Forum
« Cataldo's, 554 Vanderbilt Soft Rental Market? »
January 22, 2009
Restoration vs. Renovation?
We’ve finished renovating our rental units, but still have barely touched our own apartment and I was hoping for some advice. We have an 1899 brownstone that is approximately half and half with original details in fair-to-bad condition (beamed ceilings, mouldings and chair rails, doors), as well as later, ugly renovations (doors, formica, bad tiling, etc). The common areas are actually in pretty good condition and we’re going to keep all the woodwork in place, repainted.
The original apartment moulding is in such poor condition that I am tempted to just do a simple, clean renovation with modern millwork. However it seems sinful to pull out this old wood, as dinged up as it is. Is it significantly more valuable to have all original, stripped, patched woodwork in place, or does it make more sense to go for a clean renovation?
It’s sort of a philosophical question that I’m sure some of you have dealt with. Any advice?
Comments
These are very difficult decisions to make. I feel for you.
I am not sure that your question is really a philosophical question because you ask, "Is it significantly more valuable. . .". It is very expensive to pull plaster moldings in the old fashioned way. If it is money that is driving your decision; in an apartment that is not all original, it is unlikely that you would ever recover the enormous amount of money that it costs to do this type of labor intensive work.
Good luck!
Posted by: superstooper at January 22, 2009 2:35 PM
Oh wait, I imagined crown moldings. You said wood. Which molding are you talking about? Door moldings, baseboard, wainscoting?
Posted by: superstooper at January 22, 2009 2:38 PM
I would try restoring a section of the woodwork, including stripping, patching, sanding and refinishing, and see how it looks. Are you doing the work yourself? If so, log your labor and materials cost for that section. You may be surprised at how long it takes.
If you're getting someone else to do it, ask if they would be interested in doing a test section, say 1 door frame, or 10 feet of base molding. I can pretty much guarantee that it will be cheaper to replace with new millwork unless you're getting it custom milled.
In our circa 1915 co-op, I did restore all the oak woodwork. But i have to admit there are some places that look good from 5 feet away but not so good from 4, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: Bolder at January 22, 2009 2:41 PM
There is very little crown in the house. There is millwork around the doors and windows (including badly overpainted rosettes), baseboards and chair rails.
The prior owners' family had the place all the way back to 1899, so some things are in perfect (painted) condition and others are patched, drilled and full of random caulking and putty. Also there are three small, plaster medallions and a room with a beamed ceiling in a 5' grid pattern. Some doors are original. Others have been replaced by cheap hollow-core doors. It's a patchwork right now.
Posted by: corolla at January 22, 2009 2:51 PM
Just my personal opinion but I would suggest saving what is reasonably possible to save - dings and all. A fresh coat of paint may make it look a lot better than you realize. If something is so damaged its going to cost 20x the replacement...then I think you're probably making the right decision to replace.
Unless you go for the really good stuff, new millwork just never looks right in an old house to me. Not to mention the quality is never as good.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at January 22, 2009 3:56 PM
Second the advice on saving what you can. Get rid of the hollow core doors, but old moldings with dings and too much paint are pretty cool when the house is over 100 years old...
Posted by: Park Place at January 22, 2009 4:42 PM
That makes sense... nothing else in the house is perfectly straight!
Posted by: corolla at January 22, 2009 5:39 PM
We tried to save everything salvageable. We had 6-panel original doors which the contractor told us to trash. However, we had them stripped, sanded, holes fixed, painted, and they look like a million bucks. We also found
12 four-panel doors at Eddie's which we used as closet doors, and although they don't look as good as the originals, they are a thousand times better than hollow-core doors. We also "cooked" all the hardware (including hinges) with baking soda, and the effect is stunning.
Same with door molding - they were stripped and re-painted, and although they are full of dings, they look great because they suit the house.
By the way, 1899 is a generic date that the DOB assigned to a large part of Brooklyn because original documents were lost in a fire. Check info on your house in the Brooklyn Eagle, it may give you an idea about true age of your house. Good luck
Posted by: RG at January 22, 2009 7:16 PM
We tried mightily to negotiate down to a reasonable level the cost of repairing our plaster crown but sadly ended up having to strip it out and are going to replace with new wood. We had repair budget in the project but the project itself caused more damage to the moulding and that then made the repair cost untenable. So i'm not sure if that is helpful but I guess my advice is that the project itself may impact your decision.
Posted by: Colonel at January 22, 2009 7:44 PM
it is not an either/ or proposition...you can combine traditional and modern without getting a kitschy gut job...
Posted by: eman1234 at January 22, 2009 7:44 PM
Buy selvedge doors to replace the hollow core ones. You will be pleasantly surprised by how cheap they are. The solid wood ones I've seen have been $80 to $200.
Posted by: mopar at January 22, 2009 11:26 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.