comment: >
  
  That isn’t why we have moved on from these techniques, we moved on cause the modern architects are cheap and have no sense of style
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 >
  
  Ah. I don't see what's wrong with that, can always take it down again >
  
  Why did you buy an old house if you don’t want to live in an old house? >
  
  I'd guess because old houses are hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than new builds. Most people have to at least start in a older house >
  
  Ha if anything theyre more in my area. >
  
  If it’s YOUR house YOU payed for with YOUR money you can piss all over the floor if you want… it’s your fucking house the previous owner can fuck off… >
  
  poor taste is poor taste, regardless of era. people complaining about generic old buildings replaced with generic contemporary design. embrace the avantgarde people >
  
  Uh no. Not at all. Taste changes dramatically from era to era. Brutalism was in fashion, so was linoleum, bell bottoms, disco, togas, marble for everything, not bathing, etc etc.
  What's good taste now cannot be guaranteed for the next century, decade or even shorter. What's ugly now can be beautiful to a new generations >
  
  There is good and bad to doing or not doing this.
  You will be seen as foolish for buying an old house just to modernize it more because of "Why did you buy it then?".
  A lot of times it also comes down to jealousy, people don't have those features and are upset to see people who have them getting rid of them. >
  
  I agree. Most houses aren’t really special. 
  Obviously if it’s historically important yes, but historical preservation goes way to far like there are 1960s ranches in “historic districts” which purely exist to freeze the neighborhood in time and prevent any growth/change. 
  People really overestimate how old cities are. Like almost all of London is post 1900 for example. The absolute majority of London is post 1930. So a lot of “historic homes” are not that old. Even in Europe >
  
  Thank you for saying this. It weird how a random person on the internet can say just what you need to hear in regards to something.
  I have a home that was built in the 50s. 3 rooms of my home are wall to wall wood paneling. It isn't the cheap thin paneling, I mean they are solid heavy slabs of wood. Ive been here 5 years and want to paint over it badly because IT IS SO UGLY. But I didn't know if I were to sell the house one day if someone else would appreciate this wood. Someone suggested I just simply cover it up with some sort of thin 2nd wall, and then paint. So that might be an option. >
  
  50s isn’t old, the kind of house that you shouldn’t change is like early 1900s and older >
  
  Style wise it is old. And in 50 years when I sell my house, it'll meet your early 1900s standards of old. Even before that what I see as ugly will come back into style and be noted as "charming". >
  
  Its a form of animism that people believe in. That the house has a soul or a character. At most it has history but can ask if thats only there because of the roof beams and the walls. I think it doesnt matter >
  
  I am with you on this. There usually is a reason we moved past the building techniques of the past.
  Unless it can be repaired easily and with no cost overruns over a regular remodel, tear it down!