Faux Kitchens
Yesterday I did a post about my plans for the kitchen of the 1894 Cross House.
These plans were created after three years of thinking and pondering and fretting and research.
Informing all my ideas were two conflicting thoughts:
- Create a period-correct kitchen.
- Create a comfortable, convenient kitchen.
The problem? I had no idea how to accomplish the first without sacrificing the latter. And vice versa.
A late 19th-century kitchen.
To accomplish a true period-correct kitchen I would have to do without a dishwasher (no way), have low counters (no way), have low lighting levels (no way) have a coal stove (nooooooooo way), a sink covering my glorious south-facing window (no way), and an ice chest (no way).
Such a kitchen would gobsmack all visitors, no doubt, but I would be the one forced to use it!
Before I learned what an 1890s kitchen actually looked like, I kinda envisioned this look for my kitchen:
Looks original, right?
The above kitchen is stunning. Glorious. Fabulous.
It is not however original. Indeed, it is new.
Moroever, it is not even period-correct to the 1880s house. The double ranges are 1920s. So is the sink. So is the style tile floor. The gas/electric wall sconces are about a decade after the house was built. The gas pendant IS period-correct but would not have been used in a kitchen (it’s a bit too fancy).
So, while most people looking at the above image would think they are seeing an incredible original kitchen they are actually seeing a new kitchen in a 1920s style in an 1880s house.
And this, this, is what I am eager to avoid.
This image, to me, exemplifies what most people tend to think of as a period-correct kitchen. Except this is not a period-correct kitchen (well, it IS period-correct for 2016!). What I see in looking at this image is a faux kitchen. It is obviously brand new. It is not remotely period-correct but rather is done in a traditional style. While a lovely kitchen, this is what I am eager to avoid.
Another faux kitchen. It is quite lovely but is not period-correct, and this is what I am eager to avoid.
The Cross House has been through many uses over the last 122-years. Yet, it is remarkably unscathed. As such, I am loath to create confusion over what is original and what is not. If I install a 1920s-style kitchen (which would be usable while a 1890s kitchen would not be), 99% of people will assume it is original. I, too, would have thought so three years ago.
And this is what I am eager to avoid.
My solution is to meticulously restore the room itself, its original pine flooring, original wood wainscoting, original colors on the walls/ceiling, and to install period-correct and very simple gas/electric lighting.
Then…then…install a huge modernist floating island to contain the sinks, dishwasher, drawer-style refrigerator/freezer, ice-maker, flatware drawers, and shelves for pot/pans. A modern range will fit into the 1894 brick range niche.
This way, it will be instantly apparent as to what is original and period-correct, and what is not.
And this, this, I am eager to live with.
13 Comments
Leave a Comment
Your email address will NEVER be made public or shared, and you may use a screen name if you wish.
I like your plan, and unless your house is to be a museum vs a living abode, it really isn’t a question of what you need in your kitchen. You need to cook, clean, and live in 2016 and beyond. Mixing modern amenities and period appropriate look is certainly a challenge. I think yours is a very good one. Cheers.
I love your plan. I think it solves your problems beautifully, and I completely sympathize with your desire to avoid faux old.
I do hope the original wall and ceiling colours are nice, though. I’ve seen far too many period correct pea soup green rooms.
Ross,
I like your kitchen plan. I understand your desire to not cause issues with the narrative. I disagree that many people believe these 1920’s and later vintage kitchens are period correct. Those that do so are simply uninformed. I’ve had many arguments with my kitchen consultant about what’s vintage enough for my 1931 house. I recognized that it would have had a luscious wall-hung cast iron sink, but didn’t install another because I wanted a space for a dishwasher. Since I am weird, it’s a 1951 model, but in the future a normal owner could remove it and install a modern unit without gutting the whole room. I am also working with a room with little counter space. I opted for more counter and less sink.
I did buy one of the only cast iron drop in sinks without faucet holes to allow me to have a wall-mount faucet again.
It’s simply an issue of what we prioritize. Since I have a army of GE monitor tops, I would never be satisfied with new appliances. My consultant tried in vain to get me to buy an under-counter freezer. I eventually agreed to move the freezer into the back room to allow for more cabinets and counters. I did what I could for this 9 foot by 13 foot room.
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to call those two kitchens “faux”. I would say they are sympathetic. They’re attractive well designed workspaces with an esthetic that’s sympathetic to an old house. I don’t think the object is to “fool” anyone. People who are knowledgeable about old houses will not be fooled. Others might, but let’s face it; some folks will always get it wrong anyway.
If the intention in the two images was to create a period kitchen, then IMO the results are faux.
If the intention was to create a traditionally styled kitchen I would not call the results faux.
I comment on this issue because I have seen too many wonderful but non-original kitchens, from the 1920s to the 1950s, ripped out because a new owner objects to not having a kitchen appropriate to the age of the house.
So, they rip out a TRUE period kitchen and replace it with a kitchen which looks NOTHING like a period kitchen. I see this all the time.
It’s painful.
NOTE: It is not my intention to state that there can only be one approach to an old house kitchen. What works for me may not work for anybody else. I just would like people to stop blindly installing “period-correct” kitchens when the results are nothing of the sort.
Ross,
People, mainly women, demand more functional bathrooms and kitchens. When I bought my house in 2012, I searched a long time for a house that hadn’t been too “updated” during the height of the real estate bubble. Beautiful house after house had a granite countered monstrosity with stainless steel appliances.
The key is to create something that you like and that you hope someone in the future might not hate.
A couple years ago, I saw a listing for another house that I liked better than mine. The kitchen and baths were original. The kitchen had few cabinets and vitrolite on the walls. The listing stated that it was a large kitchen awaiting someone to make it their dream kitchen. I was furious as it already was mine. I hope someone didn’t gut that beautiful room and assault it with granite and stainless steel.
But please no TV in the kitchen. Do something less harmful and intrusive………..cocaine for example.
A TV does not have to be hooked up to cable.
I live-stream everything I watch. When I restore my vintage lights I am always streaming a movie. Makes the time fly by!
Although I agree with your fundamental assessment, I don’t always agree with your conclusion. I’d make a strong case for “faux kitchens” in many situations. In houses/buildings where the key purpose is to convey authentic history, I agree that it’s important not to confuse the historical narrative with modern features and furniture masked to look old, and the most fitting treatment is authentic reproduction, and if new features are absolutely necessary, then clearly distinguishing them is best (ideally with no or minimal permanent modification to the original structure).
However, in the typical home occupied by “real” people, I’d argue strongly for modern functionality arranged and constructed in the same style and appearance of the original architecture. I really like the “sympathetic” term that Steve used, as it conveys the idea that I’ve held for quite some time, which is that modifications to existing structures always look the best when done to fit the theme and style of their original surroundings. I look at it from the perspective of how the original designer would have done it if he/she had today’s lifestyle and technology in mind. I think this leaves room for a lot of modern conveniences that, while they may not be historically accurate, can be very architecturally accurate. I always find this more pleasing than a historic home where each room is a incongruous clash with the next due to each remodeling job simply following whatever the hot fad of that decade was (always worst in kitchen and bathrooms, of course). In my mind, good design should always look at the harmony of elements and the overall theme of the building. This lack of attention to harmony and greater theme is, in my mind, one of the greatest weaknesses in modern residential architecture.
Seth, I think we agree rather more than not.
I have no issue with anybody wanting to create a traditionally-syled new kitchen.
Just please don’t call it a period-correct kitchen.
Here here Steve. Either kitchens and bathrooms are trashed completely and replaced with rooms so incongruous as to shock you when you walk into them or trendiness is pasted on to the remains of the old and both suffer.
Ross has always taken great pains to look at restoration as though seeing through the Cross family eyes and I think he should continue that trend. It’s his house and he’ll be the one living with it but considering the empathy for the original owners and painstaking honest detail he has applied so far, I think more deep thought is needed here before he picks up hammer and saw.
I know money is always an issue but I think in this case I would get an artists rendition to see if it actually looks as good on paper as it did in your mind.
Ross, I thought this was an interesting take on Victorian kitchens, which seems quite compatible with your plans:
What a wonderful, in-depth article. Thank you!