apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

For me if that was a 100 year old Spanish style house I would say NO! Since I do not care for the style of the house so the new house is a big improvement and very well done.

I cannot believe those cabinets in the living room are IKEA, really?

This breaks my heart! I like everything to be old and original, and it makes me very sad to see interiors that used to have lovely architectural details stripped down to accomodate modern sensibilities.

I love these types of conversions... They keep the historic continuity of the street/neighborhood in tact while creating a surprise for visitors who enter to find something entirely different from what they were expecting.

I live in Chicago where we have lots of older brownstones and greystones, and while I love some of the exterior details my tastes are much more modern in general. This is exactly what I'd envision doing with one if I had the money.

That would never fly here in SF.

"I cannot believe those cabinets in the living room are IKEA, really?"

Appears they used just the cases and had custom fronts made.

I can't help but wonder why they had to dismantle a perfectly beautiful old home and turn it into a square, rather ordinary looking box. Why not just buy a modular home and plop it into an empty field somewhere? There is nothing edgy or innovative about this one at all.

again with the "we".... we are a libra?

"again with the "we".... we are a libra?"

Gemini rising-sign...

I have to agree whole, heartedly with "romateamo" - given the craftsmanship of that era, I can only imagine the architectural detailing that was sacrificed for this contemporary look. Seems like a loss. Oh, and "we" are a libra, too :)

Why didn't they just build a contemporary home elsewhere and leave this older historic structure for someone to enjoy who would appreciate it's history.

If it ain't broke... add a big out-of-place glass and metal facade to it? I think the exterior "after" looks awful, and the interior looks ok, but I'm sure I would've preferred the "before" with maybe some gentle and respectful updates, not a wholesale style change.

loriSF, it's not my favorite style either but I respect it as part of the whole. To say it's OK because you don't like that type of architecture, but you would object if it was a style you did like, seems to miss the point--that someone has ruined the integrity of a block for the sake of their own needs. Imagine if you were one of the neighbors on either side and had to look at that every day. Most people who live in Victorian row houses want and expect to be surrounded by more of them.

I'm going to cry over the lost of yet another beautiful historic structure.

Facadism -- it's done all the time (I'm sure there are lots of examples of it in SF, but mostly in commercial structures).

While it is a great space, I have to agree that I am sad to see the destruction of the historic interior. It's considered a "successful" renovation in most heritage preservation quarters (the facade remains intact if you can get past the loss of the double-hung windows), but I have never seen it as such.

In Europe, the approach to update a historic space is to use modern minimal furniture instead -- and not destroy irreplaceable historic architectural fabric.

Never fails to amaze me that clients spending upwards of 6 figures want to save money on their cabinets by using IKEA particle board boxes...with custom doors. Then they're upset when their kids lean on the doors and all the hinges pull out along with huge chunks of melamine. Go the extra distance and at least get a carpenter to bang you together some plywood boxes.

Some readers seem to think the top two pictures are before and after, when they are both after (front and back of house). So the facade wasn't "ruined" or "replaced." Whether you like the interior is a separate issue, of course. Personally I think it's a a bit cold, but the modern addition on the back of an older home doesn't bother me a bit.

Not saying it changes much, but unless I have it wrong, the image on the right is the back of the house, not the front facade.

It's unfortunate that the post doesn't seem to include images of what they're calling the "transitory zone," where the original crown moldings, fireplace mantle and staircase have apparently been left intact. That would better highlight how/if the project respects the house's historical roots as noted in the project description.

And really, I'm just curious.

The new spaces are nice, though a little sterile.

I really like most of the new kitchen. There seems to be ample storage, and still room for artwork. I really don't like the frosted glass uppers though. I'm tired of that look.

They may well have ripped out beautiful original details and if that is the case I agree that at a certain point, you are better off just buying newer construction since there are many people who like the look and feel of original interious.

But just because a house is old doesn't mean it was perfectly preserved inside or that it exhibited expert craftmanship to begin with. I live in a 1908 California bungalow and when we bought it it had been pretty much completely stripped of any original charm it may have once had. But honestly, I'm not sure there was much to begin with. The built ins were not some beautiful wood with gorgeous old patina, they were mismatched pine and oak and clearly made of scrap wood. Most of the Moulding had been ripped out and there were several layers of different types of plaster with varying textures throughout the house. Who knows what it would have looked like originally. The house had been remodled and remuddled many times over the years and was a mismatch of styles from every era from the 1920's - 1980's. Anyway, I didn't feel bad at all when we opened up the interior and modernized the space. We did preserve the few architectural details worth preserving and stayed true to the overall feel of a bungalow of that era. But I felt not a twinge of guilt ripping out the old (smelly!) plaster, replacing the molding or opening up the wall between the living room and kitchen. Sometimes old is just old.

How is this: "a fantastic example of making an old space suitable for contemporary living without sacrificing the character of the original structure."

Um, as far as I could tell, the entire interior has been gutted. To all of those who plan/like projects like these, if you want to bastardize an historic structure, why don't you just build an entire new one from starch (preferably on a brown- or grayfield). And leave people who respect the character and craftsmanship of the original, to be able to restore to structure, not renovate it.

There's nothing that grinds my gears more than people buying old homes and holing out the interiors to make it more "modern." And while I can respect and appreciate modern aesthetic, this is something that turns my stomach.

I live in Toronto and some of the homes have amazing original stuff but a lot of these homes are also falling apart. Restoring would've been my personal preference since I, too, live in an old 100 year-old house.

Something about Toronto that irks me is that everyone wants everything to be so damn modern. It's seriously a plague that has hit our city.

Toronto has a VERY unique nostalgia about it and I give kudos to those who can turn a space into something functional for this century but maintain a bit of its former romanticism.

I saw this place a few months ago and I love it but I agree, maybe some of the older aesthetic would've given this more charm but as I said, maybe it wasn't an option.

Maybe the couple who lives there can shed some light on their design choices?

Also, the picture on the right is the BACK entrance, I am assuming. I have never seen one of these houses completely redone. I mean, what would be the point? You can buy any crap S-hole and do that. I'm am 90% positive the front is still the original style.

The horror.

sally305 by the looks of the exterior I do not care for the style of that house, just because it is old does not mean it is a good style then or now. They did not tear down the facade. They made the new section more energy efficient which is a big plus, to heat an old house is very expensive.

I do not like most renovations like this I too like preserving older homes because they have more character and are generally better built. Cannot say what the style or the bones nor what the conditions were like in the interior of the old house. I have seen plenty of ugly Victorians too!
I grew up in a 1917 Spanish Revival
house and it was so beautiful and incredibly well made, there would be no need to do this.

This is NOT a renovation.

This is a remodel. And preservationists would call it a remuddeling.

I actually did a post about restoration vs renovation vs remodeling last week. This makes my point very well.

And a link for those who would like to learn about the 3 R's:
http://cottageofstone.blogspot.com/2009/05/3-rs-restoration-renovation-and.html

This is not a renovation. This is a remodel.

Here is a link to a post I did last week on the 3 R's (restoration, removation and remodel)

http://cottageofstone.blogspot.com/2009/05/3-rs-restoration-renovation-and.html

FYI - coming from Toronto, alot of those Cabbagetown Victorians were remodeled years ago and turned into multiple units. I imagine all original details were removed many years ago (I could be wrong on this one - I didn't actually read the story).

Sorry, I see now that they left the street-facing facade intact. I didn't read that carefully the first time.

Having said that, I still think the designers have gone too far with this one. Even from the alley, I wouldn't want to look at that glaring modern space juxtaposed against the traditional back porches of all the others.

ugh.
this is AWFUL.

Horrible horrible horrible.

What will they market this as when it's sold? Modernists won't like the front, traditionalists won't like the back, people in the middle (like me) will just be confused.

Reminds me of a mullet -- you know the haircut that's "all business in the front and a party in the back".

I agree with the other naysayers. Why buy a beautiful, historic Victorian, then tear up the insides to make it look like a totally different building? If you're into super-modern design, then sell the old house to someone who can appreciate it for what it is and buy yourself a loft. This is a really ham-fisted way of trying to update a traditional building.

Sad : (

Oh, god, this is horrible. The brutal destruction of a lovely old building. And the "contemporary" part looks totally 1989.

But I'd expect no less from someone who uses the royal "we" and the Cockney "an historic"?

well, at least it still looks nice from the street!

"an historic"
it's not Cockney. It's proper English.

I'm not a fan of the this particular design but I do subscribe to the philosphy of contemporary builds for contemporary times.

For example original Georgian or Victorian houses when they were built were contemporary designs - yes they may have given a nod to past styles but they in essence where designed for their 'modern' society.

If your going to build a house or extention, design it as a statement of your time and not some fake tudor, georgian, victorian, federation (or whatever) building because folks you're not fooling anyone - it's still a fake build.

In Australia, there are heritage houses that have been loving restored to their original state, however, the extention is very distinctly contemporary. It's a very clear statement that the original house was design for a family in 19th Century and now a 21st century family live here. I really like that juxtapose.

As they say on "Men on Film": "Hated it."

The 100 year old facade is the only part I like.

@Puck: nice article!

Im sort of meh about the great sin of adding an addition to a home of that period. Here in Brooklyn there are tons of homes with that period and floorplan and I can understand the urge to open up the back. This example is a bit over the top, especially with the obnoxious fencing in the back and what appears to be a fully paved yard, but homes are meant to be lived in, after all..

It's interesting how cities have their own distinct aesthetic. I could tell without looking where that house is. It's VERY Toronto.

Torontonians seem to despise their old buildings and want everything to be new and shiny, like Dallas. In Montreal, we have a more European style of preserving old buildings while using contemporary furniture.

"Torontonians seem to despise their old buildings and want everything to be new and shiny, like Dallas."
___

For some reason I found this really funny. But it's actually a really interesting observation!

"Torontonians seem to despise their old buildings and want everything to be new and shiny, like Dallas. In Montreal, we have a more European style of preserving old buildings while using contemporary furniture."

I somewhat agree. It's what makes our city so dull but hopefully some true Torontonians who grew up here (like myself) will continue to preserve their homes and communities.

We have a very interesting Canadiana/Americana thing going but it definitely gets more modernized as you go more west.

Preservation is a very difficult issue. I feel that there are a lot of details that are not discussed in the article to make judgement one way or another. If the home had been previously stripped of all original details then this may not be so bad. In a house that is in generally original condition, this project would have been a disaster. I generally maintain that projects on historic homes should be reversible. In this case if the addition is not affecting the original structure and could be removed without too much damage to the original structure and details, I am OK with it. I do not think this is the case in this example though. Replacing nice original cabinetry with IKEA is an improvement? That being said buildings need to be relevant to the world we live in - not every house can be a museum.

I like a lot of places in Europe and especially Milan where they have ancient spaces but look completely modern as a result of the furniture and way they use the space while leaving the original structure original. Paint and lighting can all update a space and even updates to obviously replaced features (cabinets, flooring) can all make a dramatic affect on the space. In that light, do any people have any sites that show good examples of this? I am currently trying to furnish a historic building but keeping it modern inside.