Sorry I’ve been so “quiet” these past few months–life gets in the way sometimes. Also, although I still love your site, the house I bought is in no way a time capsule, so I often have little to add to your lively discussions. Despite my home’s humble origins, all that’s left of the original design is the corner fireplace (which is actually open all the way around) in the living room, and the kitchen cabinets. The followup to the story I posted yesterday is that after the original couple moved out in the 1990s, the house was in terrible shape but it was snatched up by an architect with a vision to bring it gently into the modern age. I love it, but it’s now more of a hodgepodge of eras than a snapshot of any one point in time.

Although the house doesn’t look much like it did in the architect’s original drawings, I am trying to maintain the spirit of simple living that prevailed when the first owners moved in after WWII–a returning soldier and his bride. And I have acquired some nice furniture pieces you’d appreciate–a Broyhill Brasilia dining set and a fabulous 50s daybed that still has the original fabric in perfect condition. I’ll try to send pictures when I can!

also, while you are right that renters have a lot less investment in their house, i’d point out that landlords are often worse than tenants. the “for rent” sign went up in the house next door about a week after we moved in, and it makes me sad because you can tell that the landlord is putting the bare minimum into keeping the place habitable rather than keeping it in good repair (i used to rent from the same man elsewhere, so i know exactly how well he treats his rentals). at least the house might be “home” for some of the renters, whereas it’s just another property for him.
(i know mine’s as broad a statement as ronns, but i wanted to toss out a second way to view it. i’m sure the truth is halfway in-between =)