Agreed. I have never lived in a house younger than 70. While there are upsides beyond style (old growth forest framing, solid wood floors) there are downsides - have always been able to get central air, even in the 1925 house, but so very many things have to be changed and fixed. I wouldn’t even try with a 200 year old house unless I was so rich. But if I was, I might. Or might build a reproduction with some reclaimed materials and some modern touches.
Even in our house, half 1940 half 1990, new metal roof, roof attachments, hurricane windows, and we are not yet close to the current building standards. An endless work in progress, I would enjoy that if it wasn’t financially stressful, but the house I love and it’s not as stressful as a mortgage and taxes on a 1.5M ugly house.


Yeah ours has the vinyl and it does cheapen the look. It’s on the list. The boxes though - they are just blocks made with concrete blocks and stucco-ed.
I like some gray but gray fake wood floors are among the worst, who thought that would look good for more than 5 minutes? I don’t like marble floors either. Wood in a wood color is #1, terrazzo is fine, nice tile is fine.
I do know people have different taste but don’t think that this exterior or interior could be pleasing to anyone, and again the house was well over a million $. Though to be fair they had to drop it from 1.5 to 1.2 to sell it, that is still too much and nobody is building anything reasonable except people who are hiring their own builders. All the speculative ones are either straight up boxes or something like this, going into a neighborhood that was just little houses, frame or block. For that $$ I would want much more kitchen too.