Reviews
Part of Rehabilitation case studies: four lessons for owners of old houses
Documented renovations compared: the decisions homeowners keep repeating
Five documented house projects show the same decisions returning, from where additions go to how new kitchens and baths are fitted into an old plan.
What to take away
- Five owner-occupied house projects from This Old House show the same decisions: Dorchester (1979), Concord (1989), Nantucket (1994), Auburndale (2010), and Jamestown (2019).
- Trinity Church, the Willard, the Ford plant, the Emporium, and Hotel Phillips are the five commercial documented renovations compared in the Park Service case studies; bulletin ITS 37 covers additions.
- Change lands at the rear and inside; the street elevation and entrance sequence stay.
- New use is fitted to the old plan far more often than the plan is cut to suit the new use.
- Every good project carries one visible compromise, usually a service item with nowhere better to go.
- Decide where that compromise falls before a technician decides for you.
Read enough documented projects and the same handful of decisions appear. Each arrives as a question that feels open and is usually more settled than it looks. They sharpen what you ask a contractor, since the documents a reviewed project has to produce make a decision defensible.
Five owner-occupied projects, one pattern
This Old House has documented owner-occupied renovations since 1979. Five projects show the recurring decisions at house scale. Each is a real house, not a hypothetical.
| Project | House | The recurring decision | What the decision produced |
|---|---|---|---|
| This Old House, Dorchester, Massachusetts (1979) | The series' first project, a 1920s bungalow | Where to put a new kitchen and bath in a small plan | A working kitchen and bath inside the existing plan; the front rooms kept their use |
| This Old House, Concord, Massachusetts (1989) | A 1700s farmhouse | How to route modern services without cutting new chases through original rooms | Services in secondary spaces; original rooms left without new chases |
| This Old House, Nantucket, Massachusetts (1994) | A house on Nantucket | How to handle exterior exposure and weather at a coastal site | Exterior repairs and weather detailing; the street face left as found |
| This Old House, Auburndale, Massachusetts (2010) | A 1920s Dutch Colonial | How to fit a modern kitchen into a plan that had no room for one | The kitchen placed in space the plan already had; the front rooms unchanged |
| This Old House, Jamestown, Rhode Island (2019) | A coastal Rhode Island house | Where to put the one service compromise | The single compromise placed at the rear, away from the entrance |
Published costs for these projects are not comparable across decades and regions. A rear addition of this kind typically runs $250 to $450 per square foot of new space in the United States, depending on structure, region and finish (typical range).
The same decisions return in commercial projects. The Park Service lists buildings adapted for a new use under the federal rehabilitation tax credit. The credit covers 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation spending on income-producing certified historic buildings. The Park Service certifies the building and the work. An owner-occupied house does not qualify, and state programs vary.
Five Projects, One Decision
Project
- Trinity Church
- Rear wing rooms
- Willard Hotel
- Existing shafts
- Ford Assembly
- Open floor
- Emporium
- Core atrium
- Hotel Phillips
- Refitted rooms
Recurring decision
- Trinity Church
- Worship untouched
- Willard Hotel
- No new chases
- Ford Assembly
- Craneway intact
- Emporium
- Facades alone
- Hotel Phillips
- Lobby unchanged
Three criteria line up the five commercial projects: where the change lands, how services are routed, and what is left untouched. On all three the pattern holds.
Each entry below comes from the Park Service tax credit case study library. The buildings date from 1877 to 1931.
| Project | Building | The recurring decision | What the change produced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trinity Church, Boston | H.H. Richardson's 1877 church on Copley Square | New parish rooms placed in the rear wing, worship space untouched | New parish rooms in the rear wing; the worship space and Copley Square front unchanged |
| Willard Hotel, Washington | 1901 hotel at 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue, reopened in 1986 | Modern services threaded through existing shafts, not new chases | Services in existing shafts; finished rooms left without new chases |
| Ford Assembly Building, Richmond, California | Albert Kahn's 1931 plant on the Richmond waterfront | New industrial use kept in the open floor, historic craneway intact | New industrial tenants in the open floor; the craneway kept |
| Emporium, San Francisco | 1896 department store by Albert Pissis on Market Street | Atrium cut in the core, street facades left alone | An atrium in the core; the Market Street facades unchanged |
| Hotel Phillips, Kansas City | 1931 Art Deco hotel at 12th and Baltimore | Guest rooms refitted behind an unchanged lobby and entry | Refitted guest rooms; the lobby and entry unchanged |
Each entry is a certified rehabilitation, not a house.
The Park Service bulletin ITS 37, rear additions, works through why a rear location, a set-back connection and a subordinate scale make an addition acceptable, and what happens when one of those is missing.
Change goes to the back
The most consistent pattern is spatial. Primary elevations, principal rooms and the entrance sequence are retained. Kitchens, service areas, rear elevations and secondary rooms carry the alterations.
Trinity Church is the clearest case. The 1877 building by H.H. Richardson kept its Copley Square front, and the new parish rooms went into the rear wing. At the Emporium, the Market Street facades stayed while the new atrium opened the core.
For a house the translation is short. If you want more space, look behind the building before looking above it or in front of it.
New use fits the old plan
Adaptive reuse projects are studied because the new function had to fit without destroying the building. The recurring move is to put the demanding new requirements where the building has the most tolerance.
The Ford Assembly Building shows it at industrial scale. Albert Kahn's 1931 plant kept its open floor and its craneway, and new tenants moved into space the plant already had. At house scale the same test applies to a home office in a back bedroom or two front rooms knocked together.
The decisions these documented projects share
Decision / What documented projects usually do
- More space
- Rear addition, subordinate in scale
- Modern services
- Route through secondary spaces and existing chases
- Accessibility
- Address at a secondary entrance where possible
- Energy performance
- Air sealing and attic work before wall interventions
- Damaged features
- Repair, replace in kind, then substitute as a last step
- Later alterations
- Evaluate individually rather than removing wholesale
- Review standard
- The Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which put repair before replacement
- Funding
- The 20 percent federal credit on income-producing buildings, with state credits on top where they exist
- Owner-occupied funding
- State credits cover some owner-occupied homes; the federal 20 percent credit does not
None of these is a rule. They are the pattern of what survived review and aged well. Each row has an exception, usually driven by a condition the building already had: a lost feature, a previous alteration, or a site constraint that removed the obvious option.
Which of those you face is a survey question, and what survives is usually more than a first walk-through suggests.
Where the compromise lands
Almost every good project has one visible compromise, usually in the same spot: a service requirement placed somewhere less than ideal. A building has fewer good hiding places than the equipment list has items. A vent, a meter, a condenser, a hatch.
Decide in advance where your compromise will be. That beats discovering it when a technician chooses for you.
The house-scale version of these comparisons is in the tempting option and the sound one, and the method for reading documented projects is in how to use renovation case studies properly.
Common questions
Is a rooftop addition ever acceptable on a house?
Rarely, and only where it cannot be seen from the street. On most houses a rear addition is the workable option. The rear is the one side where a new volume can sit without altering the street elevation or the roofline.
Should an addition match the original?
Compatible, not imitative. Matching proportion and material without copying detail is the usual approach. A set-back and a lower ridge line do more for the match than any copied trim.
How do I decide what is a primary space?
Finish quality, ceiling treatment, trim detail and original function. The best rooms announce themselves. The entrance sequence and the principal facade usually count as primary too.
Can I put the kitchen anywhere?
Practically, wherever drainage allows. Historically it sat at the back of the house, which is usually also where the change belongs. Moving it to the front puts plumbing and vents in the rooms a reviewer will defend.
Does the rehabilitation tax credit cover a house?
The 20 percent federal credit needs an income-producing certified historic building, so an owner-occupied house does not qualify. Several states run their own credit, and some of those cover owner-occupied homes.
