Keep what?s irreplaceable. Improve the rest. The discussion around whether or not one should renovate an old house feels like a raging battle between ?history is sacred? and ?tear out everything HGTV style.? This all-or-nothing framework?a product of long-running debates over which types of housing are worthy of attention?is unhelpful at best and detrimental at worst.
Like most architecture people, I have a great and sincere love for old houses, especially ?time capsule? homes in which the interiors remain untouched by the passage of years. These types of houses are rarer and rarer in our moment of televised old house flip-mania, and I agree that a special case could be made for their preservation. But even for less-well-preserved homes, I?m on record as arguing that home-improvement TV has fueled an unnecessary obsession with renovation, setting up a false expectation that every house is a project house. In fact, the vast majority of houses fall somewhere in the middle, neither pristine time capsules nor unlivable wrecks. For those houses, we need a new way of thinking about when and how to tackle home improvement projects.
If the house is move-in ready (i.e., living in it isn?t unsafe or logistically impossible), wait before renovating?and keep in mind that renovation is a huge financial undertaking that will make your house virtually unlivable until it?s complete. Then imagine gutting the house only to find out that open floorplans actually drive you insane. And...