@Ericaceae
I agree with the PP that said there aren't many original features left in the first set of pictures either, apart from a few bits of cornicing, debatably original ceiling roses, and the fireplaces. Sad the fireplaces went right enough.
In the first link it had a modern-for-its-time kitchen and bathrooms - they were not exactly in keeping either, and those bathroom tiles were frankly hideous.
Ime things like "lovely original floors" can look great in pictures, but cost £££ to do properly when you're dealing with the reality of panels cut out for retrofitted wiring and pipes, holes made for radiators, wet rot, dry rot, gappy boards, squeaky boards, springy boards... you've got to make a choice on what's worth trying to keep. All of the houses on our street are 110-115 years old and they've all evolved in different ways due to the families who have been in them. We've all got different bits and pieces of what was there before, but you need to get a practical balance that a modern family can use, heat and enjoy.
I agree with this.
We heard the buyers for my DGM’s house ripped out the wood panelling to “modernise” it. Yes, they bought it and it was theirs now, but why buy an old house at all if you don’t like the features?!
Location...kerb appeal....room size...size of garden...catchment area..... just to kick you off.
Also that everyone on MN, on Property programmes, and at EAs always mock the avocado bathrooms or the pink or peach or mustard bathroom suites of the 70s....and says everyone should rip those out at once. No-one says that is damaging heritage. No one says it is damaging the houses when people knock through into the open plan living that has been such a fashionable trend of the last few years. No-one says it is criminal when people remove most of the back wall of their house to put in bi-fold doors.
etc
etc
etc
I don't like the shiny kitchen and marble floor look at all, but it is just houses evolving as fashions change through the decades.
some of the reactions on here are completely OTT.