What is your least favorite popular building trend (of the choices below)?
- Palladian windows
- Great rooms
- Modular framing
- Kitchen islands
- Multi-head steam showers
- Granite-paved kitchens
- More square footage than is necessary
You will not be able to change your vote.
Replies
Actually my least favorite is 2 story foyers. The big circle top windows with the chandelier....they're everywhere. McMansions.....
I couldn't vote. I didn't see anything that I didn't like.
I don't know why you, and so many others complain so vehemently about "McMansions". I much prefer them to the tract houses of the 50's. I like all the quoins, offsets, steep roofs. I like the wide variety of elevations.
You must like the 1950's ranch: 1000 sf with a hip roof and a 2' overhang in the front and flush pine all the way around.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
blue
Well I guess it's not too hard to figure out you live in a McMansion. Actually, my favorite would be a cedar sided contemporary house on a wooded lot.
jocobeView Image
Actually jocobe, you are wrong. I live in a vinyl condo...mainitenance free forever!
blue
I don't know why you, and so many others complain so vehemently about "McMansions".
Blue, beyond the obvious complaint that they waste resources this planet doesn't have in endless supply, I think the answer to that is, "Because they are imitations of life imitating TV imitating art imitating life...." They are inherently totally lacking in class and their designers know this and try to cover up that fact by adding all those gizmos and gimcracks so as to cover the lack of steak with lotsa sizzle....
The McMansion phenomenon says something about the society that spawned them, something that is not very nice. It says that the people who buy such monstrosities believe in their souls that appearance is more important than substance.
You want your kids growing up in a world like that?
The tract houses of the '50s to which you give such short shrift can be attacked legitimately only on the basis of the tracts themselves--row upon row upon row of the same 'little boxes', away to eternity to deaden the eye with sameness in mega volume.
But it is not valid to attack the individual houses, or their design or construction. Many of these houses are still standing after 50 years, are still in good condition, and are good for another 30-50 years (RU gonna tell me those McMansions will do as well?). And to their utmost credit, those little tract houses were well designed, so as to make the best and most efficient use of space and materials. You figure out a better way to house a family of five in a thousand s.f. and I wanna see the floor plans....
Levitt didn't build crackerboxes; he built very efficient 'starter' homes specifically designed for the needs of the new families of the GI's returning from WWII. The fact some 'copy-cat' developers came along and cheapened his concept and gave the name 'Levittown' a bad connotation is not Levitt's fault, but merely an earlier manifestation of the same horse-manure that pervades our media-sickened consumerist society today: 'If ya can't have the real thing--and who can afford it?--at least ya can have something that looks like the real thing....'
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
"You want your kids growing up in a world like that?"
rich enough to afford a big-#### house on a hill above a wealthy neighborhood ...
Uh ... Yes?
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
I have no problem with large houses. My biggest pet peeve is stuff that doesn't actually have any function. Personally, I don't like the way most > 3000 sf houses look - spires & gables galor (which you can't actually even get to - even for storage). I prefer simple appearance whether large or small.
I'm also annoyed by the faux french doors to a balcony that you can't get to, heck, it even annoys me that most houses have shutters that don't shut. (course that's been around for a while).
If we put shutters on our house, dang it, there gonna actually work.
rich enough to afford a big-#### house on a hill above a wealthy neighborhood ...
Go on out to Upper St. Clair, say, someplace like Trotwood Estates or whatever the crap they call it...and do a door-to-door survey; find out how many fathers in that neighborhood took their kids fishing like you took Cory a coupla weeks ago....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Excellent point there.
I guess the McMansions bug me too. Specifically, nothing is in proportion with anything else. Here you have a 6000 sf box sitting on a quarter acre lot and the entire thing is done up with doodads which are supposed to remind us of something that once was real and proportionally pleasing to the eye. It's uncomfortable to look at or be in these places because the space it takes up has nothing to do with the surroundings of hills, trees...nature in general.
Also, so many things are vynal and plastic which cannot give you any kind of patina or pleasent ageing, or if they do wear it's very ugly.These houses are a reflection of many things of what society,( more specifically the dictates of Madison Ave), has become. A lot of pomp and ego with no sense of balance. That being said, there are many new houses, and old ones being renovated, that I have seen and worked on which are absolutely beautiful and pleasing to the eye with much thought put into them.
large ugly multiple car garages on the front of otherwise appealing house
since when did a garage door become a design feature?caulking is not a piece of trim
I checked the "more "sq ft" box.but that's relative, as to what's needed.I also started the thread about how big are houses being built.Believe that u should get what u want and can afford.but that's the key to me, what you can afford.seeems like developments/specs are being built large, where u have to over extend to buy there.and starting to see more tear downs and build bigger as spec's"everyone" believes that they must have everything now.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
Garages stuck out in front of a house are called 'snout houses'.jocobeView Image
yes and their ugly too!!caulking is not a piece of trim
I concur that garages, especially with cheapo doors--as the public facade of the house are one of my least favorite. Also agree with Notchman that the extreme multiple rooflines are unattractive to me. Seems like a contest to see which house in a neighborhood can have the most.
The garage is in the front so you can get in to the house quicker, the home owners won't be seen untill they race out the next day.
One of our colleagues calls them "snout houses". Very appropriate, I think.
Okay just saw a good one on evening stroll. Place with way too many turrets and gables and too large chimney cap. It had a fake cutesy little window in the chimney just above the roof line.
So, instead of hiring a chimney sweep, they BOUGHT one and trapped him in a little room in the chimney?
A well done snout can sure add a lot of beauty and interest to an otherwise bland face, no?
I challenge FHB to do a "snout houses" edition and show people how to do it right. Having the garage out front makes a heck of a lot of sense from a "form follows function" perspective doesn't it?
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
Some areas have prohibited garages that extend past the front facade of the house, often called "snub nose" around here. The garage is still in the front for convenience, but blends in better with the house. What do you think? I think your article idea is a good one."A completed home is a listed home."
I would find that design restriction cumbersome. The only absolute design rule is that there are no absolute design rules.
A house should recline on the land. There are any number of reclining poses that are more appealing than simply sticking your face out front. A garage, like any extremity of a home, can extend the house forward in an appealing and meaningful way if it's done correctly.
That said, I would agree that it is very difficult, to make a garage door out front look really good. Keeping a forward facing garage door from extending past the main facade won't help much at all.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
Actually, I think the garage in front is a fine idea, if you spend most of your time in the backyard. And really, why do we care so much how our house looks from the street, when we spend so little time there? In most neighborhoods today 'porchsitting' is obsolete. We drive in, park our car, go out the back door to fire up the grill, and do our sitting on the deck or patio. As the world gets more and more crowded and dangerous, we turn inward and put more focus on privacy than living 'out there'. A fenced yard that the kids can safely play in becomes more important than a good front yard. My husband has suggested eliminating our front door entirely and using the space for a better bathroom, because the only people who come to the front door are missionaries and trick or treaters. If it weren't to satisfy resale (and HOA's) I bet more homes would be built with the street as the backside. If we look to New Orleans, as nice as those homes are from the street, I understand that's nothing compared to how beautiful they are once you get into the enclosed gardens.
LOL - Sure, just moon the world with your house! <G, D & R>
Actually, you make some reasonable points. It's a real shame that most of us rarely if ever come in the door that is designed to offer the most pleasant greeting in our home. You actually make another good argument for putting the garage out front where our entry into the house can be directed through the same pleasing foyer our guests are directed to come through.
With our garage out front, I often walk through the foyer on my way into the home. Here are the floor plans if you want to look at an example of how it can be made to work with the simplest of layouts.
Here is a link to a photo I posted of the approach to the house a while back too.
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=53963.40
There are several interior shots in post one of that thread. It's certainly not the premier example of well done, garage forward houses but it functions like a dream.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
"Sure, just moon the world with your house!"
Yeah!
I remember that thread, and thanks for the link back to it. I didn't remember seeing floor plans, so thanks also for posting those!
I like that plan layout. I like that there's a porch right where I expected it, too. But then, I also feel that the use of front porches has to do with having that porch. Hard to use what you don't have.
One of those "good design" rules in my head--can't force people to like good design, but it sure is criminal to not provide good desing for those who might use it.
Have to stop there, the soapbox is calling . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
My whole house faces the "backyard", which is actually the front yard.All you see from the street is the grage and a small walkway to the "backdoor" and outside stairs to take you to the kitchen door. But I live on a lake and the land slopes down to the water.
Speaking of garages in front. There is a new subdivision that they just put in near me. All the houses are sorta neo-Victorian looking with front porches and nice lawns. The garages are all in the back of the house accessed by alleyways. There is a road along the front sides of the houses but I think its mostly for walking on and not general traffic. Looks nice and calm and peaceful. They are selling like shortcakes to families with young children.
Daniel Neuman
Oakland CA
Crazy Home Owner
It's probably a TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) neighborhood, and if there were small shops nearby, it could also fall under the heading of New Urbanism.
The place I used to work had a similar project:
doemill.org
It's not for everyone, but the alleys were cool and it was great having all the ugly utilities and trash cans behind the houses where they belong. Very walkable and walked little neighborhood.
Do a search on TNDs...interesting stuff out there.
Looks like suddenly somebody dislikes kitchen is. and figured out how to hit the delete cookies button??
it was great having all the ugly utilities and trash cans behind the houses where they belong
Wow, was just talking (well, ok listening) to some very-involved in HOA associates who were all happy that the next phase of their subdiv will not have "any of those filthy, unsightly, alleys, that are never clean enough." (Yes, they are perfect ARC/HOA types, very, very concerneed with how other people live; and convinced that appearance = substance.)
My tongue still hurts from biting it. Did ask them how they were going to jibe the subdiv garage requirements with no alleys; and how the trash cans would pass the HOA ruls on the main roads. Some head-scratching may (only may) have ensued.
Personall, service alleys make a lot of sense to me. The utilities can be laied out much more sensibly.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Did ask them how they were going to jibe the subdiv garage requirements with no alleys; and how the trash cans would pass the HOA ruls on the main roads.
Just do like they do at Disney World--all the trash collection and unsightly utilities are underground! Never see any of those nasty garbage trucks out on the streets! Let's all pretend we don't create waste! Where I lived as a kid, the next door neighbors put their trash cans in an empty lot next to them on garbage day instead of in front of their own house! None of us really believed they didn't make any trash or that the elves in the neighboring empty lot produced it. (Maybe that oak tree was where the Keebler factory was!) Ok, been breathing to many paint fumes today!
The alleys were always kept spotlessly clean there. Funny too, they became a gathering place where neighbors would say hello. A couple of times they threw block partys/BBQ's there, because the alley served as a community intersection.
Funny too, they became a gathering place where neighbors would say hello
I've seen that in some areas. One of the keys seems to be well-planned underground utilities. Another seems to be a 12' pavement width instead of 10'. It also seems to help to have a deeper-than-normal rear setback, which allows for a good backyard which then allows for interaction with the nieghbors "across the fence."Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
One of the other interesting things about this neighborhood are the front porches, which actually got used. Also, the sidewalks.
Pretty friendly place.
are the front porches, which actually got used
That's a conclusion I have come to, that a porch-less house seems to force a lack of connection to one's neighbors. It's one thing to have a porch and not use it. It's quite another to not have one at all.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
On the other hand, some of us have full wrap around porches on six acres with no trespassing signs at the perimiter and locks on the gate. Makes it easier to pick off the approaching trespassers, from any direction, without getting wet. :-)>
Front porches are nice neighborhood features but after the combined experience of all my past neighbors, I'm inclined to believe that nothing makes good neighbors like acreage.
Now don't get me wrong, I love people. In fact, I am one! Unfortunately it only takes one dweeb to screw up an entire neighborhood. Especially if he is in loose possesion of multiple offspring...
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
"I'm inclined to believe that nothing makes good neighbors like acreage."
I hear ya' on that. We are building our house in a rural area (we are on 17 acres). We actually know & talk to our neighbors more in the 4 months we've been out here (living in a temp trailer) than we did in the 2 years we spent living in a housing development or the 2 years prior living in a condo.
I think the space makes people feel like they don't have to guard their privacy as much so they are more open.
Hey:I hear all of you . . . . but this poll really speaks to the issue of conspicuous consumption that we in the West seem to take as our right. We chew up farmland like it is still being made, we drive SUV's to the grocery store to pick up our 2 bags of groceries, we open microwave pizza boxes in 200 000 dollar kitchens that most households and housewives use as interior HUMMERS rather than as real kitchens because god forbid that they ever would really try to or have time to cook. We live in McMansions that will be heaps of rotting still poorly designed junk in 25 years in vacant subdivisions as the demographic will be screaming for smaller "closer to town".Thanks for letting me rant . . . . but I am tired of people and their unreasonable demands so that they can show off their moneypeckers.mark macleod
Who is "we." Most American's lack the finances for those kind of shinanigans! You're not one of those filthy rich McMansion types are you? Sheesh - probably shop at Walmart and Home Depot too! :-)>
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
Let me be really clear . . . I do not live in one and I refuse to build them. We live in an old house (1880) in the centre of town.The problem isn't that everyone lives in a McMansion but the Mcmansion 5000 square for 4 people informs the decisions and aspirations of everyone. If that is what is held out as nirvana then that is what I wiill want. So, I build 3000 square but I still have the grand entrance way (why?????????????), the not so great room, the breafast nook . . . oh sorry cubbyhole.I was given the book about the not so big house and it challenged me in so many ways. Not just about my housing choices but how my day to day choices impact on this hurtling planet. I'm no tree hugger but I'm alot more conscious of the implications of living in, driving, eating more than we/I need.BTW having lived on both sides of the border, the "system" encourages over living on both sides. While here in Canada we cannot deduct mortgage interest, mortgage policies have been consistently downgraded. 9 years ago when we bougth the downtown old house, we needed 10 percent to buy as first time buyers. Now you need only 5 percent and in many circumstances, not even that. So we now have a bunch of new homeowners levered out of control trying to buy the biggest chunk of the American/Canadian dream possible (and who will buy these places when they walk away after interest rates rise 2%}. I'm only 41, but I'm old and cantankerous. Cheersmark macleod
Edited 7/25/2005 5:28 pm ET by MarkMacLeod
You were clear - I posted a smiley face with my comments and the grin was sincere.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
Hey thanks . . . . I guess I'm old, cantankerous, and inattentive . . . . lol. Thanks for being clear back.Cheersmark
that nothing makes good neighbors like acreage.
"[G]ood fences" and "acreage" fine neighbors make, eh?
Sounds reasonable.
But, then, not sharing a driveway with a wacko neighbor is probably a good thing, too.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
LOL - That's exactly what my last neighbor used to say!!
Actually, we shared a 100' wide easement... The only thing more detrimental to good neighbor relations than limited acreage, is shared acreage! Especially when you fancy a nice wide patch of cool grass and you neighbor fancies a handy place for his delinquent prodigy to ride his dirt bike and launch assorted projectiles at the rest of the neighborhood.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
>But, then, not sharing a driveway with a wacko neighbor is probably a good thing, too.Did I hear someone call my name?Of course, they're probably here also thinking the same thing!###I love wrap-around porches, too, Kevin. And acreage. Great combo. Spent a few days in an ol' farmhouse with extended family, and that porch sure got use. I wish more clients wished for that.
how do u wrap a porch around a half ball?
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
round porch.Plus, very few of my designs are strictly round, to wit, my own abode,
how do u wrap a porch around a half ball?
Carefully <tehee>
Lots of tapered cuts would be one way. But, just now noodling on a composite-made deck, it might be a herring-(not kippered)-bone would almost be easier. And really cool looking, too.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
If you do any study using TND's as your search term you are sure to come up with friendly neighborhoods.
It is not just a building style, it's a wonderful living concept for many people.
The classic TND test has something to do with "How wide is the sidewalk?", and they also call one test "The Popsicle Test" which means, "Can your child walk down the street and get a popsicle?"
Fun stuff, fer sure...
The rowhouse in New York City where my maternal grandparents lived had a service alley behind it; access to the garage was there and all that. Being from the 'burbs, we kids found this fascinating and that alley was always our favourite place to play. So it was too for the kids who lived on those two blocks full time. It was kind of like a village green, but paved.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
That's the thing - it IS entirely possible to make it interesting, but a giant plain garage door with a shed roof isn't it. Lots of great garage doors being made now, and one that coordinates with the rest of the doors and trim looks good.I wish I could afford 3 nice carriage house garage doors for my carriage house. It would look so much better. But I can't justify replacing perfectly decent working doors.
I much prefer the garage to be projecting out front. It adds depth and variety to the house's appearance.
Of course if the builder treats the garage like a second class citizen, I suppose it might look bad.
blue
I don't have a problem with McMansions...heck, I'd like one. I saw a 5000 sq ft house that would be great. The family room is big enough to house one of those 200 inch projection home theatre screens...now that's living!!!What I don't like is the 5000 sq ft house built on a 1/4 acre. A big house is fine but you gotta size it correctly to the lot. I guess that's just me. I like relaxing in my yard and tending to my plants. I don't want to be able to knock on my neighbor's door from my deck.
What I don't like is the 5000 sq ft house built on a 1/4 acre. A big house is fine but you gotta size it correctly to the lot
That's a density issue. If the density doesn't change and they go back to building big boxes, you'd end up with 5000 sf cubes on 1/4 acre lots.
Yes, I still prefer the McMansions.
blue
If a garage out front adds variety and depth to the house' appearance, I'll bet that you've got one ugly-azz house :)
Couldn't disagree with you more-
"If a garage out front adds variety and depth to the house' appearance, I'll bet that you've got one ugly-azz house :)"
Couldn't disagree with you more.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
Excellent point there.I guess the McMansions bug me too. Specifically, nothing is in proportion with anything else.
One of the things I liked best about Sarah Susanka's column in FHB was how she pointed out the importance of proportioning things well.
Also, so many things are vynal and plastic....
That being said, there are many new houses, and old ones being renovated, that I have seen and worked on which are absolutely beautiful and pleasing to the eye with much thought put into them.
Yep...and they're not McMansions, either.
We have to remember here we are bitching about McMansions, not real mansions...which--in N. America, anyway--are the sort of thing Gatsby lived in. (But then again, the people buying McMansions don't have real money, either. Just big mortgages.) In the final analysis, the term 'McMansion' is indelibly appropriate because a McMansion bears the same resemblance to Gatsby's joint as a McDonald's quarter-pounder bears to a filet-mignon....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
I guess you'd prefer to see the 1000 sq fters too on the 1/4 acre lots just like they did in the 50's.
You guys are sounding like elitists. Nothings good enough. Every glass is half empty.
Start looking for the half full glasses and maybe you'll be able to see something of value in the subs today.
Also, keep in mind that the builders are slaves to the market. We're building in a "McMansion subdivision right now. It's full. It's right next to a smaller development where the builders decided to be "creative". They decided that they'd build a quaint sub with all the exquisite details (neo traditional?). Well, the sub is a dud. They've built and sold maybe ten houses in three years that I know about. Myself, I wouldn't drive a nail in there. I personally hate the sub and every house in it.
I much prefer the elaborate brick work that has become very common in the last two decades. I remember my first decade and I can assure you that the houses that we build are ten times more interesting both inside and out and they are also ten times more functional...and yes, they all have two story foyers, which I love.
blue
I guess you'd prefer to see the 1000 sq fters too on the 1/4 acre lots just like they did in the 50's.
Actually, yes, I would. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have a 10% footprint limit than a 60% footprint limit in what is purportedly a sub-urban development. It might give the children living in the house enough space to play catch with their father without having to go out into the street and get run down by an SUV speeding off to the mall....
I'm sitting on a quarter acre myself. When I completely re-built this place in 95, I had to conform to a limit of 8% including outbuildings and attached decks. So I designed a house footprint of 600sf and added exterior decks to bring it up to 852sf.
This house has three bedrooms, a living room, library, dining room, kitchen, two full bathrooms, full laundry room, a den/playroom, and a 15x20 shop. I specifically designed this house for a family of four.
Works for me.
(And there ain't no vinyl on it either, but you already knew that....)
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Proportions. Read your architecture and get it. I'm not talking about size as much as bad taste. Two years ago the company I worked for built an 11 thousand sf mansion from scratch. It was breathtaking. I was one of the trim carps, all solid mahogany doors, mouldings etc etc. I've worked on other 7-8-9 thousand sf houses in the Princeton area too. They have several acres to go with the houses, nothing at all wrong with that.You work only new. Who is elitist? Good taste is what it is. Bad taste is bad taste whether your nose is in the air or not. I recommend you read The Geography of Nowhere, and Home From Nowhere by.....hmmmm author escapes me,Kunsler or someone close to it. It's about the phenomenon, history and bigger picture of suburban blight and sprawl.
Jer, I fully understand the need for proportions.
What I don't understand is why anyone would be against a two story foyer with a chandelier or multiple roof lines.
I think sour grapes has crept into the souls of many.
blue
It's personal taste. I'm against the 2 story foyers and crazy roofs too. Don't understand why anyone gets real excited about them. Seems wasteful. I suppose it's good work building them though, and challenging.
You are 100% correct Mark and that's one reason why I love the "mcmansions". I appreciate the work. I've earned a pretty good living building these "monstrosities" for the last three decades.
I started in the trades when houses were much simpler. We used to consider a 5/12 roof "steep". I knew guys that worked on a five man crew that used to put up one 2840 (40 wide and 28 deep; three bedroom ranches) per day, and that included cutting all the roofs, board sheathing and hand pounding everything. That's a total of 40 hours per house and they would do one after another just moving down the block. I guess it's okay to pine about the "good ole days before mcmansion boom", but I'd rather not be involved in that type of building. I'm not impressed with the old neighborhoods and I much prefer building houses with more footage and complexity in them.
I'm not going to say that every mcmansion builder is getting them right, but around here most neighborhoods are okay to good.
blue
I'll buy that.
why anyone would be against a two story foyer with a chandelier or multiple roof lines
Maybe it's the single-story houses with a two-store foyer.
Maybe it's the single-floor 4200sf house that does not have 8' of ridge anywhere--but has multiple 30'+ hanging valleys & hips . . .
Gets to the definitions of things.
When I read "multiple roof lines" I tend to think of the roofs I call "circus tents," as the learning-on-the-job drafter just uses the software's "roof plane generator" to pile roof shapes together on the twisty, winding, excessivelt bumped-out floor plan said drafter was given.
I'm guessing that "multiple" roof lines sound more like the photos you've shared here than the nitemare collections I've seen.
But, I'm guessing, too.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Every glass is half empty
to which the cost conscious reply ' you bought too big of a glass' <G>
poor people make better parents?
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
"poor people make better parents?Jeff"As a teacher who has done time in both public and private, south, mid-atlantic, and north Michigan, junior high thru college, in my experience the best parents, as judged by the behavior, effort and ethics of their children, were by and large the children of police, nurses, other teachers, small business owners, and the like. Not exactly poor folks, but not in McMansions either.And I have had students that were the sons and daughters of Citibank and Exxon executives. Would trade them in for a second for a student that was taught through example the value of a days work for a days wages and the need for stewardship of property and people.
poor people make better parents?
So, are you asking me if you're a better parent because you take your kid fishing...or because you are poor?
It ain't whatcha are bro--it's whatcha do.
I know a fair number of people I would qualify as 'rich' and of them, a fair number are what I would qualify as good or even excellent parents.
I also know loads of people who are poor, and of them, a fair number are what I would qualify as good or even excellent parents.
You wanna play a numbers game, great. Go do that door-to-door survey first and get the data. Then we'll have something to anaylse.
Just be careful while you're surveying. Last time I was in Trotwood Hills (or whatever they call it) visiting my dear old mum, I made the error of going out for a walk after supper. Thought I might meet some of her neighbors out doing the same, as it was a fine summer evening. But I didn't see a single person on the street. Literally not one. Just lots of front windows lit up by that tell-tale blue glow from the tube....
Then I notice this neighborhood isn't as fancy as I'd thought--heck, they can't even afford to put in sidewalks! Just perfect, dandelion-free, sod right up to the road. Ahhhh! The delicate aroma of huge doses of Weed'n'Feed perfuming the soft, evening air....
And finally, before I'd gone half a mile a patrol car pulls up next to me, the constable driving give me the fish-eye, and then rolls down his window to ask me what I'm doing.
Told him I was taking a walk.
Where are you going?
Told him politely that I wasn't going anywhere in particular. Oops.
The constable got out of the cruiser and demanded to see my ID....
I think you'd better drive from one house to the next.
And, no, I don't want my kid growing up in a place like that.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
dinosaur,
I call those places yuppie ghettos----and try like heck to avoid 'em
but sometimes ya get a referall----and they are generally quick, easy, profitable work--( well as quick and easy as roofing gets LOL)------mostly the 80's subdivisions----I haven't been called yet into the 90's or '00 subdivisions yet
But---the yuppie ghettos' ?
what I do notice---is as I arrive there is a constant stream of suv's and mini vans leaving.
Nobody outside in those HUGE yards all day---except me, the chemlawn trucks and an occasional UPS guy
Every little tykes and step one yard toy known to man---but deserted like a ghost town.
i have one of these yuppie ghettos where I have done about 5 different roofs.
Last time I was there selling a roof, i mentioned that I had roofed the "Hartfords" house across the street. "Who?" my prospect asked------turned out the " hartfords" had sold and moved and my prospects had moved in 3 years later---and still knew none of the neighbors.
contrast that with those 60-'s ranch houses , 1000 sq, ft on a 1/4 acre???????
invariably the original owner is still living there it seems---but now she is a widow-------she knows EVERYBODY in the neighborhood, can tell you the family history of each house back 2-3 generations----and she has a sidewalk in the neighborhood she can take a walk on each day.
If you see any little tykes playground equipment---it's being used----and sometimes there is even a MILF standing watch.
the 60's subdivisions aren't my cup o'joe either---but I greatly prefer 'em to todays yuppie ghettos---they are real neighborhoods---not temporary warehousing
stephen
rich enough to afford a big-#### house on a hill above a wealthy neighborhood
Well, who wouldn't?
The question is, do you want them mortgaged to the maximum the bank allows, in a house built to the setbacks almost all the way around, that's more appearance than substance? When (I think at least) there's a substantial possibility that the house structure might not still be good at the end of a 30 year mortgage.
Read some of the anti-Pulte, anti-Ryland, anti-Village Builders, etc., rants. Some of those houses are only half-way through 30 year mortgages--I'm not certain that some of those will be worth the salvage value of the materials in them in 15 more years.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
are still in good condition,
And that's the key, I think, at least. The "cookie cutter" subdivisions of the 50s-60s-70s may not have much in appearance, but at least they have substance. Go wander into a 90s subdivision while it's building and there's plenty of apperance, but almost no substance.
How many ranchers are out there that have easily supprted additional floors, new els, all sorts of changes to make them into unique houses?
I haven't seen a house built in the last five years in Williamson Co (not to pick on them per se, but to use an example I know well) that could have any remodeling done to it. I mean that any, too. Want to add a porch and tie the roof in? Better get an engineer, that flat stick-built roof you're attaching to is carrying 3 hangling valleys and 2 hanging ridges . . . I don't want to think of the number of structures out there where every wall is a bearing wall--try remodeling that.
Just seems "wrong" to me, seeing these houses with 175, 180, 200% of the conditioned volume wasted in an attic.
Oops, slipped in a rant, said rant is not sent your way--shoot, I started by agreeing with you.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
too many of the Mcmansions I've worked in are barely furnished. They've sunk all their money into buying these overpriced monstrosities, and now barely have enough money left to get a bed and some lawn furniture to furnish the house.And I've seen the lawn furniture in the living room of a 1/2 million dollar house ( I refuse to call them a home)
I guess the idea is to get into the house, and then save up enough for furniture later. And around here, the prices are going up so fast that in just a year, you can sell your house and make a pretty good profit. But then you gotta find something else.
I'd rather stay in my 1800 sq. ft. home and be able to have a life.
BTW, have fun tomorrow.
There's money to be made around here renting furniture to people having a party or visitors. They can't afford to furnish the huge houses, so they rent extra furniture for a day or two now and then.
It's crazy to me.
I agree with your "McMansions" comments. It's all they build here, lumber is in short supply in this area anyway, they're a waste of materials big time. None of the ones around here will be standing in 50 years or so anyway, they're not designed to last that long. Guess my least favorite thing I've seen here thus far are those cheap, single pane, aluminum frame windows that are installed with a framing gun, especially when they're installed in a 5-6 thousand sq.ft. home that costs upward of a half mill.I think the mindset is "that a tornado is probably going to destroy the house anyway" so why bother with quality??If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
That waste of raw materials goes even further than just the lumber itself. In that most of it has to be trucked in, that's a waste of diesel, too, just for starters....
Somebody else posted a comment to the effect that people should be allowed to buy with their hard-earned money what they please. This is a philosophy I hold very dear--chacun à son goût--but there are exceptions to every rule (including this one!).
When the waste of non-renewable resources by individuals with more mortgage than brains winds up impoverishing the entire society--or the planet as a whole--then I have to disagree reluctantly that such individuals have any 'right' to continue such wasting. It's a 'conflict of rights' issue, which are always thorny questions because there are generally good arguments on both sides. But if we agree at all that we are a society, then willy-nilly, we have to agree to protect what belongs to the society in common from individual greed.
One can argue that lumber is a renewable resource, and it is...if you cut it by hand, drive it to the mill by water or animal traction, and mill it with water-power. But when you're burning diesel to run tree-harvesters, skidders, tandem-trailer log transport trucks, and to generate the electricity used to run the sawmill, the word 'renewable' no longer describes what's really going on.
Not only is all that diesel fuel itself non-renewable, but the machinery is capable of harvesting trees hundreds of times faster than they can be replanted and regrown. Even with modern tree-farming plantation methods, which include over-fertilizing the crop to get it to harvestable size sooner (a 12" butt harvestable? Sounds silly but they do it...). And of course, the quality of such trees is crap compared to a naturally grown tree: growth rings four times thicker, wood softer and more prone to splitting and checking, etc., etc. So the houses built with it don't last as long, so more trees have to be cut more often, and....
All that so some geek can sit feeling superior to 'The Joneses' in solitary splendor with his Bud Lite in a 'Home Theatre' bonus room big enough for a high-school graduation....
But how can we blame him? Every time he fires up that 96" screen, 1000-channel universe of his he tunes into something like 'Dallas' and sees what Hollywood and Television-land tells him is the way real classy rich folks live. It is not a crime for him to be too dumb to realize he's been hoodwinked (and I wouldn't want to live in a world where it were). Hell, the entire Third World is convinced every American lives that way....
Blue mentioned that demand drives the market, and builders are only responding to the demand for McMansions when they build them.
Uh, yes...and no. Under the old theories, he is right. But marketing weenies haven't exactly been sitting there resting on 100-year-old theories of capitalism these past 40 Tele-years. Any honest advertising executive (is that a contradiction in terms?) would tell you that, given a sufficient budget it is now possible to use mass media advertising and marketing techniques to create a demand for a product which is totally unnecessary and even damn near worthless in the final analysis.
Ask me how I know this? I used to be in graphics and advertising. I created some of the print advertising for Nixon's re-election campaign. Any more questions...?
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
>individuals with more mortgage than brains>All that so some geek can sit feeling superior to 'The Joneses' in solitary splendor with his Bud Lite in a 'Home Theatre' bonus room big enough for a high-school graduation>for him to be too dumb to realize he's been hoodwinkedFeeling particularly superior, are we? Geez, do you _ever_ stop stereotyping, judging, and insulting people for making choices other than the way you would? Must be nice to know what's best for everyone. I think I'll go put some skim milk on my Fruit Loops...
Feeling particularly superior, are we?
Probably no more than you were when you wrote that....
If I was 'stereotyping' a specific individual, I'd agree you had a point.
But I'm not. I'm describing a type which everyone out there can recognize. I do not place any person in that class of people. If some individual behaves in such as manner as to place himself in a category I have merely defined, is that my fault?
Jeez, Jim. That's not like you. You planning on building McDomes or something?
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Actually it _is_ like me to stand up against stereotyping and generalizing. If you don't like a feature, then you don't like a feature. Fine. But to turn that into an ongoing castigation of people who _do_ like it, or who just don't place the same value on it that you do is bs. No matter how convinced you are of the wisdom of your choices, not everyone's gonna agree with you. That alone doesn't make them bad people. Insulting people for that behind their backs is unbecoming.
i think you mis-read the intent of the original post that started this tangent. it didn't strike me as judgemental, or coming from a holier-than-thou viewpoint, only as a rant about how we all succumb to the propaganda machine in different ways. the poster included himself as a part of the problem, and more or less indicated that we can't blame individuals who accept the conspicuous-consumption media-promoted version of the good life, without placing some blame on the media themselves, and on all of us for sitting blandly by as it churns on. i guess the point i came away with is that waste of resources is, after all, a waste...
Gumshoe, did it ever occur to the propagand theorists that the people buying the products might acutally like and want them?
Were not all lemmings just because we like two story foyers.
I wouldn't build a two story house without one and I wouldn't buy a two story house without one.
blue
Dino, you sound like your advocating going back to the cave men days.
Maybe we should just ban the wheel.
blue
Dino, you sound like your advocating going back to the cave men days.
ROAR!! I guess I didn't pick the nickname 'Dinosaur' just cause it sounded cool, eh??
Blue (and Cloud, too)--I would typically be the first man at the barricades fighting to preserve your right to design your home to suit your personal taste...and I would do so even if I didn't know either of you. And especially if I disagreed with your taste (it would then be a point of honour.) That is a matter of defending all of us against unwarranted government incursion into our private lives. Even if I wanna puke (and I do) when I see vinyl siding, or roofs with a bad case of architectural hiccups, fer instance....
But as I stated in the post that seems to have sent the barbeque outta control, this question involves what's classically known as a 'conflict of rights', and there are no easy answers to those. Because (as I also stated in that earlier post) there are usually good arguments on both sides.
As an individual who is entitled to be as opinionated, obnoxious, and obstreperous as he pleases (1st amendment), I can sound off about how much I personally can't stand fake mansions æsthetically until the cows come home...and it's not gonna do one whit of damage to the McMansionite sitting there with his Bud Lite. He has the same right to laugh and sneer at my old-looking, 20x30, wood-sided house and say what a fool I am to have to go up and paint the thing every 10 years or so...while he can just sit there enjoying his vinyl and popping the tab on another can of what he thinks of as beer.
But as a member of the global community, I am responsible for using non-renewable resources in a manner that does the least amount of damage to the resource bank as is conversant with what our society has 'agreed' ad hoc are basic standards of living. This sometimes obliges me to not do things I might like to do. For instance, take a small example: My vegetable garden never grows as well as I'd like, because it doesn't get full sun and I don't use fertilizer on it.
To give it full sun, I'd have to cut eight or ten large trees; which would reduce oxygen regeneration in the area of my house by a measureable amount, reduce the amount of maple syrup I can produce myself, create a possible need for mechanical air-conditioning, and æsthetically degrade the look of my property and the area around it. And if I fertilize it--even with organics--the excess nutrients in the fertilizer (there is always some the garden does not use) will run downslope into the lake 25 metres away and create an algæ bloom which accelerates exponentially the eutrophication of our lake. That lake is a common resource for all the houses around it. In addition to furnishing our drinking water, it raises the property values substantially. But when that lake dies (ie, become too choked with algæ and lakeweed to drink or swim in) these houses will instantly lose about 66% of their market value.
So, I make do with smaller and fewer vegetables. I still get to eat a very lovely garden salad every night all summer, and I still harvest enough carrots, beets, potatoes, peas, and green beans in the fall to more than compensate me for the work I put into it...which is also one of my little relaxations. It's enough for me, in spite of the restrictions I feel obliged to comply with.
(Why am I happy with less? Hmmm. Good question. My opinion is that it's because I don't watch television and thus I am too dumb to know I oughta want more. I don't know if that's the whole answer--likely it is not--but I am certain it's a large part of it. Anyway, on to the other entrants in this debate....)
But Mr. McMansionite has the same obligations in respect to global/community resources as I do since he is also a member of the same global community. And this hypothetical type of person is not, according to the type's description elements, respecting those obligations. In fact, the non-respect of community resources could be said to be the defining element that places him into this 'class' of people.
A third difficulty arises here, in that we now wind up facing judgement calls of the type, 'How much is too much?' when trying to decide if indeed Mr. McMansion is behaving in a manner that merits government intervention. I'm sure either of you guys could find fourth and fifth difficulties as well. It all heterodynes. None of it is black and white.
These are not, as I said, easy problems to solve, especially for anyone who tries sincerely to look down the long road and respect individuals' liberty at the same time.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
>I can sound off about how much I personally can't stand fake mansions æsthetically until the cows come homeThat's not the point of my comment. I have no issue with what you like and don't like. It was not that you were faulting current trends, but that you were being derisive toward the people who bought into those trends. Two very different concepts. This thread is about identifying our least favorite popular trends. Ruth didn't name it, "Insult the people whose houses include the construction elements you don't like." Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Jim, sometimes poking fun at somebody you know and like can be an effective way to get them to change behaviour you think is unworthy of that person. You know...teasing your bud unmercifully because he drives an F-250 and you know he oughta drive a Sierra 2500HD for his own good....
Other times, describing a 'class' of unnamed people in graphic, overblown terms can be a way of 'waking up' real people who might have stumbled into the behaviour placing themselves in that class. If they see a description of a class and would not want to think of themselves that way, they might very well change their behaviour sufficiently to remove themselves from that class (if they were ever in it) or refrain from 'entering' it (if they were not yet full blown McMansionites but headed that way, for example).
Since nobody ever directly called this hypothetical particular individual 'Mr. McMansionite', that person can make this self-evaluation without suffering any emotional hurt by the language used to describe the class.
A lot of this is subliminal and acts on the unconscious level. Guess it's just my old days in the ad biz coming back to haunt me....
Anyway, you've proved again you're a Gentleman with Class by arguing this with me with only one short burst of napalm at the very beginning, LOL....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Dino, I quickly picked out the hypocrocy in your position. You claim that too much wood is wasted and that even though it's a renewable source, too much fossil fuel is being expended. Then you mention that you make maple syrup i.e. "the amount of maple syrup I can produce myself". I see that as a contradiction because it must take a lot of fuel to boil off the excess water to extract that syrup.
It appears to me that you are very wasetful in your lifestle: you are a closet Mcmansionite!
Seriously, I just think that this backlash against "wasteful" attics created from steep roofs is silly. I grew up in a suburb of 4/12 roofs and I don't see anything more positive about those neighborhoods than the suburbs of the 90's. It's hypocritical to criticize those that want a larger house, unless you're going to issue an edict that limits everyone to living in a cave.
One last thing. Most of the mcmansionites spend a considerable amount of money and effort growing some very elaborate landscapes. I just recently did a couple of frames out in the country on 3 acre plots and I can say for sure that each 1/4 acre plot in the burbs will have at least 5 times more trees and 30 times mores more shrubbery than the farm community. The rural people seem to be in love with their lawn mowing tractors.
I guess if I could write in a vote, I'd say my least favorite thing would be power lawn mowing equipment. If we could just ban all them (they are the second leading cause of air pollution. I think burn barrels, popular in the farm communitys are worse) and make the land stewards cut by hand, our green earth would become substantially fuller with meaningful cover.
blue
Dino, I quickly picked out the hypocrocy in your position. You claim that too much wood is wasted and that even though it's a renewable source, too much fossil fuel is being expended. Then you mention that you make maple syrup i.e. "the amount of maple syrup I can produce myself". I see that as a contradiction because it must take a lot of fuel to boil off the excess water to extract that syrup.
It appears to me that you are very wasetful in your lifestle: you are a closet Mcmansionite!
Okay, I get the joke. But just FYI:
Commercially produced maple syrup is now boiled over diesel-fired burners, for the most part, after having been run through a series of osmotic filters to lower the water content before boiling off. The combination of these two procedures removes a lot of the flavour from the product, making it inferior (if still way better than Aunt Jemima).
I produce about half of my annual consumption of syrup from less than 20 scattered maples of several different sub-species growing in a completely untended section of woods across the road from my house. I do this 50% for fun and 50% for product. I boil off the sap over a hardwood fire so that the syrup contains the full flavour of the hardwood smoke.
The few artisanal producers left who still do this can command high prices for their product from people who want the 'real McCoy'. I don't make enough to sell; I usually have to buy 4 or 5 litres each year to supplement what I produce. Fortunately I've got a buddy with a share of a 3000-tap artisanal sugarbush operation, and we can usually trade for what I need. Last year I gave him six 24-oz jars of homemade apple butter for a 4-litre can of syrup.
And yes, it is generally calculated that it takes a cord of hardwood to produce a gallon of syrup. Sounds like a lot, and it would be...if I were not burning scrap firewood that is too crooked to fit in my wood-stove and too knot-ridden to split without a hydraulic splitter. There is some scrap in every cord of firewood; I cull it out and save it for syrup boiling.
And, before you go off about me wasting resources by burning hardwood to heat my house, understand that firewood is cut from trees that have no lumber value because they are too crooked, forked, knotty, etc., to make usable boards. If they weren't cut for firewood, these trees would likely die and rot in place or get chipped and turned into toilet paper, newsprint, or junkmail flyers.
So I compensate for my firewood usage by not buying more than one small newspaper per week and wipin' my butt with flyers sent out by the local politicians. And I use the old newspapers to wrap my garbage or start the kindling in my wood stove.
Works fer me....
Send me your address and I'll look around and see if I can spare a few spoonfuls of this year's syrup.
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Love that maple syrup!! I know of a lot of sugarbushes in Upstate NY, both owned by the Amish or Mennonites or by the other locals. After that big ice storm back in 97 or 98 it really hurt the maple trees (and all others).
I see you've started catching grief about burning wood for syrup production. I think that unless somebody has actually lived up in our regions they fail to realize just how many trees we've got up there and the abundancy of excess wood. I know many people who have foresters come in and mark trees for culling so that the better trees will flourish, I cut over 300 cord of wood one summer for a friend of mine and didn't even make a dent in his land.
I've been seeing the comments on here about the use of SYP for a building material and up home all SYP is good for is pallets, we use that in the same manner as basswood and poplar, treating it like a scrap wood. Many a forester in the northeast will tell you that clearing out the lower species of wood is better overall for the better quality woods, i.e. Oak, Maple, Cherry, Ash, etc.
Basswood is basically considered a garbage wood up there, as is ironwood, willow, poplar and the like. They create a canopy so quickly that the sunlight is choked out from the floor of the woods and the good hardwoods suffer due to this. Now before somebody jumps in on here and starts in about wasting resources like the basswoods and poplars et al., we've in the past spoken to loggers and foresters and there is no market for them whatsoever up north, consequently we cut them down and use them for nothing in particular just to open up the canopy. The stuff makes terrible firewood and provides very little heat value if you do bother to season it and use it for that.
The good hardwoods are in heavy demand up there and the ice storm was devastating, a lot of "good" trees were "topped" from the weight of the ice and it's better to burn it as firewood than to let it rot in place and provide no value at all. You can still buy a cord (not a rick) of firewood in my old stomping grounds (hardwood) for 20 to 25 bucks, and the sugarbush operators are happy at having a resource as well......If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
Hey y'all,
General comments here: I recently visited Mesa AZ, and the in-laws-to-be thought I might like to see local construction. The square footage/ house, seemed 2 to 3 times the size of a "large" tract house in Maine, although that doesn't bother me 1) if you actually use it, and 2) if, like the big Victorians and Queen Annes, you have your extended family living with you. Most of these people, however are two-parent, two-child families. What scared me was the use of wood for framing. I don't know why I'd assumed some sort of modern, reinforced adobe. What I saw were hundreds of thousands (literally, no exaggeration) of board feet, in bundles of lifts of 12, 14 and 16 foot studs. Now I know where our forests are going. Standing on a hilltop and looking out over the spread of Mesa, Phoenix, etc, I don't think I saw ONE tree worthy of use for house framing. So much for local material. On the plus side, high ceilings make for a more comfortable house in the desert, stucco everywhere is great fire-proofing, and the same for tile roofs.
My vote was excess square footage because that translates to more used-up materials, energy etc. If I got a second vote I'd have to say bad design really bothers me. If you look at the big picture, the Victorians and Queen Annes are great to look at (even if all the ornamentation is a waste of material), so they've been maintained, many for more than 100 years, which is NOT wasteful.
So maybe the ideal is good design, using local materials, which is then maintained (re-use) rather than trashed.
The scariest trend, that I just heard about on NPR, is the tearing down of, say, two 3,000 s.f. houses and their replacement with a 8,000 - 10,000 s.f. mega-house. Along with this, my fiance (interior designer) says many homeowners are beginning to regard houses as disposable.
The longevity of building is something I wanted to start on here but decided against, but now I'll talk about this some. Here I come from the northeast where lumber is in great supply, always has been and probably always will be. It's nothing to look on realtors websites in the north country and see houses for sale that are 100-125 years old and still as sound as when they were built.
Now I understand extremes in weather here but I would daresay that excluding tornadoes that the weather in the northeast is more harsh, not to mention the occasional earthquake in Upstate NY.
Houses up there were (and still are) built to last. We had all the lumber we could dream of years ago and still the homes were built to go beyond the builders lifetimes. Even with the poor economy up there for years, homes weren't cheapened up, they were still quality...stone foundations, proper use of concrete, top quality lumber, you name it. I'm not saying that they are still built as good as they were 100 years ago, but they are built better than these slapped together homes I've seen in this area, not to mention that there was character in homes up there, very seldom did you see homes that all looked alike as you do here.
It would be interesting to do a comparison on just how much lumber could be saved just by eliminating those 12/12 and steeper roofs they build down here and go to a truss roof with a more moderate pitch. Most homes i've seen up home have no more than a 6/12 pitch and we've got tremendous snow loads to deal with, not to mention ice build up and the occasional (real) ice storm......If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
Remember "Whole Earth" catalog? I remember an article in one of them once that said whatever you make from a resource should last as long as the resource you made it from--they talked about a catherdral in England built from like 300 year-old trees and that it had been standing for about 300 years.
They also mentioned that some of the beams needed to be replaced and so they asked like a forester on the property and he said that the builders had anticipated the need and had planted some trees when they built the catherdral to provide replacements! The catalog also talked about Japanese harvesting couple-hundred year old trees similar to mahogany in Australia to make newsprint from. Not a good use of a resource. So if you are using hundred year-old trees to build your house, make your house so it will last 100 years. Guess none of us have much to worry about with modern lumber that comes from trees that are so young!
My dad and I tore down a lot of barns when I was younger and there were many a tree that someone had taken an adz to and flattened one side only and used it structurally. The barns were still as solid as the day they were built, we tore them apart for the purpose of reusing the wood.Now, old barns are big business...a group up north buys old barns, numbers all the pieces and sells them to the yuppie suburbia types down near NYC, they rebuild them on site there so these people have something rustic to break up their McMansion lifestyle. They also get the old cyprus, I think it is from mushroom farms down in Pennsylvania, truck it to NYS, plane down one side and resell it, I've been told DeNiro bought a boat load of board feet of it.Those old oak 12x12's are danged heavy, but what a nice piece of lumber, for a myriad of reasons.Wonder if they'll be able to salvage any McMansions in a 100 years??? LOL!!!If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
Speaking of barns--I watched TOH Saturday. They revisited a house made from a barn (they did it 15 years ago) and the host (Steve?) says, "I'll bet this is your favorite place in the house" and waves his hand, indicating the humongous space enclosed by the barn timbers. HO's say, "Well, no, actually it's back here...." and take him back to a dining area off the kitchen. This space had 8' ceilings and was I'd guess at most 12' x 15'. The reason they liked it?--Lower ceiling and more intimate space.
So my question was, "Then why in the #### did you build a 20,000 cubic foot barn for the 'living room'?" Turns out, the husband liked to go in there on Sunday morning and crank his classical music up until it could be heard out on the road, like a quarter mile away. Whatever floats your boat, but heating that huge volume of empty space and using all that lumber so you can listen to music once a week? Talk about conspicuous consumption. Guy must light his cigars with $100 bills as well.
did you build a 20,000 cubic foot barn for the 'living room'
Well, that one started life as a real barn on the owner's property. They had discovered how much their own house would rent for, so they were "leveraging" the old barn on site to be their new house with the profits.
Which got sideways real quick--the barn not having any maintence in the time since it had been a barn. That's why they knocked it over.
I remember that they actually ran into some problems on that project that BV had to get glossed over right quick. They put in for a variance to convert the barn into a house. The variance required local nighbor approval, too. Just about "wrap" time, one of the neighbors filed an injuction against the project because the variance was for reusing the existing barn, not for erecting a brand new one. My understanding was that the city fathers liked the publicity, and swept the problem under the rug.
The current (well, rerun in my market) "barn" project still boggles my mind. They bought a pig in a suit, and are gussying up said pig no end. The original Greek-revival house pretty much is reduced to just bedrooms not really attached to anything. Then there's another suite of living spaces in the barn, and a full basement, and potential shop, under the whole thing. It's 6000 sf, and not the 50,000 cubic feet typical for 6000 sf, but closer to 75-80,000 cf. It's as big as a small bed-and-breakfast.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I remember that about the barn being in such bad shape it had to be torn down. They do some crazy things. Like when they thought they were okay on the slope of the mansard roof in London, then had to reframe it because the code required a different slope--they had to open it up and put steel in IIRC.
The monstrosity they're working on now leaves me absolutely cold. Greek Revival isn't exactly my favorite style to begin with, then to cobble it all up the way they did! They need Sarah Susanka as a consultant! I did think it was interesting how they raised the barn (maybe should have razed it!) and how they used SIP's in the part that attaches the barn to the rest of the house. I don't remember the floor plan, but it seems like at the end of the day you'd wish you'd been wearing roller skates to get around in that house! Yeah, as big as a B&B, but without any of the charm!
has actually lived up in our regions they fail to realize just how many trees we've got up there and the abundancy of excess wood.
Too true. That's also why mesquite is such a common cooking wood in Texas, too. It grows as scrub, almost like weeds; it can take over grazing land and not provide forage. It's also, short, twisted, and knotty; along with being hard on tools. In short, it's good firewood.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
one type of tree we're short on up there, at least where I'm familiar is hickory, great stuff for smoking food.
My friend I mentioned who I cut the 300 cord for was told by his forester friend that he could cut 50-100 cord a year from his 200 acres and never have to cut into his prime trees, those being the oak, maple and cherry and ash, and he could do this indefinitely. Clearing the cull trees is great for the good trees, get the canopy opened up and the real hardwoods will flourish.
Getting the chainsaw back in my hands is one treat I'm really looking forward to as soon as I get back there, with any luck it'll be by the time 1st snow flies this fall. (Halloween night)If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
is hickory, great stuff for smoking food
Makes good many things. One of my long (long, long) ago Carolina memories was going out to bend green hickory saplings to make chairbacks--and checking on the partial-bents for compass timber..Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
O.K., chair backs I understand...but what is a compass timber??Am really looking forward to buying a house up north and supplementing the oil heat with a nice airtight woodstove backup....nothing like chainsawing and then splitting wood to ease away the days tensions.....If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
That was funny Dino! Thanks for the laff!
Dont send me the syrup, send me the knotty junk wood. I'll nail it up for blocking behind the cabinets for the trimmers.
blue
send me the knotty junk wood. I'll nail it up for blocking behind the cabinets for the trimmers.
Betcha can't do it without a drill and some piffin screws. We're talking gnarly like you've never seen. Crotches, forks, bents, incarcerated stones, you name it.
Besides, that's an evil, mean, nasty, horrid, premeditated, vindictive, ghastly, and not-nice thing to do to some poor trim carp.
But they're gonna getcha, Big Blue. I read a technical article the other day about some new engineered trim material that will make it possible for the trim to be put up before the framing in the near future. It's still in the developmental stage, but it's based on the same theory as is used to sell vinyl and aluminum siding, MDF and PVC moulding, stained concrete and 'cultured' stone...which is that the look is all that counts.
So, if I understood all the technical elements of this new procedure, it's basically holographic trim. The idea is, it will give the HO a finished view of his house immediately after the contract is signed. The GC drops by the site and sets up a hologram projector running the archie's digital design files through the processor. This will project the entire finished house into thin air...and then you will have to show up and frame to the trim....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
You know what I'd really like to do?? Have the money available to build a victorian style house right in the middle of one of the McMansion burbs and see what kind of grief I got from the zoning board on down...think they'd allow it?? God forbid you actually designed a house that was both elegant and functional as well.....I am trying to figure out how I'd live without one of those space wasting 12/12 pitch roofs though.........If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
You know what I'd really like to do?? Have the money available to build a victorian style house right in the middle of one of the McMansion burbs and see what kind of grief I got from the zoning board on down...think they'd allow it?? God forbid you actually designed a house that was both elegant and functional as well.....
If you can find a McMansionville which is not subject to deed covenants as to architectural control, you might get a away with it...if you had enough money to keep the lawyers happy for a few years too, LOL.
I have often thought of creating my own controlled-architecture subdivision...wherein it would be I who decided what would be allowed. Whoo-ee! Power trip! Yah! Lessee...lots of 5 acres minimum; 1% maximum structure footprint; minimum 70% natural forest coverage; no vinyl, aluminum, or Canexwel siding; no fake design features (no blind decorative dormers or stepped rooflines over unitized interior space, for instance)....
I have also thought of buying an island and declaring it to be a new country with me as King Dino the First and Last. (Then in the morning, I take a couple of Motrin for the hangover and fasten my seat belt as I drive to work carefully respecting the speed limit....)
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
5 acres minimum; 1% maximum structure footprint; minimum 70% natural forest coverage
Well, probably ought to include a requirement for potential buyers to demonstrate some knowledge of animal husbandry and/or crop management <g> (if you can't make rules, what point in being le Roi?)
Curiously enough, that sounds rather close to the requirements FLW set out for his Usonian townships. I want to remember that his minimum lot size was two acres, to provide for self-sufficient farming per house.
But then, a Usonian house (particularly a flat-out copy) would be near impossible to build in too many subdivs, McMansioned or not.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Curiously enough, that sounds rather close to the requirements FLW set out for his Usonian townships.
Oh, man, I have arrived!!--being compared to FLW, LOL....
(OTOH, FLW might be spinnin' like a top at being compared to me....)
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Oh, man, I have arrived!!--being compared to FLW, LOL
Well, it was a strinking (to me) similarity in outlook & declared plans.
You're not allowed to run off with loose wimmins, though, I imagine.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
You're not allowed to run off with loose wimmins, though, I imagine.
I allus thot ya were supposed to like yer wimmens tight....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
ya were supposed to like yer wimmens tight
Come on now, what men want has nothing to do with it--just ask any woman. There are few things that can rile a tied down (as in not loose--as in free) woman like one that is not. Especially arounf "her" man (whether real or imaginary).
The sordidness of FLW's life having little to do with some of his better ideas.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
The sordidness of FLW's life having little to do with some of his better ideas.
Whew! I was worried there I was gonna hafta get sordid to cement my new genius reputation.... <G> ;-)~
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Do your roofs leak?
is this a McMansion?Big image big house
Yes.
It's a very nice McMansion. Not one that I'd move into, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that would like that one.
My criticisms: I am not fond of that garage dormer. I also don't like dutch hips. I also prefer more detailed brickwork.
blue
Here's one typical of our area:
http://www.mlsb.com/mls/detail.cfm?cid=943&list_numb=50059461&list=6&type=sfrIt's a huge house but all garage from the street, lacking any true architectural style, bland rear facade, and has all the features a listing agent could dream of but is completely forgettable."A completed home is a listed home."
amazin and build on a slab toois that a kitchen or a basketball court?
Edited 7/18/2005 8:05 pm ET by wain
Looks like Tony Soprano's house!I was amazed it was less than 5000 sf. Looked like it should be lots more. Deceptive.
Lisa: so how would that house look with a beautiful 4/12 roof, no hipped returns, no garage.
Lets just put a flat roof on all of it.
blue
Blue - I'm not categorically opposed to big houses or steep roofs or even garages in the front of the house. I didn't vote for the "larger than necessary" choice because I have no idea who would get to decide what "necessary" means.But have a look at another example:
http://www.mlsb.com/mls/detail.cfm?cid=943&list_numb=50060801&list=6&type=sfrGarage is in the front, but doors are inobtrusive and the garage facade blends beautifully. The house maintains a certain style throughout. (In this case I think it would be something like French country, which isn't even one of my favorite styles, but they carried it off very well). There is exterior and interior architectural detail that holds together. We can't see the rear elevation, but apparently it does have a rear balcony so I imagine the rear detail continues the style of the front. The rooms still look large, but don't give that bowling alley feel. The huge kitchen does have a large eat-in bar along the long side of the island, which I bet gets a lot of use. It's in the same area, same size and price range, but just looks much better designed.I guess that's my least favorite building trend - expensive houses that poorly designed homes."A completed home is a listed home."
these two listings refer to the sewer as "in and connected"I guess the "connected" part is a real sales feature!!!!!!!
lacking any true architectural style
Some classic MM details, too. The huge by dimension kitchen, that actually has barely enough room for one person. The "family room" with the "oh yeah, we're 'sposed'ta have a fireplace in'er" focus (leaving no place for the American family's real focus, the tv . . . )
The high ceilings, but with out any mouldings to provide scale (and made even blander with the white-on-white-on-white paint schem) are also typical.
Nice touch to have the single/double garage door--where just using three singles might actually stand out for being different.
The bumpout on the bumpout that "sits" on the garage roof is a nice touch, too. A million and a half just doesn't buy what it used to.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
is this a McMansion?
It's close.
It's too well detailed in some areas (the brickwork around the windows is particularly elegant).
The "proving point" is the not visible, details like proper flashing, IWS in correct locations, etc.
Now, the upper roof draining onto the small roof right over the front door, and what looks like a very tight (as in hard to do) flashing situation at that window just over the door, have that "look."
The roof line & mass is really far too simple for a true MM.
Knock 1100 sf off the plan and call it a "starter," then it'd be much closer.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Do your roofs leak?
Nope, why? Did his?
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
FLW supposedly said that if your roofs don't leak you didn't try hard enough, or they're too much like walls or something to that effect. His buildings were notorious for roof leaks.
FLW supposedly said that if your roofs don't leak you didn't try hard enough, or they're too much like walls or something to that effect. His buildings were notorious for roof leaks.
Man, there's a living just waiting to be made for a specialist in de-leaking FLW roofs. Imagine how much premium you could charge for working only on such renowned structures....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
At risk of being offensive, I'll say that Victorians weren't exactly efficient houses--rooms that were seldom used; small, dark spaces, pretty much non-functional kitchens and baths, servants quarters and so on. IMO, Victorians would have quite a bit in common with "McMansions". I guess I'm not so much "against" big houses as I am against waste of resources or inefficient use of space, but like has been pointed out, I am not, nor should anyone else be, the arbiter of good taste or the one to determine what is wasteful. I sort of like Queen Anne style, though such houses are fussy and not terribly efficient. I just like the quaintness and the turrets and shingles and ornament. (Probably wouldn't build one though, but I might incorporate some of the features into a house I would build.)
I agree with that as well....what I was referring to (and should have stated), was the exterior design of the home itself is the look I wanted. Most all of the old design had wasted space and I would modernize the interior..I've just always liked the look of the outside and it would be a far cry from the MM's I see in every division down here.......If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
Yes, some of those Victorians are gorgeous with all the gingerbread, railings, porches and wonderful color schemes--love the old "painted ladies".
Yeah...I know for the most part the style was boxy for the most part...but I'm so sick of seeing the cut to blazes roofs on MM's and all that wasted space..there's thousands of them in the Metro area, nothing different in the lot and for the most part of the ones I've been in, only about 4-5 different floor plans with some minor variations.It's like individualism and personal preference taste has been foregone because they're all building the same deal....a 1/4 acre plot, a 10 by 20 back yard, 10 feet from your neighbors garage..the sub-D's all look the same, is this what people really want?? Can it actually be that nobody cares to break the status quo and just settle for what everyone else has??Dinosaur touched on all the wasted materials in one of these MM's, I almost ahte to admit I never even looked at it from that perspective but he's right...I just looked at it from the viewpoint of our losing our right to be different in our own way....the way it's going we may as well all succumb to being just another faceless entity.....everybody alike......kinda sucks...If you aren't one of the one's I'm talking about,you shouldn't have any complaints....
It's like individualism and personal preference taste has been foregone because they're all building the same deal....a 1/4 acre plot, a 10 by 20 back yard, 10 feet from your neighbors garage..the sub-D's all look the same, is this what people really want??
I used to drive from Grand Haven to Holland on US-31 along the coast of Lake Michigan. It was sickening to see the two ribbons of 1/4 acre lots each side of the highway. Each house close enough to practically shake hands out the window with the neighbors, each with nice Kentucky bluegrass lawns they fertilized way too much to get grass to grow on sand dune and then poured thousands of gallons of potable water on these showcase lawns, washing half the fertilizer into the lake to help promote algae growth that leads to eutrofication. Each house alike, blocking any view of the lake.
They do the same up near where I live now on a teeny impoundment lake that is more like a wide spot in a river. The aquatic weeds choke out the lake and then people want the government to do something about the deplorable state of the lake. People insist that they all have approved septic fields and aren't poluting the lake with sewage, but those nutrients don't just evaporate! (In this case, I guess you could say, the lake is what you eat.) And, of course they all have to have a lawn that would do a Scott's commercial proud. Natural vegitation like what grew around the lake before people built houses on it would never be considered. And like someone else mentioned, all those fast growing, well fertilized lawns have to be cut--usually with riding gas powered mowers. Well, I think the Sun King said it best when he said, "After me, the deluge!" Or in modern parlance, "I got mine!" (I think the English expression is "I'm all right, Jack!")
Careful Danno, don't let some of the folks in here know that you like gingerbread. Like steep roofs, it's a waste of resources.
blue
While being humorous, you do make a valid point that may provoke further discussion--at what point is doing something you like, or enjoying a product or feature of a house (or anything else, for that matter) worth the added cost, inefficiency, or wastefulness?
I never got into snowmobiling and see it as a waste of gas, but don't quarrel too much with people who enjoy doing it. Same could be said about power boating, racing cars or motorcycles, etc.. I guess it becomes a choice we each make--trade offs between doing things to live a pleasant life and sitting in the cold darkness because it's "gentlest" to the environment. Some famous (so famous I can't remember his name) pacifist died of cancer because he said he wouldn't have it removed because it had as much right to live as he did. Seemed a little short sighted because as soon as the man died, the cancer lost its host and died too.
Exactly Danno!
Were all going to drift into the Sun some day, and everything will be vaporized. When I figured that out, I quit worrying about everything and started enjoying this earth!
blue
Re: "given a sufficient budget it is now possible to use mass media advertising and marketing techniques to create a demand for a product which is totally unnecessary and even damn near worthless in the final analysis."Look into the history of the DeBeers diamond syndicate. Diamonds are near useless. Commercial diamonds, the useful ones, are relatively cheap, plentiful and easy to make. The gem quality stones are more common than the market lets on. Debeers buying out of most new fields and virtually the entire production of competitors production, made possible at reduced price as DeBeers can ruin their market by dumping a fraction of its production, is a matter of record. Largely there is no market. No supply and demand. Demand has never reached the supply levels. The illusion of a market is maintained by massive warehousing of diamonds, the creation of more exotic grading systems and generation of demand by product placement and advertising. It, as I remember it, started in the 20s and included the loaning of jewelry to 'stars'. A mutually reinforcing deal which increased their glamor and apparent wealth while transferring glamor from the stars onto the stones. The part where the stars gave back the jewelry was not widely advertised.The whole concept of love being expressed in terms of a diamonds and some number of months salary being the standard is a logo dreamed up by DeBeers advertising executives.During WW2 DeBeers sold, at extra mark up, the diamonds the allies, who were protecting the economic system that DeBeers was taking advantage of, needed to maintain production weapons and machinery. In a monopoly situation they could demand blood. Ignoring the fact that Hitler wouldn't resist sending in Stormtroopers to take what he needed. DeBeers knew the allies would not use such force.
Your comments are--as usual--very much on point, because I believe most if not all of the desire for McMansions comes from the same phenomenon of people learning to want what they see 'the stars' as having. And what television and Hollywood have presented to the populace as 'the way to live well' is--no surprise here--all flash and facade.
Well, that's fine for a television or movie set as long as it looks good. No one sees the back side of the flats, or really has to live in it, and it's not exposed to the weather. If it leaks, or falls down, or costs too much to heat or cool, it doesn't matter...the director will just call CUT and do another take.
Real life isn't like that...although the way some segments of society buy and sell 'homes' every few years could make you think they believe otherwise....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
Along the lines of marketing and what Hollywood is pushing, I was surprised when I saw an interview with an actor (don't remember who it was though) who said worse than the sex and violence in movies is the fairytail romantic mythology the movies espouse. People think that love is like in the movies (even the "stars" seem to believe it--look at how many marry the leading man or woman from the last movie they made together) only to find out that real life isn't that way.
The DeBeers family is truly a piece of work. When they found that the native Africans didn't particularly care to work the mines (real surprise there, hey?) and didn't need to because they could subsist by farming, DeBeers somehow got the government to tax the land and the farmers were unable to pay, so they had to come to the mines to make the money to pay the tax. Sweet. Fine bunch of folks, DeBeers.
so they had to come to the mines to make the money
And where that didn't work, they imported Indians.
I read somewhere, that the average emerald is 14 times rarer than most gem-quality diamonds. Yet the retail price for a diamond is higher than for emeralds.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"Actually my least favorite is 2 story foyers. The big circle top windows with the chandelier....they're everywhere. McMansions....."
I couldn't agree more, Jocobe!
Great poll Ruth!
My least favorite, Is these open floor plans. Kitchens that open into a small dining area then into a L/R wit no boundaries other than maybe the flooring and the way the new Mcmasions here are being layeed out at a angle to the street in order to cram more homes in a lot.....
Ive seen them where they used the same set scaffolding set up between 2 homes b/c they were so close to each other...
Caution: This message may contain "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) or other "sensitive information" is not intended for non-official disclosure. Do not disseminate this message, except to persons who require it for official Breaktime purposes, without the approval of the individual originating this message or other authorized official of the Taunton University. If you received this message in error, please delete it.
Mine would be unecessary height to go with the excess footprint.
That 19 x 26 formal dining room is a tad oppressive with an 8' ceiling, but the 23' ceiling is not helping, either.
I keep seeing these creatures built with a 10' plate height, all for two rooms on the only floor.
(You just haven't lived until you've taken a tour of the model home with the toilet room in the master suite's bathroom that is 3 x 6 x 10' tall . . . )
Or a powder room of similar dimensions. With a corner vanity of course.
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted it done the right way.
Anything 'good on paper' but executed with no real thought.
The same grand foyer without the simplest coat closet.
3 bedroom home of 'average' size....but 6 baths, 4 showers, 8 lavs, 3 bidets and huge compromises everywhere else to stuff em in.
Bedroom-level laundries that are (literally) nothing but appliances off the main hallway (often unsafely designed, to match disruptive).
A large footprint home and yet not one spot on the entire ground level without a direct view of the dirty dishes.
The same grand foyer without the simplest coat closet.
Which is usually at the end of a 40'or 60' long walk from the curb, so all visitors really park in the driveway, and come to the side or back door anyway. Which neatly derails any need for a coat closet--all the coats are in the mudroom or on the breakfast table.
Maybe if a person had a doorman to greet guests . . .
But, then those guests would need to be able to drive up to the door in some fashion, too.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
This was a tough one for me to answer because several of those bug me. However, the clincher phrase for me was the 'more square footage than necessary'. Well I guess if I am the supreme decider of what is necessary for the rest of the world then that bugs me the most. Seems like much over 3,000 is just way too much for the average family. But who am I to judge? Other posters think everything over 1000 sq ft is too much - but we couldn't have fit our pool table in our house if we only had that much space (not unless we piled all the mattresses on it and made the house one giant room plus kitchen, shower in the yard!) On the opposite end of the spectrum, folks around here have 5 to 10 kids and 3,000 sq ft is just enough to line the twin beds up on the floor and still open the bedroom door.
So I had to pick the multiple shower heads - water is such a precious commodity around here that to waste it like that bugs.
All of the above and, my pet peeve, excessive outdoor flood lights, tree lights, yard lanterns, and gaudy fixtures that beam hundreds of watts into adjacent yards. Some of us like to sit outside and enjoy a dark, starry sky. Others seem to think that we need to look at their stucco facades, landscaping, and faux entry columns day and night.
I voted for 'Great Rooms' because the very term offends the snot outta me. It is so pretentiously ostentatious that it oughta be banned from use for any building smaller than Windsor Castle....
For the other choices:
I would have voted for 'More square footage than is necessary'...but I considered that one as so undesireable as to be taken for granted. The poll results so far prove this point.
Haven't got a clue what 'Palladian' windows are; sounds like a bastardization of the word palladium. I don't think I like the sound of it in connection with residential construction, though....
Kitchen islands can be functional items if well designed integrally with the entire kitchen floor plan and not used as an architectural statement (unfortunately that's how most of them are used, tsk tsk tsk...).
You wanna steam bath in your house? No problem; as long as you intend to use the danged thing. If it's just another statement about how chic yer joint is, I'll install one but I'll charge you double so you'll feel twice as superior....
Granite paving in a kitchen ought to be pretty durable. As long as the rest of the house is designed to hold it up until it dies, I have no beef with that. Same as slate, or any other stone. Ceramic/porcelain tiles are, after all, mankind's attempt to imitate stone for paving purposes....
I'm not a big fan of modular framing--if by that you mean pre-fabbed framing units built on jigs in 'house factories' and delivered by float and erected by crane. I recognize that my attitude is unreasonable in some ways, because the controlled environment of a factory should theoretically result in squarer, flatter, and more consistent framing modules. But 'consistent' is how MacDo and Howard Johnson's made their billions...not with top quality. And just because a wall is square to ¼" in 32 feet and flat to the same tolerance, doesn't mean it's well-built or that the finished house will be. It just means it was square and flat when it left the factory....
Ah, well, you're dealing with a Dinosaur here, after all, heh, heh, heh....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
That was a great post. I loved it.
The part about "charging him double so he can feel twice as superior" was a classic.
Couldn't agree with you more Dino, all around.
Thanks. You've made my day (and it's been a helluva...).
But I'm more than half serious about most of that; I consider people who waste resources to boost their egos as socio-economipaths. Since the 'fakers' who run this world have long ago discovered the easiest way to control somebody's behaviour is to hit 'em in the pocketbook, it behooves us 'makers' to keep that in mind when confronted by such yuppified environmental gangsterism....
Dinosaur
A day may come when the courage of men fails,when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship...
But it is not this day.
My pet peeve along with Dinosaurs', are the excessively cut up roofs; gable over gable offset over another gable all alongside a couple of gable dormers that lay on the roof over the attic and do nothing but create excessive flashing, trim and siding details that, just out of sheer quantity, create increased maintenance, potential leaks, little catch basins for trapping leaves or shaded areas for moss, and little hard-to-get-at soffet areas that invite yellow jackets.
I'm in a clime that gets a bit of rain in winter, and all the short gutter lines from the above end up being asked to handle bucketloads of water, so the gutters and downspouts have to be oversized which, if the designer or archy that created the mess didn't pick up on it in the beginning, the builder and HO may have to deal with some scale issues to make the building look right.
I don't mind building these features, but they still irk me and I'll be happy to see them go the way of leisure suits.
Good point about the roofs--I used to call them "mountain range roofs" when I had to help frame them. PITA to build, and like you say, real maintenance problems down the road. We also had a lot of "inlet" dormers, instead of sticking out, were dented into the roof. Try to keep those watertight--especially in snow country where it gives a perfect place for drifts to pile up against the windows.
Another pet peeve of mine is when the developer goes in and flattens what few hills and valleys there may have been (and in the Saginaw Valley that is very few!) as well as bulldozing every tree and then having the shattered trees carted away to a landfill. Two churches here recently raped about a hundred acres between them doing this. But they have real nice parking lots. I'm sure that's what God had in mind. I think He planned on knocking down all the trees on the eightth day, so when we all obeyed the Sabbath we'd have places to park our SUV's. He just didn't get around to it, so being good stewards, it is up to us.
'Great Rooms' because the very term offends the snot outta me.
Dumb part is that the usage (at least seems to me) comes from havign to put a name on a floor plan for the "real" (has a tv) "living room"--as opposed to that empty "parlour" that mostly is good for storing Aunt Nellie's pretty, not-for-sitting-upon heirloom furniture . . .
Haven't got a clue what 'Palladian' windows are
I had not seen them advertized locally as a "feature," so the entry in the poll kind of surprised me. The term comes from an architect named Palladio, who brought the Rennasiance to Manor house architecture in England in the beforetimes. It's a three window group in a 1 2 1 sizing, with an arched top window in the middle. It's a sophisitcated sort of architectural detail--not the sort of thing I'd expect to see from a "builder's plans" McMansion.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Palladians....
where I have worked (Eastern half of Canada), 'Palladian' is short-hand for a big, fancy, arched window, usually over the front entry.....may or may not have sidelites, may or may not be built according to genuine Palladian stylistic references, but noone seems too concerned about correct usage.....but common usage among carpenters, millworkers, window manufacturers, and window coverings people. When I ran a small plant making interior shutters, for example, the sales people were always bringing me 'Palladians' to build. Seems to be the same in the west too.cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, N.S
I voted for more square footage than necessary, but my pet pieve is the 2 story foyer. Although the two usually go together.
Here in NJ it seems that no one is building anything smaller than 4-5K sq.ft. I've worked on a few, and just find them to be just monuments to someone's ego. And I hate running crown on those 2 story foyers. I don't like working that high.
From my perspective as an HO living in an old house, my list would go something like this:1) Garages with more square footage than my house.2) Brick on the front and vinyl everywhere else. Reminds me of an old Hollywood set where the buildings were just facades and nothing more.3) Windows out the wazoo on the front and back facades, then only one (or often none) on the two side exposures.4) Columns, posts and other assorted exterior details that are completely out of scale with the rest of the house. I often wonder who the hell is designing these things. From the looks of many around here, it sure isn't an architect.Of course, as much as I hate most new homes I would kill for insulated walls and a basement with a ceiling height greater than my forehead.
Are you insane????? My ideal house would be the 5000sq/ft garage with attached bath and bedroom....hell, scrap the bath and bed, just park an RV in the corner and I'm GOOD TO GO.
To much garage...huh...are you a guy or what?...We need a system to check here!
Great point Kieth! There's no such thing as a "too big" garage.
I also mostly agree with Blue, I don't have a problem with most of the things on the list, with the exception of the granite countertops. Why would you have any type of stone or masonry material in your kitchen? Do you really enjoy cleaning up broken glass every time you set a plate or cup down a little hard? At least with other flooring and countertop materials you have somewhat of a chance that the glass you drop will just bounce and not break.
Although I have to agree with you on granite and marble in the kitchen, which has no advantage as far as I can tell, I love soapstone, which has been used in farmhouses in New England for 100's of years; it wears and ages like wood but handles heat and doesn't stain. What's not to like?
Old farmhouses tend to have at least a soapstone sink; hey, it's even an historically correct, local material (though much is now imported from Brazil, I know).
Even granite and marble have there place in the kitchen. Check out a Cold Stone Creamery or pastry kitchen for some highly appropriate applications of marble and granite.
It's the lack of moderation and imagination that's unattractive.
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
very true, I was speaking of the masses of granite countertops used to keep pizza boxes off of the floor in the modern yuppie kitchen-
Marble's great, especially if you want to make fudge in your kitchen! ;-)
I sure agree about that vinyl stuff, sure makes a $500,000 house look cheap.
Too much of that fake stucco around the Philly area, seems like it all has some kinda mold growing on it too. I call the stuff Sticko to reflect the difference from the real thing.
"too small" windows ...
with no budget left for actual exterior window trim.
Jeff
Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
I was torn, there wasn't really anything on the list I didn't like so I least liked Modular for no reason in particular. I hope this will not skew the results.
What I least like, and I wouldn't call trends,(just poor design) are large sq/ft features squeezed into homes that cannot accomodate them.
The monstrous center stairway that leads to nothing special.
8'-0" doors combined with 3'-06" hallways.
Windows that have more sq/ftg than the room they occupy (and no view), Is this palladium?
French exterior doors off a second floor bedroom without a balcony or deck.
To name a few.
pet peeve ...... the Architect / GC / HO.........
"its not on your prints but...............concrete's comin' at 1:30"
heated snow ski closet in a heated garage.........in Chicago !
Palladian window
pa LAY dee n
Also called Venetian window, serlianaA window with a central arched section flanked by two narrow rectangular sectionsNamed after Andrea Palladio, 1508-1580, an Italian Renaissance architect. Palladianism was revived in England in the early 18th century by Lord Burlington and Colen Campbell and influenced American architecture in the late 18th century. Thomas Jefferson's Monticello and the University of Virginia are two examples of Palladian influence.In Greek Revival style, Palladian windows evolve into rectangular tripartite forms.Found in Beaux Arts Classicism, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Federal, Georgian Revival, Neoclassicism, Shingle, Queen Anne stylesSee also an example of a Palladian door
A person with no sense of humor about themselves is fullashid
I get a real kick when some designer puts one of these $2000+ windows in a garage! i suppose they use insulated glass too! Well it does look better than having the garage door facing the street.
One of the many things that peeves me about McMansion subdivisions is what I call house butts. Around here the farm land is being consumed by housing developments, usually a mini- street systems contained within thoroughfares. Access via one or two entries.
The houses are built with interest in curb appeal only... rock facades, superfluous rooflines, varying depths...looks good from the street, must be good, right? The rub comes from the view outside the subdivision. Big slabby expanses of cheapo siding, all one color, a few windows and towering rooflines... ugly house butts! PJ
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
"The houses are built with interest in curb appeal only... rock facades, superfluous rooflines, varying depths...looks good from the street, must be good, right?"LOL - that nails 90% of the new construction in my neck of the woods (W. CO). It's all fake stucco and cultured-stone, with styro columns in the front. I had to laugh yesterday when I saw a crew adding giant (c-stone), river-rock "boulders" to the front gable of a portico that was only about 8-feet wide. If these were real rocks, they would weigh hundreds of pounds each, and the effect was silly. Maybe I'll start a magazine called "Murdered Architecture" with featured homes and interviews with some of the purveyors of this blight that's sweeping the country. The possibilities are endless...
The dearth of well-built but affordable starter homes.
Very true !
I voted for more square footage than is necessary but I would really like to vote for any of the above done incorrectly. It should be noted that every single item on that list can be done right and thrill my socks off.
Then again whadda-I-know? I live in a house with seven gables, one hip, 2 different roof pitches, a kitchen island, 4 arched top windows, a garage out front (side entry) and the same number of bathrooms as bedrooms. You come in the front door and you are at the base of the staircase with a toilet on your right, a shower on your left and an 8 foot ceiling over your head. And just to contradict my own vote, the truth is that we lived just fine in a 300 square foot cabin for two and a half years while I built it so it's probably more square footage than we actually "need" too.
All those screw-ups and the only feature a few of the good people on this forum have chided me about, is the glass block smiley face on the front facade. It's one of my favorite features. <G>
If we fail to catch a cosmic fish it may be a trillion years before the opportunity comes again
Well, I'll confess that many 'McMansions' lack aesthetic appeal. Unpleasing proportions and such.
But I sense that most of the folks who rant against them are not objecting to that. The arguments seem to be about whether these buyers 'need' all that space. Since when was meeting one's basic needs what humans strive for? I'll argue that folks should be free to do whatever they want with their hard earned money. Don't like it, don't build one, don't buy one. It's not your property.
Other forces drive the trend. In our region, the new houses are huge mostly because vacant land is so scarce (market force), and minimum lot sizes are large (non-market force). Builders have to get the 'highest and best' use out of every lot. If zoning laws allowed higher density, smaller houses would be built.
Another factor is the high fixed overhead of building any home. Modern materials and building methods make it possible to build a large structure for a relatively low incremental cost when compared to a small structure. In other words, the marginal cost for incremental square footage is quite low, therefore it becomes cost-efficient to build a larger structure. Much of the fixed cost of building a home is tied up in the land, kitchens, bathrooms, heating/cooling equipment, permits, getting crews to the site... Adding raw square footage does not proportionally increase these costs.
"Other forces drive the trend. In our region, the new houses are huge mostly because vacant land is so scarce (market force), and minimum lot sizes are large (non-market force). Builders have to get the 'highest and best' use out of every lot. If zoning laws allowed higher density, smaller houses would be built."
You hit at least one nail right on the head with that statement. Where I live, you need 10 acres minimum to build just one house & several streets over you need 5. Plus when you add in the fact that the Pinelands commision has put over a million acres totally off limits in central & southern NJ, land prices are through the roof. If a builder has to shell out $300K just for the lot, why is he going put a 1000 sq ft house on it? There's no chance for any profit there.
Plus (as is mentioned in another thread) banks are going to be less likely to finance a house where the lot is 80% of the home's value. (The reason being that in the event of a fire or something, the HO's insurance policy is only going to cover the cost to build the house regardless of the amount of coverage the HO purchases - ideally the bank wants the insurance payoff to be able to cover the remaining balance on the loan).
In South Jersey, all the area's with minimum lot sizes (as dictated by Pinelands) have "McMansions", all the area's without government restrictions (designated as growth areas), have traditionallly sized houses.
** the insurance thing is one issue that really bugs me. You are required by lenders to purchase a HO policy for at least the amount of the loan - even though that amount will never be paid out in the event of a disaster. It's just wasted money.
Edited 7/15/2005 1:24 pm ET by Johnny
I voted for the "too big", but there is another trend that is not on your list.
BONUS ROOMS.
Actually I have no objection to the idea of making GOOD use of space that is otherwised wasted.
However, more often than not good use is not made of the space. It is just space that is finished without any concern about the usage and more important the utilities, specially HVAC.
And it ain't a BONUS.
I have never seen a builder say that after you sign a contract for a 2400 sq ft house that they are actually going to give you a BONUS of an extra 300 sq ft and not charge for it.
I love "bonus" rooms!
Heres a pic of one I did up north on some resort property that I rent out. The bonus room is basically just a playroom for kids. I'd want one if I was a kid.
I'm not quite done yet.
blue
I am a little surprised at the overwhelming selection by members against the More square footage than is necessary vote option. To me, it should be noted that SqFt alone is not necessarily a story in and of itself.
I see track builders around me slapping up 4, 5, and 6 bedroom homes. What the heck? Worse yet, lenders seem to buy into the 'family' is the only mortgage-worthy homebuyer.
My wife and I are empty-nesters. We thought we were an anomaly considering our ages at the time we bought a house (30-something), but then met several people in our own community that were from 20-something to 50-something with no kids to their names.
Yet, if one compares the notion of ease in getting a mortgage when comparing and contrasting the common 3-4 bedroom home with 2000 SqFt vs. a 2-bedroom home with workshop and home theater covering 2500 SqFt, the mortgage lender will rapidly take the first one.
And its impossible to find a wealth of custom builders willing to take on $150K starter home projects in two-bedroom style homes vs. $180K family homes. I know, because I've looked, and most custom builders would rather build for biggest budgets first than cheapest.
So, while the wife and I have no kids, don't care to have kids, etc., for us we could never find a custom builder for our budget regardless of how much (little) SqFt we were willing to consider. The whole idea of a <$300K home in Atlanta suburbs that is 'custom' to empty nesters is a joke.
Anyone building in this $200-500K range is building track homes of downtown lofts & condos. If I want a 25x35 home theater as the center of my custom home and with only two bedrooms, I will first have a hard time finding a custom builder to come into my budget ($300K), even though they are not outfitting the theater, and then another problem finding a mortgage lender willig to offer a decent rate like those 'family' homes.
As such, its easy to see why track builders can offer ever-increasing sized 'family' homes because they are the easiest to sell based on the fact that they are the easiest to get a mortgage on. Whole would want to give me a 5% mortgage on a 3000 SqFt two-bedroom home? No one. But if it had 5 bedrooms then everyone under the sun would give me a great mortgage, even though I have no kids.
There are honest reasons for racking up square footage in a home. I don't fear the square footage (builders might since it means more materials, either in foundation, mechanicals, or sticks. And yes, I've already taken to removing load-bearing walls to create bigger spaces because I had to buy a 'family' home.
Sucks to not be wealthy.
There certainly are places where affordable starter/empty-nest homes and thoughtful higher density are desireable but just don't materialize. But builders (even lenders) don't bear all the blame for wasteful McMansions of questionnable quality.
Municipalities contribute as they want to grab the wealthiest potential buyers to the tax base and don't want to approve smaller units for fear of creating a less covetted community. They want to 'look rich'. But then all communities in a greater urban area do the same thing and nobody offers real choice unless there is effective whole-region planning (bloody rare). Price point diffs only come with corner-cutting. Current residents elect their municipal officials, and challenge dense developments directly, so they share the blame. Then is the natural human desire to get more for ones money. Everyone wants the maximum quality of life at the cheapest price NOW. As urban areas spread, each new wave of people buy a more impressive home than their parents could dream of, at a deferred cost. The discount comes from poor quality, and from buying at the extreme edge of current sprawl. They reap short-term benefit from not paying full cost of services and roads - but they sure pay later. Then, each wave is strangely surprised and offended when another community springs up beyond them - built on the same motivations. They no longer enjoy the greenspace they didn't spend to protect; their commute becomes a crawl because they weren't willing to price of either building or taking transit, or by merely living with the density they grew up in.
Not claiming virtue here. I've merely been living in neighbourhoods which were the urban sprawl zones of the 20s or post-war. And the fact that we use two incomes and a mortgage to the end of time to buy some quality of life within the subway zone only contributes to price and debt escalation. And while our strong infill/reno market feeds the economy and improves density, it further reduces affordability. And the cycle of life continues.....ah me.
>I am a little surprised at the overwhelming selection by members against the More square footage than is necessary vote option. To me, it should be noted that SqFt alone is not necessarily a story in and of itself.Agreed. I guess "than is necessary" depends on one's perspective. I have more sf than typical, and by a fair amt, but we're pretty constantly using all of it. At the same time, I compared utilities to an acquaintance in an apt 1/6th of our house size, and his utilities are > 10% HIGHER!Also, the construction methods used in my house should help it last at least 3 times the lifespan of the typical frame house here. So while I used more raw materials, they're also getting a longer useful life by 3.So...what really is "necessary"? Size alone isn't what matters...double-entendre intended. :)
I honestly cannot stand kitchens with Islands. I have done my share of construction and home remodeling, but am also a chef and much prefer the line kitchen. I can get to the prep area, sink, refrigerator, range and oven simply by turning and taking one or two steps. I have prepared meals for twenty-five in my kitchen and served them in my well planned ding room. It is totally open to the kitchen and my guests can gather there to converse.
I wonder about folks who want their kitchens the size of a good-sized living room--must like to get their exercise by using the kitchen! (I guess then you could burn off the calories you are consuming there! "Let's see, five laps around the kitchen to make that cake, now I've burned enough calories to eat three helpings!")