2 ms·
While the "essential character" stuff sound like a thinly veiled attempt to show off that the building is old and therefore valuable, I can see a different argu
by asdflkj 19y ago
While the "essential character" stuff sound like a thinly veiled attempt to show off that the building is old and therefore valuable, I can see a different argument against full restoration. Gentle signs of aging, as long as you don't erase them selectively, show how well the house is able to withstand age. If it quickly turns ugly without costly maintenance, it's a bad house.
- gibsonf1 19y agoI agree with you that a good house needs to withstand age, but "showing off" that your house withstands age while denying the full enjoyment of the aesthetic experience of the house seems like a foolish trade off to me. I argue that the experience inside the house is the top priority in this context, not the sub sub feature that it ages well.
- asdflkj 19y agoIt is a trade off, but it doesn't seem foolish. There is no full enjoyment, just varying degrees of almost-full enjoyment. A house that somebody lives in will always look worse than a house that has been prepared to look its absolute swankest, with every dust particle removed and every pillow fluffed. It makes more sense to talk of "full enjoyment" as a range rather than a point. To me, things like dulled metal surfaces would not be out of that range, if the house is designed well. If minor things like that put it outside the range, then it's a bad house. Maybe there is something to that "essential character" business after all. Worn things are pleasant, and I think there is a reason. They put you at ease because they tell you that they've been used, and it's OK to use them. Shiny things seem fragile and distant.