More Awkward Moments in Renovation
Look. I know that it takes a little more thought to build "up" on your typical Chicago bungalow. City lots are notoriously narrow, so first story additions are out of the question for lots of folks. I get that. I really do.
But, you know, it looks like large homes or double-wide trailers are just falling STRAIGHT OUT OF THE SKY and onto the backs of these smaller houses. BAM! And can't you just hear the poor bungalows groaning, "Geez Louise! Get offa me! OW!!!"
And, I mean, it's your house and you can do what you like with it. But I have to believe that, perhaps, you didn't visualize the end result quite this way when you embarked on your expansion project, Mr. Homeowner. Maybe someone promised you something that would look quite different. Maybe it's not your fault that you house now looks like a double-wide is trying to mate with it and spawn all sorts of little awkwardly renovated garden sheds.
And while I am on the subject, why? Why take a house that looked similar to this one...
And make it into this...
These are easy to spot in Chicago because many streets have styles of houses that repeat in a pattern. If Mr. Homeowner wanted to be unique and march to the beat of a different drummer by setting his house apart, I would say that he succeeded. Yes.
There has to be a better way to marry expansion and aesthetics. One that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Isn't there? Shouldn't there be? Am I totally out to lunch to suggest that such a thing exists?
Looking for More?
| Search for more on 'renovation_rants' on this site. |
| Search for 'renovation_rants' on on other houseblogs like this one. |
| Search for 'renovation_rants' on Google. |
| Search for 'renovation_rants' on Amazon.com. |
Cabinet Refacing:
Face Your Kitchen | Your Guide to Kitchen Cabinet Refacing |
Comments
If you're out to lunch then I'm sitting across the table from you. I'm wondering, is it that they don't care what the place looks like, or do they think it's attractive? I wonder if any of them stand back afterwards and think, "What the hell did I do?"
Posted by: Greg | April 3, 2006 12:58 PM
I see so many bungalows that look like that second house. Sometimes they make the addition the exact height as the roof, and when they do, it reminds me of beetle wings!
What I don't get is why people don't just buy the sort of house they want in the first place. Same with ripping out all the built-ins and molding in a house. If you want everything white and bare, why not move instead of ruining the house you're in? K, deep breath.
Posted by: alicia | April 3, 2006 1:35 PM
Those are doozey's. Sooooo ugh-ly. There are plenty around Jackson but one in particular is so so awful I'll have to take a picture of it and post it. It wouldn't have taken much imagination to get these additions looking halfway decent but apparently it wasn't a question of good looks when these people did this to their houses.
Posted by: Patricia W. | April 3, 2006 4:43 PM
Okay, that's just too comical. Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: Nick | April 3, 2006 9:11 PM
Over time, David and I have begun naming certain kinds of additions. The addition that appears to be confronting the home from behind? "Doggie-style." The home that seems to have been squished by another on top? "Missionary position." The home with what basically appears to be a trailer suctioned to its side? "69, dudes."
It helps to be able to name the problem, doesn't it?
Posted by: Christiane | April 3, 2006 10:56 PM
One benefit of living in earthquake country is that most people jack up the original house and build a new first floor instead. Maybe it makes you think twice about consistency when your old house is looking down on you.
Posted by: k | April 3, 2006 11:23 PM
oh my - I think I'm going to go cry.... such ugliness! Whatever happened to the notion of beauty? Did we lose that somewhere along the line? Do they not teach it in school?
Posted by: LisaB | April 4, 2006 1:58 AM
Any improvement to a residential structure should be at the rear. Even then, it should only be an extension of the original design, not an innovation.
Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | April 4, 2006 3:32 AM
Is that even legal? Oh my that's terrible. Thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: misschrisc | April 4, 2006 4:37 AM
Okay, upon first reading this post and seeing these photos- I thought this might be a late April Fool's post and you photoshopped these. They are just too bad to be real yet they are in fact real right? Wow. I mean I can honestly say I've not seen bungalow's muddled up in this way before.
Posted by: Jocelyn | April 4, 2006 7:46 PM
Sadly, these are not photoshopped photos. The houses depicted here are real. Sigh.
Posted by: jm | April 4, 2006 8:09 PM
Why people would deface a vintage house instead of selling it and buying a brand new house, when they are just diminishing the value of their vintage property anyhow? Yikes! Here in Austin, people do the same or just tear down their 20's bungalows and put up McMansions in the few older neighborhoods left, instead of just moving minutes away to a new development. If you hate old houses, why move into this neighborhood? My friend lived in New Orleans in an 1860's house and her neighbor (with the same exact house) was breaking up the crown mouldings on his ceiling with a hammer in order to "modernize this old house." She almost fainted.
Posted by: dena | April 4, 2006 10:25 PM
Blech, blech, blech! I think I'm going to be sick.
Posted by: Kristin | April 5, 2006 11:32 AM