> Sure, maybe its just nostalgia, but there were plenty of trends and aesthetics from my younger years that are just nowhere to be found. Why? Because when people renovate, they go with the aesthetic de jure, what's available and what the social pressures are. Hardly anyone is going to renovate a 1980s basement and put in...1980s carpet.
And were people in the 1980s using furniture from the 1940s when they renovated? If not, embrace the fact that things change and will always change. I bet the 1980s aesthetics are going to get a revival at some point.
> embrace the fact that things change and will always change.
Living in a European city for a few years got me thinking about what the sources of changes are. Everything, and I mean everything requires maintenance, or it will crumble into dust. That maintenance is like a running cost. For (what we consider today to be) high-value jewels of the past, we pay this cost, because we like having these amazing things--like cathedrals and churches and minarets and bridges and monuments and works of art. This maintenance is literally fighting the forces of entropy. Fall behind, and it will crumble and disappear. When it crumbles or is old or broken, or even destroyed--e.g. after WWII--will you rebuild what was there, as it was, or do something new because it strikes your fancy?
In Europe, they draw the line very differently than in North America. Much of the old is maintained, rebuilt, preserved. Because it is considered wealth in itself. Because people fight these forces of entropy, honor their past, and heck, maybe even like things? As an American, I see we do not do this. We seem to hate things. We hate buildings and bridges and doorknobs and pipes[1]; partly because most stuff is built like cheap crap--no matter the era--so of course it falls down and needs to be rebuilt. And it is, the cheapest way possible, usually. Today it seems to be being rebuilt all in a particular way. I dunno, I just think America's total disregard for the past is infecting the rest of the world.
[1] Not above-ground power lines, poles, and endless ugly nests of wires, though. Obviously. Those friggin power lines are going to be the absolute last thing that anybody tears down.
Just to be a devil's advocate: yes, construction in the US generally doesn't last as long as in the "old world". But on the other hand, look at how hard it is to take a beautiful 17th century stone building and make it as energy efficient as modern construction. Same with just about every other internal quality-of-life feature - the old building wins on feng shui and other ineffable valuations, but fails in terms of every day to day and efficiency/cost metric. Yes, it can seem stupid to be tearing down and rebuilding a 50-100 old house when you compare it to old-world behavior, but building technology has moved along at a pace almost as rapid as computational tech, and there's an argument to be made for benefitting from that rather than being hamstrung by "old beauty".
In Austria, new homes often have the outer look of older, traditional houses, but can be incredibly energy efficient (e.g. 40cm walls with really good interior insulation), high efficient heat pumps, hot-water heating, etc.
And were people in the 1980s using furniture from the 1940s when they renovated? If not, embrace the fact that things change and will always change. I bet the 1980s aesthetics are going to get a revival at some point.