the utility areas were not really a priority.  Even when it was mom doing it, the focus was on keeping the heat and smells away from the rest of the house.  One reason many people have gone to an open floor plan is because those of us who are responsible for cooking don't particularly want to be separated from everyone else for what might be hours on the weekend (I do batch cooking to prep for the week).  One reason for bigger kitchens is to accommodate two people sharing the labor at the same time.  Open plans also help when you're the only one home and you need to get things done and the kids are too little to be left on the other side of the house by themselves (since we don't have "help" or do playpens any more).  When we moved to this house, I resented for years that I was literally on the opposite end of the house from the rest of the family.  Now I kinda like the quiet, though, and having my own little TV to watch my home shows instead of being stuck listening to "How It's Made" in the family room.  ;-)

There have been quite a few innovations in kitchens and baths in the last 100 years, and it's reasonable to think about reconfiguring the space to make those places a nicer place to be.  For ex., when we added a bathroom c. 15 years ago, we did a walk-in shower with glass doors rather than a tub, because (a) being able to shut the door and keep all the water inside the shower pan is SO much nicer than dealing with overspray and drips from a shower curtain and making the entire bathroom hot and humid and slippery, and (b) it's easier access for getting older.  Now, some old homes do have walk-in showers that will work.  But you know what they don't have?  A ledge or bench to prop your foot on to shave your legs -- and some of them aren't even big enough to do that anyway.  You'd better believe my shower has a lovely bench in it.  And my vanity has room for the medicines I need and the makeup/hair dryer I need to meet the professional expectations that women still face (don't even get me started on that).

You don't have to go fancy to make the space more useful; in fact, I'd argue that focusing on the fancy often distracts from the functional.  I very much agree with the advice to live in your house for a while.  Live intentionally:  pay attention to the pinch points, and also pay attention to what works well.  Give it a little time and see if there are things you can adjust to and things you can't.  Paying attention to how you live gives you that base knowledge of the changes you want to make, beyond "this kitchen doesn't work."  Then you can go to an architect -- if it's a good one, they will focus first on flow and how you live, and come up with ways to make that more efficient. 

Funny story:  when we redid the kitchen -- flipped the kitchen from the enclosed porch to an unused sitting room in the back of the house, because the house was big enough and so adding more space seemed silly -- I spent so much time thinking about how I cooked and the things I wanted (like the dish area separate from the stove/fridge so DH could clean up while I cooked, a curved island that encouraged people to walk around it instead of through the cooking/cleaning zones, etc.) that in the end, the architect told me that I didn't even need her, because I'd already done that work and hit on the best compromise that she could come up with.  You obviously don't need to spend hours with pencils and graph paper if that's not your thing.  But if you pay attention to the things you like and dislike, you will really help the architect point you to specific, targeted changes that may help you get what you need without gutting the entire place.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23735
  • Age: 67
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2023, 02:42:10 PM »
I'm 67 years old and have seen trends come and go.

We are living in a very visual age.  People don't think about smells or sounds, only looks. They want the visual expanse of an open floor plan....seeing the entire kitchen from the front door. 

Never mind that someone cooking in the kitchen may be banging pots and pans, have the exhaust running, and is playing their favorite music.  It isn't conducive to kids doing homework nearby or family members watching tv or talking on the phone.

It FEELS bigger, but you lose a lot of space. In old houses with dining rooms, there was a wall for a china cabinet, a wall for a console , a wall with a window, and a wall with a door.  This also gave space for a couple of extra chairs in the corners or flanking the door, and even a closet to hold the extra table leaves. There were also walls for artwork. 

A modern layout where the dining table and chairs are in the middle of a space don't have walls for any of those things.  Dishes, trays, napkins and tablecloths were right there.  If you don't have a dining room wall for a china cabinet and/or console, you need a bigger kitchen to store that stuff.  Where do you keep extra chairs and the leaves?

Older houses that have front entries keep the cold air from blowing into the living space and keep people at the front door from seeing the family members in pajamas or otherwise not-ready-for-company.  A front entry typically had a coat closet where gift wrap and coats and umbrellas, etc. could be stored. 

The backside of the coat closet was a wall in the living room where a desk or armoire could nicely fit.  It often also held a table with a tray for mail, newspaper and keys.

Many home renovation shows immediately open up the front entry and lose all of the storage and walls.  They want to feel as though the living space extends all the way to the front door, but there's no way to use that space if you don't have walls. Now you have to find someplace else to put coats, umbrellas, gift wrap, flashlights, board games.  You need bigger bedroom closets for starters.

People want hard floors now as they seem cleaner, not realizing how wall-to-wall carpet absorbed sounds. The same with popcorn ceilings. People want to scrape those off so they LOOK cleaner. We're in a visual age.

We used to clean the kitchen after dinner, start the dishwasher, close the kitchen door, and sit down to watch tv in the living room. Without a door on the kitchen, you have to plan when to run the dishwasher.
We're about the same age, so ive seen similar changes.* One thing that's changed is dishwashers are much, much quieter than they used to be. Another popular feature is to have the "breakfast bar" at the same height as the counter, making the space look bigger. In compensation, they install deeper sinks, so the dishes are less easily seen.

*I am especially unimpressed with "Mid-Century Modern". Yeah, that stuff was designed and created to be built as quickly and cheaply as possible.  No thanks.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2023, 10:21:45 AM »
Regarding changes in home design and floor plans, almost everyone seems to agree that what is fashionable now will shift in the decades ahead. However, I certainly don’t expect it to “revert” to what was common in the 1970s or 1940s or 1900s or whenever.

As Laura33, Dicey and others laid out, there have been seismic shifts in how we live and what items a typical household has. Nowadays its more common for both partners to work and have after-hour work responsibilities, we don’t typically have servants but the overwhelming majority have at least a few of the following: tv, a dishwasher, microwave, no land-line, a/c,  one car per adult. Most of the hoses being discussed came from a time when the typical owner had none of these. Family size is also radically different, and household income tends to be much higher than it was pre1970s.

On the construction side, electrical loads are way higher, safety codes are way more strict, materials are different and broadly speaking much better.

My point (if I ever have a coherent one) is that in most cases there is no “mean” to revert to when it comes to home design. We shouldn’t lose the “charm” of well built older houses, but it seems backward (literally) to try to renovate it back to the way people lived decades and decades ago hoping the house will somehow “fit” our current realities.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8307
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2023, 12:59:28 PM »
Regarding changes in home design and floor plans, almost everyone seems to agree that what is fashionable now will shift in the decades ahead. However, I certainly don’t expect it to “revert” to what was common in the 1970s or 1940s or 1900s or whenever.

As Laura33, Dicey and others laid out, there have been seismic shifts in how we live and what items a typical household has. Nowadays its more common for both partners to work and have after-hour work responsibilities, we don’t typically have servants but the overwhelming majority have at least a few of the following: tv, a dishwasher, microwave, no land-line, a/c,  one car per adult. Most of the hoses being discussed came from a time when the typical owner had none of these. Family size is also radically different, and household income tends to be much higher than it was pre1970s.

On the construction side, electrical loads are way higher, safety codes are way more strict, materials are different and broadly speaking much better.

My point (if I ever have a coherent one) is that in most cases there is no “mean” to revert to when it comes to home design. We shouldn’t lose the “charm” of well built older houses, but it seems backward (literally) to try to renovate it back to the way people lived decades and decades ago hoping the house will somehow “fit” our current realities.
Technology has brought some changes, but the seismic shift has been the decline in persons per household, which went from 3.14 in 1970 to 2.5 in 2022. Arguably, it would make sense for builders to be constructing a lot more 1BR and 2BR homes given the shrinking size of families, and the higher numbers of single and divorced people. Instead, trends have moved in the exact opposite direction. Houses are getting bigger, not smaller. There are a lot of single individuals living alone in a 3BR/2BA suburban house (I used to be one!) and those folks are paying for something they're not using.   

In other words, the houses being constructed today are LESS functional for modern lifestyles and budgets than the smaller houses of yesteryear. If you are a divorcee living with the mortgage on a big $600k suburban house with two empty bedrooms, less than $100k/year in income, and no fallback plan if you become sick or otherwise unable to work, then you would have been better off with a post-war 2BR ranch house or a 1920s shotgun house. You'd also be better off with a small, city-sized lot rather than the quarter acre you must mow all alone under risk of penalty from the HOA.

The point I want to make from this example is that we are asking the wrong question if we are asking what house configuration functions the best for people in today's world. People in today's world are not buying housing configurations or living in places that would fit them better or leave them more prosperous and less economically vulnerable. Social status and safety concerns require that they live in certain neighborhoods with big expensive housing or because housing that would best fit most people is not available. Some elderly family members of mine are living in a 3500sf classic mansion that is 2 story, but they cannot climb the stairs anymore so they haven't seen the upstairs in months. Arguably, the functionality of their house is extremely poor, and an assisted living apartment would suit them much better, but that would mean giving up their stuff and their imagined place in the neighborhood. We're all like this now.

So let's throw out the assumption that today's styles have anything to do with functionality.

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2023, 01:33:10 PM »
In other words, the houses being constructed today are LESS functional for modern lifestyles and budgets than the smaller houses of yesteryear. If you are a divorcee living with the mortgage on a big $600k suburban house with two empty bedrooms, less than $100k/year in income, and no fallback plan if you become sick or otherwise unable to work, then you would have been better off with a post-war 2BR ranch house or a 1920s shotgun house. You'd also be better off with a small, city-sized lot rather than the quarter acre you must mow all alone under risk of penalty from the HOA.

. . . .

So let's throw out the assumption that today's styles have anything to do with functionality.

This is true if you limit the concept of "functionality" to cost-efficiency and space minimization.  Yes, many people buy bigger homes than they need (although around here, with land being valuable, there are a lot of 3/2 1700' two-stories on small lots).  And some people make poor financial choices in buying houses.  But how does any of that affect how the family who buys the house believe it functions for them?  If you ask most people what makes a home functional, having storage space and flexible space for changing needs is pretty high on the list.  For them, "more house than I need" is a feature, not a bug.

I define "functionality" as how something handles day-to-day life.  A neighborhood is functional if people can get where they need to be quickly, safely, and easily.  A house is functional if it helps make the daily life of its inhabitants more efficient and easier.  I identified above quite a few things that can make an open plan more functional for families -- and many of those changes have resulted from changes in lifestyle, such as families sharing chores and kid duty.  You don't need a huge kitchen, but if you cook together, it sure as hell helps to be able to fit two butts in the kitchen.  And it also helps to be able to keep an eye on the kids while they play. 

Of course, for other people, that's not "functional" at all.  Wealthy people now have a "regular" kitchen for show and a "caterers'" kitchen for work, or giant built-in pantries where all the messy stuff happens.  People who cook certain ethnic foods want the "hot" kitchen entirely separate to contain the smells.  Etc.  But on average, in the US, your young married couple with small-ish kids is going to be drawn to a plan that makes it easier for them to be and work together.  And many of them also want a new house, because they believe it will require less maintenance/repair than an old home, so they're not as interested in the neighborhood with the '70s ranch houses as in the 3/2 1700' new build on the small lot.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2023, 01:52:32 PM »
In other words, the houses being constructed today are LESS functional for modern lifestyles and budgets than the smaller houses of yesteryear. If you are a divorcee living with the mortgage on a big $600k suburban house with two empty bedrooms, less than $100k/year in income, and no fallback plan if you become sick or otherwise unable to work, then you would have been better off with a post-war 2BR ranch house or a 1920s shotgun house. You'd also be better off with a small, city-sized lot rather than the quarter acre you must mow all alone under risk of penalty from the HOA.

. . . .

So let's throw out the assumption that today's styles have anything to do with functionality.

This is true if you limit the concept of "functionality" to cost-efficiency and space minimization.  Yes, many people buy bigger homes than they need (although around here, with land being valuable, there are a lot of 3/2 1700' two-stories on small lots).  And some people make poor financial choices in buying houses.  But how does any of that affect how the family who buys the house believe it functions for them?  If you ask most people what makes a home functional, having storage space and flexible space for changing needs is pretty high on the list.  For them, "more house than I need" is a feature, not a bug.

I define "functionality" as how something handles day-to-day life.  A neighborhood is functional if people can get where they need to be quickly, safely, and easily.  A house is functional if it helps make the daily life of its inhabitants more efficient and easier.  I identified above quite a few things that can make an open plan more functional for families -- and many of those changes have resulted from changes in lifestyle, such as families sharing chores and kid duty.  You don't need a huge kitchen, but if you cook together, it sure as hell helps to be able to fit two butts in the kitchen.  And it also helps to be able to keep an eye on the kids while they play. 

Of course, for other people, that's not "functional" at all.  Wealthy people now have a "regular" kitchen for show and a "caterers'" kitchen for work, or giant built-in pantries where all the messy stuff happens.  People who cook certain ethnic foods want the "hot" kitchen entirely separate to contain the smells.  Etc.  But on average, in the US, your young married couple with small-ish kids is going to be drawn to a plan that makes it easier for them to be and work together.  And many of them also want a new house, because they believe it will require less maintenance/repair than an old home, so they're not as interested in the neighborhood with the '70s ranch houses as in the 3/2 1700' new build on the small lot.

To some degree homes have been a status symbol for centuries, if not millennia. Louis XIV didn't have Versailles because he felt he needed more space.
As noted the size of our families has shrunk in the last 50 years just as our incomes have risen. That almost certainly has fueled changes as much as anything, but they work in tandem. When you are no longer one of 7 family members with several servants bustling about the need for dozens of cloistered spaces changes.

To be clear, I am 100% behind you about how we should be building smaller homes and prioritizing efficient layout over more floor space.  But looking to the past has some major pitfalls.


ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8307
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2023, 03:13:12 PM »
In other words, the houses being constructed today are LESS functional for modern lifestyles and budgets than the smaller houses of yesteryear. If you are a divorcee living with the mortgage on a big $600k suburban house with two empty bedrooms, less than $100k/year in income, and no fallback plan if you become sick or otherwise unable to work, then you would have been better off with a post-war 2BR ranch house or a 1920s shotgun house. You'd also be better off with a small, city-sized lot rather than the quarter acre you must mow all alone under risk of penalty from the HOA.

. . . .

So let's throw out the assumption that today's styles have anything to do with functionality.
This is true if you limit the concept of "functionality" to cost-efficiency and space minimization.  Yes, many people buy bigger homes than they need (although around here, with land being valuable, there are a lot of 3/2 1700' two-stories on small lots).  And some people make poor financial choices in buying houses.  But how does any of that affect how the family who buys the house believe it functions for them?  If you ask most people what makes a home functional, having storage space and flexible space for changing needs is pretty high on the list.  For them, "more house than I need" is a feature, not a bug.

I define "functionality" as how something handles day-to-day life.  A neighborhood is functional if people can get where they need to be quickly, safely, and easily.  A house is functional if it helps make the daily life of its inhabitants more efficient and easier.  I identified above quite a few things that can make an open plan more functional for families -- and many of those changes have resulted from changes in lifestyle, such as families sharing chores and kid duty.  You don't need a huge kitchen, but if you cook together, it sure as hell helps to be able to fit two butts in the kitchen.  And it also helps to be able to keep an eye on the kids while they play. 

Of course, for other people, that's not "functional" at all.  Wealthy people now have a "regular" kitchen for show and a "caterers'" kitchen for work, or giant built-in pantries where all the messy stuff happens.  People who cook certain ethnic foods want the "hot" kitchen entirely separate to contain the smells.  Etc.  But on average, in the US, your young married couple with small-ish kids is going to be drawn to a plan that makes it easier for them to be and work together.  And many of them also want a new house, because they believe it will require less maintenance/repair than an old home, so they're not as interested in the neighborhood with the '70s ranch houses as in the 3/2 1700' new build on the small lot.
To some extent though, we have a naive view of "how something handles day-to-day life". Bigger and more luxurious homes are convenient in the sense that they don't require us to prioritize the objects we possess or hoard. They are inconvenient in that they cost more to construct, insure, tax, maintain, and heat / air condition. Day-to-day life can be impacted by being under financial pressure from owning such an expensive house, under time pressure due to long commutes, and because of little worries like crabgrass or brown recluse spiders living in the junkpile that occupies the garage.

In my experience with modern and old houses, modern homes are often designed and located in ways which lead to a deeply dis satisfactory life.

Here's one example: People want a two or three car garage because they envision the garage protecting the finish on their car and sheltering them as they get in or out of the car on a rainy day. They pay/mortgage an extra $60k to have this garage tacked onto the front of their new house. The garage then fills up with unused objects until it can no longer be used for the car, and the homeowners have to run from the driveway into the front door when it rains. Now the homeowners are in the exact same position as the buyer of an old house with no garage, and arguably worse because they've been tempted to spend thousands of dollars on junk because it fit in the garage.

Another example: People move to a new suburban neighborhood because they want to live amongst and befriend similar people, such as young professionals or others who have kids. But then the houses are build with 150' wide lots or wider, meaning that people are isolated from their neighbors or must take a long walk to get to them. Of course there are no front porches or front-yard gardens, and then there's often no sidewalk. So the buyers are no better off socially than if they were living in a neighborhood full of people they have nothing in common with.   

Another example: People buy homes with pools, outdoor kitchens, workshops, theaters, etc. because they want to spend more time having fun, but the home is so far away from work, groceries, and everyone else they know that they instead spend more of their time driving or sitting in traffic. Ironically they'd have more time to have fun if they lived in a very basic home closer to people and destinations.

Another example: That big luxury bathroom shows well, but when you step out of the shower on a cold January day you'll feel the chill in your bones. A small bathroom is much more comfy.

In all these cases, people are buying what they think is a convenience or a luxury, but instead signing themselves up for a life of excessive driving, consuming, hoarding, paying, and working. From a feature-by-feature viewpoint, modern homes look great, but from a holistic viewpoint, the lifestyle is lacking.

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2023, 08:55:53 AM »
In other words, the houses being constructed today are LESS functional for modern lifestyles and budgets than the smaller houses of yesteryear. If you are a divorcee living with the mortgage on a big $600k suburban house with two empty bedrooms, less than $100k/year in income, and no fallback plan if you become sick or otherwise unable to work, then you would have been better off with a post-war 2BR ranch house or a 1920s shotgun house. You'd also be better off with a small, city-sized lot rather than the quarter acre you must mow all alone under risk of penalty from the HOA.

. . . .

So let's throw out the assumption that today's styles have anything to do with functionality.
This is true if you limit the concept of "functionality" to cost-efficiency and space minimization.  Yes, many people buy bigger homes than they need (although around here, with land being valuable, there are a lot of 3/2 1700' two-stories on small lots).  And some people make poor financial choices in buying houses.  But how does any of that affect how the family who buys the house believe it functions for them?  If you ask most people what makes a home functional, having storage space and flexible space for changing needs is pretty high on the list.  For them, "more house than I need" is a feature, not a bug.

I define "functionality" as how something handles day-to-day life.  A neighborhood is functional if people can get where they need to be quickly, safely, and easily.  A house is functional if it helps make the daily life of its inhabitants more efficient and easier.  I identified above quite a few things that can make an open plan more functional for families -- and many of those changes have resulted from changes in lifestyle, such as families sharing chores and kid duty.  You don't need a huge kitchen, but if you cook together, it sure as hell helps to be able to fit two butts in the kitchen.  And it also helps to be able to keep an eye on the kids while they play. 

Of course, for other people, that's not "functional" at all.  Wealthy people now have a "regular" kitchen for show and a "caterers'" kitchen for work, or giant built-in pantries where all the messy stuff happens.  People who cook certain ethnic foods want the "hot" kitchen entirely separate to contain the smells.  Etc.  But on average, in the US, your young married couple with small-ish kids is going to be drawn to a plan that makes it easier for them to be and work together.  And many of them also want a new house, because they believe it will require less maintenance/repair than an old home, so they're not as interested in the neighborhood with the '70s ranch houses as in the 3/2 1700' new build on the small lot.
To some extent though, we have a naive view of "how something handles day-to-day life". Bigger and more luxurious homes are convenient in the sense that they don't require us to prioritize the objects we possess or hoard. They are inconvenient in that they cost more to construct, insure, tax, maintain, and heat / air condition. Day-to-day life can be impacted by being under financial pressure from owning such an expensive house, under time pressure due to long commutes, and because of little worries like crabgrass or brown recluse spiders living in the junkpile that occupies the garage.

In my experience with modern and old houses, modern homes are often designed and located in ways which lead to a deeply dis satisfactory life.

Here's one example: People want a two or three car garage because they envision the garage protecting the finish on their car and sheltering them as they get in or out of the car on a rainy day. They pay/mortgage an extra $60k to have this garage tacked onto the front of their new house. The garage then fills up with unused objects until it can no longer be used for the car, and the homeowners have to run from the driveway into the front door when it rains. Now the homeowners are in the exact same position as the buyer of an old house with no garage, and arguably worse because they've been tempted to spend thousands of dollars on junk because it fit in the garage.

Another example: People move to a new suburban neighborhood because they want to live amongst and befriend similar people, such as young professionals or others who have kids. But then the houses are build with 150' wide lots or wider, meaning that people are isolated from their neighbors or must take a long walk to get to them. Of course there are no front porches or front-yard gardens, and then there's often no sidewalk. So the buyers are no better off socially than if they were living in a neighborhood full of people they have nothing in common with.   

Another example: People buy homes with pools, outdoor kitchens, workshops, theaters, etc. because they want to spend more time having fun, but the home is so far away from work, groceries, and everyone else they know that they instead spend more of their time driving or sitting in traffic. Ironically they'd have more time to have fun if they lived in a very basic home closer to people and destinations.

Another example: That big luxury bathroom shows well, but when you step out of the shower on a cold January day you'll feel the chill in your bones. A small bathroom is much more comfy.

In all these cases, people are buying what they think is a convenience or a luxury, but instead signing themselves up for a life of excessive driving, consuming, hoarding, paying, and working. From a feature-by-feature viewpoint, modern homes look great, but from a holistic viewpoint, the lifestyle is lacking.

But it's the chicken and the egg thing, isn't it?  Builders are building what they think people want.  If people are buying their homes, then builders are right.  Whether those things actually work or not is more a testament to the fact that people are historically shit at identifying what actually makes them happy.

We are also talking about entirely different things.  You are focusing, by and large, on neighborhood design.  I was responding to the OP, who has already chosen an older house and is considering remodeling.  So all of the neighborhood design doesn't matter at all.  (And btw, I totally agree with you on neighborhood design, which is why I live in a first-ring suburb with grid streets and sidewalks and shops two blocks away).

Which I think brings us back full-circle to the conclusion that OP needs to live in the house and see what works and what doesn't.  Modern floorplans do have some significant benefits given the way most people want to live today.  But there are also drawbacks, so it's not something people should just superimpose on an old house without thought. 

The real problem is that any design is usually bad, because the people doing the design are focusing more on "does it look striking enough to attract buyers" and less on the needs of the people who are using it.  For example, bathrooms.  In one modern house, we had an open shower that was just behind a 6' high privacy wall, and the bathroom itself didn't even have a door.  Never, ever, ever again -- there is nothing more miserable than trying to shave your legs through goosebumps.  OTOH, some of the little so-called "coffin" showers from 100-yr-old Craftsman bungalows can be equally miserable, because having no place to put my foot while shaving my legs ends up with (at best) soap/water in my eyes or (at worst) lovely slashes along my legs where I slipped.  IMO, the actual functional, affordable approach is the classic '60s-'70s tub/shower combination with a glass door to keep the water in, with the whole "wet" area being behind its own door to keep the heat in.  But of course that isn't pretty/grand enough to attract buyers, so we do these stupid giant showers in these huge open bathrooms, and people buy them because they look very grand. 

Actually, one of the nice things about remodeling an older house is that the space constraints can keep you from getting too full of yourself and making stupid decisions like that.  We had a 6' x 21' enclosed porch that we turned into a new main bath and closet off our bedroom.  We ended up with a shower (with bench!) with floor-to-ceiling glass to keep the heat/humidity in, and then the shower/toilet room separated from the main area by a pocket door for privacy.  I was annoyed at how tight everything was -- I really wanted a tub -- but the space constraints definitely led us to a solution that actually works quite ridiculously well, yet the giant walk-in shower still makes it all look modern and swanky. 

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8307
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2023, 02:24:43 PM »
In other words, the houses being constructed today are LESS functional for modern lifestyles and budgets than the smaller houses of yesteryear. If you are a divorcee living with the mortgage on a big $600k suburban house with two empty bedrooms, less than $100k/year in income, and no fallback plan if you become sick or otherwise unable to work, then you would have been better off with a post-war 2BR ranch house or a 1920s shotgun house. You'd also be better off with a small, city-sized lot rather than the quarter acre you must mow all alone under risk of penalty from the HOA.

. . . .

So let's throw out the assumption that today's styles have anything to do with functionality.
This is true if you limit the concept of "functionality" to cost-efficiency and space minimization.  Yes, many people buy bigger homes than they need (although around here, with land being valuable, there are a lot of 3/2 1700' two-stories on small lots).  And some people make poor financial choices in buying houses.  But how does any of that affect how the family who buys the house believe it functions for them?  If you ask most people what makes a home functional, having storage space and flexible space for changing needs is pretty high on the list.  For them, "more house than I need" is a feature, not a bug.

I define "functionality" as how something handles day-to-day life.  A neighborhood is functional if people can get where they need to be quickly, safely, and easily.  A house is functional if it helps make the daily life of its inhabitants more efficient and easier.  I identified above quite a few things that can make an open plan more functional for families -- and many of those changes have resulted from changes in lifestyle, such as families sharing chores and kid duty.  You don't need a huge kitchen, but if you cook together, it sure as hell helps to be able to fit two butts in the kitchen.  And it also helps to be able to keep an eye on the kids while they play. 

Of course, for other people, that's not "functional" at all.  Wealthy people now have a "regular" kitchen for show and a "caterers'" kitchen for work, or giant built-in pantries where all the messy stuff happens.  People who cook certain ethnic foods want the "hot" kitchen entirely separate to contain the smells.  Etc.  But on average, in the US, your young married couple with small-ish kids is going to be drawn to a plan that makes it easier for them to be and work together.  And many of them also want a new house, because they believe it will require less maintenance/repair than an old home, so they're not as interested in the neighborhood with the '70s ranch houses as in the 3/2 1700' new build on the small lot.
To some extent though, we have a naive view of "how something handles day-to-day life". Bigger and more luxurious homes are convenient in the sense that they don't require us to prioritize the objects we possess or hoard. They are inconvenient in that they cost more to construct, insure, tax, maintain, and heat / air condition. Day-to-day life can be impacted by being under financial pressure from owning such an expensive house, under time pressure due to long commutes, and because of little worries like crabgrass or brown recluse spiders living in the junkpile that occupies the garage.

In my experience with modern and old houses, modern homes are often designed and located in ways which lead to a deeply dis satisfactory life.

Here's one example: People want a two or three car garage because they envision the garage protecting the finish on their car and sheltering them as they get in or out of the car on a rainy day. They pay/mortgage an extra $60k to have this garage tacked onto the front of their new house. The garage then fills up with unused objects until it can no longer be used for the car, and the homeowners have to run from the driveway into the front door when it rains. Now the homeowners are in the exact same position as the buyer of an old house with no garage, and arguably worse because they've been tempted to spend thousands of dollars on junk because it fit in the garage.

Another example: People move to a new suburban neighborhood because they want to live amongst and befriend similar people, such as young professionals or others who have kids. But then the houses are build with 150' wide lots or wider, meaning that people are isolated from their neighbors or must take a long walk to get to them. Of course there are no front porches or front-yard gardens, and then there's often no sidewalk. So the buyers are no better off socially than if they were living in a neighborhood full of people they have nothing in common with.   

Another example: People buy homes with pools, outdoor kitchens, workshops, theaters, etc. because they want to spend more time having fun, but the home is so far away from work, groceries, and everyone else they know that they instead spend more of their time driving or sitting in traffic. Ironically they'd have more time to have fun if they lived in a very basic home closer to people and destinations.

Another example: That big luxury bathroom shows well, but when you step out of the shower on a cold January day you'll feel the chill in your bones. A small bathroom is much more comfy.

In all these cases, people are buying what they think is a convenience or a luxury, but instead signing themselves up for a life of excessive driving, consuming, hoarding, paying, and working. From a feature-by-feature viewpoint, modern homes look great, but from a holistic viewpoint, the lifestyle is lacking.

But it's the chicken and the egg thing, isn't it?  Builders are building what they think people want.  If people are buying their homes, then builders are right.  Whether those things actually work or not is more a testament to the fact that people are historically shit at identifying what actually makes them happy.
You are 100% correct. Builders are building what they *think* will sell most profitably. Buyers are buying what they *think* will be most enjoyable. Either or both could be wrong, and because all the builders are building the same thing buyers don't really have that many choices anyway. People who have experienced a variety of houses and who know exactly what they want don't have the choice to buy a new home that fits their wishes - they get a tract house with a floor plan designed more for camera angles than realism, and made to appeal to an envisioned average buyer. For example, empty nesters on a limited budget may need a 2BR/1BA but if all that is for sale are 3BR/2BAs then they'll have to put themselves in financial jeopardy by purchasing more house than they need. Examples like these are more reasons not to consider modern fashion to be better fashion. Modern lifestyles are not necessarily better either.
Quote
We are also talking about entirely different things.  You are focusing, by and large, on neighborhood design.  I was responding to the OP, who has already chosen an older house and is considering remodeling.  So all of the neighborhood design doesn't matter at all.  (And btw, I totally agree with you on neighborhood design, which is why I live in a first-ring suburb with grid streets and sidewalks and shops two blocks away).

Which I think brings us back full-circle to the conclusion that OP needs to live in the house and see what works and what doesn't.  Modern floorplans do have some significant benefits given the way most people {think they} want to live today.  But there are also drawbacks, so it's not something people should just superimpose on an old house without thought. 
Added "think they" above :). Sometimes we try to solve one tiny inconvenience when we knock down a wall or redesign a bathroom, and then create a new inconvenience with our new design. The open shower idea you described  is a perfect example. Looks great in photos, but is miserable to use. They resolved the issue of alge growing on a shower curtain, but created the issue of draftiness.

There are similar issues with open floor plans, layouts of newer neighborhoods, garage-centric design, large lawns, "stroads", complex roof lines, and most allegedly luxurious features built into houses. All these "nice" features of modern houses have drawbacks that are not obvious from photos.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2023, 06:15:15 PM »
"garage-centric design" Can you elaborate a bit more on that?

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8307
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2023, 06:39:45 AM »
"garage-centric design" Can you elaborate a bit more on that?

joenorm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2023, 07:38:21 AM »
Having recently designed and built a house with an "open floor plan" I can see both sides of this argument. It requires you to keep an immaculately clean kitchen which is something to strive for but is hard to achieve in real life. Dishes stack up on the counter and block a quarter of your precious view window. If the counters are not clean, it's a display for all to see.

I have at many times had regrets about this design. But I would never advocate for going back to how they used to be built. Closed off, too small, etc.

There is a balance. Next time I would keep the open plan but offset the kitchen just a tad, so it's not on full display. But if your are cooking a lot of your own meals you'll spend a lot of time in the kitchen, so it has to be an inviting space. And it doesn't want to feel isolating to be in.

So like everything, figure out a balance between the two extremes

Laura33

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2023, 09:33:41 AM »
Dishes stack up on the counter and block a quarter of your precious view window.

I have discovered that a very large, deep sink takes care of this problem.  ;-) 

Signed,

Woman whose DH does dishes approximately every fourth day.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5830
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2023, 10:48:43 AM »
"garage-centric design" Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
So snout houses?  I thought we were talking about things that look good, but are hard to live in.  Snout houses are the opposite--an aesthetic failure on the architect's part, rather than a failure to function.

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8307
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2023, 11:06:21 AM »
"garage-centric design" Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
So snout houses?  I thought we were talking about things that look good, but are hard to live in.  Snout houses are the opposite--an aesthetic failure on the architect's part, rather than a failure to function.
I'd argue they also fail to function by constricting the view from front windows, by making the house less welcoming for neighbors and friends to approach, by consuming a lot of financial resources to build a giant room that is actually used to store low-value junk instead of getting rid of it, and by herding the owner into a cloistered, car-centric and TV-centric lifestyle. Some such houses with an L or H shape have a roofline that will dump large quantities of water at one point of the foundation if the gutters ever clog. Additionally, there is a chance this aesthetic and functional failure will become a financial liability for the owners in a generation or two, as the wackiest trends of the 1970s are today.

I had a snout home some years ago. I could only see the front yard from one bedroom window, didn't know my neighbors, filled the garage with stuff I ended up throwing away when I moved, and sat in the open floor plan living room watching a lot more TV and internet than I should have.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Re-envisioning old house layout
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2023, 12:42:20 PM »
"garage-centric design" Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
So snout houses?  I thought we were talking about things that look good, but are hard to live in.  Snout houses are the opposite--an aesthetic failure on the architect's part, rather than a failure to function.
I'd argue they also fail to function by constricting the view from front windows, by making the house less welcoming for neighbors and friends to approach, by consuming a lot of financial resources to build a giant room that is actually used to store low-value junk instead of getting rid of it, and by herding the owner into a cloistered, car-centric and TV-centric lifestyle. Some such houses with an L or H shape have a roofline that will dump large quantities of water at one point of the foundation if the gutters ever clog. Additionally, there is a chance this aesthetic and functional failure will become a financial liability for the owners in a generation or two, as the wackiest trends of the 1970s are today.

I had a snout home some years ago. I could only see the front yard from one bedroom window, didn't know my neighbors, filled the garage with stuff I ended up throwing away when I moved, and sat in the open floor plan living room watching a lot more TV and internet than I should have.

I have/had a longer post queued, but just my quicker response is that there's an historical equivalent to the 'snout' home, which was the barn. Built supposedly for stabling their horse they were oversized even for their day. Not without irony, most barns in New England have been converted into these enormous garages, and that aesthetic at least partially drives NEW construction trends of people who want to emulate the 'classic NE barn'.

Back before people had cars, people built the barn first, and then a small, oven hastily constructed house. Then in a couple years they would build a "Big house" connected to the "Little House" which was as much about impressing as it was about functionality. Eventually as the barn stopped housing livestock and the owners connected the 'little house' to the barn with the 'back house' so they didn't have to go outside.  This was in the 1910s-40s.

These buildings are their own protected class of architecture, despite having all so many of the drawbacks you are objecting to (and many more), and were largely constructed 100 years ago.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!