Hacker News Reader

Comment by kolektiv | Hacker News Reader

I can't resist it. I know pedantry is to be discouraged here, and I apologise in advance. But... "a century old 6 bedroom 3 bath Tudor home" grates against the part of my mammalian hind-brain responsible for breathing, basic motor control and throttling estate agents. Downvotes will be sadly accepted.

View on HN

When was the last time you were in a $180k house, built over 100 years ago?

The 6 bedrooms are probably all tiny <300 square feet, with closets that can't hold more than 3-5 items of clothing.

I'd be surprised if the entire house was more than 2500 square feet.

This isn't a 6000 square foot McMansion like you're thinking it might be.

Exactly. In houses over a 100 years old (actually in houses built before widespread electricity), most of the bedrooms were only big enough to accommodate a bed, a nightstand and a chair.

My house was built in 1905 in a mining community. It was 2 bedrooms originally. A queen bed wouldn't fit in either one. We ended up combining them into one decent sized bedroom.

Before electricity, there was nothing else to do in a bedroom besides sleep. No sense in making it bigger than it had to be.

Well... you can do one other thing in a bedroom, even in 1905...

... I speak of whittling, of course.

So that's what the kids called it in those days.

I had to remove part of the door frame of the stairs just to get some furniture the stairs of my 100yr old home. It was definitely not built with future large items in mind.

I had tall windows in the bedroom - pulled the bed up to the 2nd floor with a rope.

The door thing ended up being kind of cool. We did it in a way that it reattaches almost seamlessly with some sunken screws.

So, it looks just as bad as it ever did except now it's convertible. We can remove the door's roof anytime we want. At least moving the bed back downstairs when we move in a few months will not be as big of a hassle.

The home is charming but I can't tolerate the neighborhood any longer.

Time to work on the resume and work on getting back out to California.

Not to mention heating the extra space was not worthwhile.

My point was nothing to do with size or value! Oh dear, my pedantry has been misconstrued. My point was the conflation of hundred year old and "Tudor". I am not one to sneer at anybody for their scale of home, and indeed wish this chap luck.

Are you aware that 'Tudor' is an architectural style? A house can be brand new, and still be accurately called a Tudor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_architecture#Typical_feat...

Haha, yes I am. The point was, as I admitted, pedantic! It perhaps seems rather more amusing to a Brit, where 400 year old houses, though not common, nevertheless are around. A house here described as Tudor is, more likely than not, actually Tudor. Much unkind amusement is also often expressed over here at statements from Americans such as "it's so old! Over 100 years!", but that is simply an old saw. As I say, people missed my point a little, which was out of place snark (though I hoped it would raise a smirk with some). Sadly I learn my lesson! :)

True, in American real estate, Tudor is about as meaningful a word for a time period as Pleistocene. You probably should have tagged it as Brit pedantry, we're used to not getting those jokes. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6hijsqO8H0 (Europe - where the history comes from.)

I live in a 103-year old house which I am always careful to call a "Tudor Revival". Here in Seattle anything before 1900 is considered ancient.

In Britain, when actual Tudor houses exist these modern builds are always called 'Mock Tudor'.

That's known as "Mock Tudor" around here.

Would "Tudor-style" satisfy your pedantry?

Or the somewhat used Faux-Tudor. I don't think modern "Tudor" houses engage in wonderful building materials like daub wall plaster made with urine and other "fancy" stuff.

What are you talking about? And how does it matter to the story? The guy found a way to stick it to the man, with no prior training in law.

I think a demonstration that you can do today what was unthinkable a little more than a decade ago is a point well worth reading whatever you don't like about the home description.

Let's think of uses for such a home...

* rental property

* work space (perhaps he has a recording studio?)

* renovation for future sale

* housing for family

The article doesn't say he lives alone with his butler.

Would be a nice listing for AirBnB.

I know what you're going for, and while you're probably a little unfairly downvoted and most people didn't get your joke, I think you should know that there are homes referred to as Tudor which weren't built during the Tudor era of the 1600's.

1500s, surely—James I was crowned in 1603, thus inaugurating the Stuart period. If one wanted to be especially fussy, one might identify the Tudor period as starting in 1485 (when Henry VII was crowned King of England following his victory at Bosworth, and the end of the Wars of the Roses—incidentally, the last to win his throne on the field of battle) and finishing in 1558 with the ascension of Elizabeth I, her reign of 1558-1603 being known as the Elizabethan era.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com