comment: >
  
  Ah. I don't see what's wrong with that, can always take it down again
context: I'm more annoyed by house flipping companies doing this bullshit. 
  Step 1: Use your capital to outbid individual home buyers on a cheap $150k historic home 
  Step 2: strip out or cover up all of the historic features, paint all of the walls a cool grey, install subway tile everywhere, glaze all of the showers.
  Step 3: Put it immediately back on the market noting the "upgrades" for $250k
  Step 4: An individual owner buys the thing and has to spend $50k undoing all of the damage. >
  
  I fully agree with this sentiment, mostly because you should leave the choices of a homes looks and complete remodeling for the perspective buyer, and house flippers tend to be very generic to fit a baseline audience. I can see someone wanting to modernize an older home while keeping key aspects of the home in tact. 
  I get more upset when people see homeowners removing things they don't care for and crying foul that they didn't maintain 100% authenticity of every inch of the home. For instance, I love stained glass and high ceilings, but not everyone may like stained glass. They can still buy the home because they love the high ceilings and beams, but don't have to keep the stained glass if they really don't like it. >
  
  If you didn't want a vintage house why did you buy one? >
  
  A lot of people buy vintage homes because they want a home with lots if natural light and high ceilings, but they don't want to pay 400-500k for their dream. So they buy an older home in need of renovation. Not everyone wants to keep every single thing that might give a home "character" but they may love some aspects of that home that they can't find in modern builds. >
  
  In Seattle. Chuckled at "400-500K for their dream." >
  
  A friendly reminder that not everyone lives in an affordable area. For some people more modern homes are out of reach. >
  
  This is a proper unpopular opinion.  Well done, OP!
  Why protect anything?  Why not bulldoze the ancient wonders of the world and make way for a highway?
  Those homes are like art, and often made from materials and techniques that aren't viable or available any longer.
  If you don't want to live in a house with character, buy a box condo, paint it white, and stare at the walls. >
  
  I live in a late 1800s/early 1900s built house. People walk by my "historic neighborhood" and love the charm of the old buildings and somehow believe their opinion on what looks nice from the outside trump my right to live comfortably inside of it. Im all for historic preservation, but not every 50s Sears catalog house or Industrial Age mass tenement bloc is worthy of it. A lot of these older homes have uneven floors, skewed window frames, ancient noisy heating systems, and other quality of life issues that the people screaming at town council meetings to preserve them for the "neighborhood character" don't have to deal with themselves in their modern suburban homes. Some of these old builds are simply not worth protecting and are holding back the natural growth and improvement of our cities.
  Ironically the historic preservation of the neighborhood was setup to keep it from being demolished by 60s/70s highway projects that those same suburbanites (and their parents generation) demanded for their own benefit. >
  
  I know a family who lives in a house like that. They can’t replace the windows so the house is drafty. Their heating and cooling system isn’t great and it’s hard to find a technician to work on it. The kitchen isn’t set-up to handle the amount of cooking they do. It’s a beautiful home, but it’s not equip for a comfortable modern life. They’re trying to find a new place because it’s just not worth it. >
  
  A lot of the heritage home areas now just limit what you can change on the outside and the interior is free to modify however you like >
  
  My shitty opinion: the capitalization of your post title looks terrible. You Should Never Write Like This. It hurts my eyes. >
  
  I only agree because character isn’t capitalized. It’s a title. Titles are capitalized. >
  
  When the title is a sentence, it should be formatted as one. If it's just some buzz words, whatever, capitalize all you want. But please, spare us the eyesore >
  
  So.. it should be “Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone” and not “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”? >
  
  By sentence i mean subject verb object. Your example is not that.
  Furthermore, the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter are both proper names and deserve capital letters even when free standing in a sentence. >
  
  A lot of the homes you're referencing came with a specific art style, and in some cases there are majorly famous architects whose projects are far, far more valuable than the land or home would normally cost due to... them being art.  
  Lots of those homes get replaced with generic, bland, boring shit. >
  
  And they aren't even being replaced by people living in them it's the real estate vultures that buy up properties, renovate them as cheaply as possible and sell them way over market value >
  
  Honestly, agree. I want to build my house from the bottom up. I want to be the first ghost in my house. Older houses are ugly to me. >
  
  Surely if you get rid of beams the house falls down? >
  
  People typically put in drywall as a false ceiling rather than actually chopping them out