Taking Different Side

As an owner of an older home and as a staff person for Pasadena Heritage, I read your Home Improvement page with interest. I find that I can often rely on it for good advice. Your article “Re-Siding Is Way Out of House-Painting Rut” (Sept. 29), however, left me feeling somewhat disturbed.

The article focused on alternatives to house painting.

Sometimes alternatives may be appropriate, but there are major drawbacks to be considered too.

What your article does not say is that older homes are desirable because they retain their historic character.

Wood, if well maintained, is a durable material. On most of our old houses in Pasadena the wood is still in good condition today despite the fact that some of our neighborhoods date from the early 1900s. The quality of original craftsmanship on many Victorians, Craftsman Bungalows and American Colonial Revival buildings cannot be readily duplicated today.

Covering as a quick fix approach will damage historic fabric and can lower the value of the property. Residents in my neighborhood in Pasadena are in the process of removing aluminum and asbestos siding, installed over original wood siding during the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s, to restore their homes to their original condition. Surely this is the way to go.

Sandblasting was advocated as an easy way to remove paint. Easy it may be, but wood is particularly susceptible to damage by abrasive cleaning methods such as sand blasting.

Many people take pride in the time spent maintaining their homes, and there are clearly better alternatives!

ELIZABETH M. NEAVES

Associate Director,

Preservation Fund,

Pasadena Heritage