The ongoing war against the remnants of our historic built environment continues unabated. Our previous examination of this topic (Part 1) dealt with elementary school textbooks which propagandized children and instilled a bias against historic buildings in the mid-twentieth century.
Today we’ll take look at the same insidious indoctrination process as it manifests itself today — through television. There are several things about many of the most popular home renovation shows that really disturb me — the primary issue being that many houses are needlessly altered just for the sake of altering them — presented to us as “updating”. In the process, many still-useful and increasingly rare architectural features are forever lost… while more mediocrity is gained. Another disturbing aspect is how many TV personalities are referred to as “experts”. Experts at what, exactly? Timeless design? Architectural integrity? Sage financial decisions? Certainly not historic preservation or “going green”! No; they’re experts at convincing viewers to emulate currently marketed design trends via infotainment — often to the permanent detriment of the architectural integrity of previously intact houses and typically resulting in the blatant waste of material resources.
Television is like any other tool: it can be used for good or less-than-good. It is a common mistake for many people to assume that wildly popular television programs devoted to remodeling or decorating are designed to impart the wisdom of absolutely the most competent and skilled design experts for our collective education and societal benefit.
Sadly, these assumptions are far from the truth. And what is the truth?
The truth is that such programs are designed to encourage waste and consumerism because both practices help to fuel the economy. Let’s face it; Big Box home “improvement” stores are going to sell fewer products if people are content to live with their houses essentially as they were built. It’s much more profitable if TV encourages homeowners to take a sledgehammer to their property, throw the debris into a dumpster and then replace everything with newly made products imported from around the globe. They’ll likely hire carpenters, plumbers and electricians in the process. Change stimulates the economy.
The truth is that these television shows are not educational; they’re pure indoctrination into the “keeping-up-with-the-Joneses” mentality. The truth is that most older houses, particularly those built prior to roughly 1965, were built to last with regular maintenance.
Conversely, much new construction contains built-in obsolescence. Old wood windows, for example, can be repaired when they begin to age while new vinyl windows can only be replaced when they begin to fall apart; they’re not designed to be repaired. Same for your refrigerator and other appliances. You get the idea.
To make things even more dismal, the concept of DIY maintenance is becoming a thing of the past as increasingly fewer fathers own a ladder or even a basic set of tools.
OK — I’ll stop ranting now and we’ll take a look at some before and after images that will make the same point. For the sake of brevity, we’ll just look at exteriors today. I may take a look at interior makeovers in the future. While looking for images, I was pleasantly surprised to see that not all of the makeovers were horrific… there seems to be a growing awareness of the value of retaining more originality than in the past. At the end of this post, I’ll show some of HGTV’s more admirable before and afters – the kind which our existing housing stock will benefit from in the long-term!

Photo by: Jesse Loftis. Image source: hgtv.com

Photo by: Jean Stoffer. Image source: hgtv.com

Photo by: Jackson Riley Parker. Image source: hgtv.com

Photo by: Frank Murray. Image source: hgtv.com

Photo by: Jennifer Boomer/Verbatim Photo A. Image source: hgtv.com

Really? Would they say the same thing about a house clad almost entirely in brick? Or in wood? How about stucco? Methinks not. I wonder if one can have too much shiplap? Is that even possible? Hmmmm…
The distinctive Ozark Giraffe look is perhaps too nonconformist for an infotainment venue which stresses conformity and clichés.
This apparent indifference to architectural integrity can only result in lost opportunities to truly educate and inform their viewers. Here, the most culturally and architecturally significant aspect of the house has been largely obscured by stucco — reducing it to contrived banality. An oddly attenuated dormer window further erodes the former authenticity of the house, and looks like something salvaged from a suburban McMansion.
What’s with those odd and curvy muntins? Was it really necessary to replace the original windows elsewhere with Neo-Craftsman units? Or to paint the surrounding brick? Just look at the chaotic glazing on this house… nine panes in the front door, three-over-one and two-over-one windows on the first floor and curvy diamond panes on the second floor dormer. This is the result of expert input?
It might make for a lucrative television episode, but does little to encourage understanding of good design and nothing to increase awareness of an interesting and vanishing regional building tradition (the most visible and intriguing aspect of this house). Aside from the much-improved roof color, I can’t find much to admire here. Another one bites the dust…
Photo by: Jennifer Boomer/Verbatim Photo A. Image source: hgtv.com

Image source: hgtv.com

Though described as “Folk Victorian”, the makeover includes later Craftsman-style brackets below the eaves. Their alternate description of having a “fairytale look” is more appropriate because it is certainly not based in coherent design reality… is is simply an awkward and cartoon-like caricature of a Folk Victorian.
The porch has been reimagined with Queen Anne imagery while maintaining the oddly-scaled,Colonial-style, 6-over-6 windows.
The Neo-Mediterranean door — likely from the 1970’s or early 80’s — has also been retained but painted a dusty turquoise. A good Queen Anne “cottage door” could have really helped to better pull this off… the tiny glass area in the door is neither believably Victorian nor inviting.
An ostensibly Queen Anne-inspired sunburst (curiously bisected) crowds the eaves and squats without transition above the new window hood. A flower box of indeterminate inspiration adds a horizontal note. The diminutive picket fence adds just enough sugar-coated cuteness to make me want to retch.
Image source: hgtv.com

Photo by: DPA. Image source: Spiegel Online
OK; I promised I’d include some before and afters which are actually admirable… and here they are:

Photo by: Rustic White Photography. Image source: hgtv.com

Photo by: Rustic White Photography. Image source: hgtv.com

It is an example of the Italian Renaissance Revival style… not at all the same thing as Italianate. That’s one of the many problems with TV “experts”… their fast-paced production schedules don’t allow for scholarly research. But, since they’re “experts”, they really shouldn’t have to research this kind of stuff, right?
Some will say I’m being picky. The point is, when people who are highly influential are given the mantle of being “experts” they should be held to a higher standard… their fans eat up this stuff and think they are learning when often they are being misinformed. But many of us know that these shows aren’t here to educate you… they are here to encourage you to become discontent with what you already have so that you will spend money on “updates”!
Regardless, the house could use a little more creativity regarding paint color for the trim, and they did an excellent job of making this place look great without butchering the facade… all they did was change the trim color and landscape the yard.
Image source: hgtv.com

Image source: hgtv.com
Thanks for the nice examples at the end. . .I needed that! Great post.
I needed a break from the carnage, also! I sincerely hope that future home improvement shows will put much more emphasis on the value of retaining architectural integrity and working with it rather than trying to make older structures mimic current trends. Fortunately “open concept” is rapidly falling out of favor with actual home buyers, so maybe there is hope…
The first two examples are especially tragic, particularly that Tudor. How can anyone look at that remuddle and not see how wrong the proportions are? Particularly a so-called “expert”? I think someone off the street could have done a better job. Wow.
And that farmhouse was delightful. What a shame it was ruined. What was once classic and dignified now looks plastic.
Thanks for the post. I am happy to know that blogs like this exist, full of the appreciation of good old houses and good design!
Thanks, Margaret (and you are very welcome)! Blogs like this do exist, but they’re not very influential or poplular. Despite the fact that I seem to be simply “preaching to the choir” I intend to keep on going. Thank you for caring.
Remuddling is not a recent phenomenon.
I have books from the 1910s, 20s, 30, and 40s which show how to wholly redo “gloomy old houses”.
Love the last house!
Agreed… remuddling is not a recent phenomenon. There were a handful of architects in the 1880’s (and perhaps earlier) offering to redesign Colonial-era houses to make them more fashionable — by mail order! Fashion and change have always been key to the American economy… I’m certain that there is a way to harness preservation to stimulate the economy, but it would require a significant change in the status quo (and that’s not likely to happen any time soon, sadly).