Do you like modern houses?

[Brian]

I do not mind modern but sadly newer homes are built like tinder boxes. Best period for me is Art Deco period with appropriate interior.

 

[mhardy6647]

2's nice (sort of pseudo "Arts and Crafts"); 7's OK as contemporaries go -- the McMansions (5,6) are hideous (as they tend to be) -- did they come with Audis or BMWs in the garages?
All in all, though, none is really to my taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I like the one we had built.
http://connorbuilding.com/


DSC_9825 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

EDIT: The WSJ had an interesting article on "new old homes" back in January. The link appears to still work: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802904579334594166856188

EDIT^2: Our son-in-law's parents live in a real (Sears) Craftsmen house, installed in the early 1900s, in Hanover, NH. It is an interesting home featuring some beautiful woodwork.

 

[KeninDC]

Exactly! A 4000+ sf bungalow, four square, farmhouse, prairie style, that in no way built to the quality of the originals. It is really sad to see perfectly good homes being torn down for this.

Exactly. A 4000+ sf house can no longer be called a "bungalow." My Arlington, VA bungalow was 900 sf of crowded bliss.

I grew up with my mom and dad (both w/ architect degrees) critiquing just about every building we drove past.

Modern, with "earthy" construction materials (wood, stones, boulders, endangered Galapagos turtle shells, etc.) is all the rage in the expensive DC suburb I work in now. When modern becomes this flashy, it adds a layer of pretense.

 

[Mrheem]

True 'modern' design is beautiful and timeless. What we are getting now, more and more, are representations of higher end hotel rooms that reflect where most of the homeowners of this style spend most of their time. The outsides look like glorified garages with their sloped roofs and deliberately ugly exteriors that mimic unfinished sheds... As Bernie of Game, Set and Match fame commented: " They look like they were designed by architects who left the radio on..."

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

2's nice (sort of pseudo "Arts and Crafts"); 7's OK as contemporaries go -- the McMansions (5,6) are hideous (as they tend to be) -- did they come with Audis or BMWs in the garages?
All in all, though, none is really to my taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I like the one we had built.
http://connorbuilding.com/


DSC_9825 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

EDIT: The WSJ had an interesting article on "new old homes" back in January. The link appears to still work: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802904579334594166856188

EDIT^2: Our son-in-law's parents live in a real (Sears) Craftsmen house, installed in the early 1900s, in Hanover, NH. It is an interesting home featuring some beautiful woodwork.

That is a very good looking house.

 

[mhardy6647]

It's no nonsense, and it fits in with the area (northern New England)

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

Here's my motivation behind this thread - I'm designing a house for my wife and me. We're looking at 1,900 square feet, with four bedrooms, two baths, no formal living, no formal dining, no powder room. The current design doesn't even have a foyer. The idea is to be as efficient as is feasible. It's also designed to fit between five existing mature trees on a lot that is 7,500 square feet.

Here's an animation of the current design in SketchUp:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2951765/AK photos/Houses/2014 House - 3d - 2014-06-07.avi

 

[usedto]

The idea is to be as efficient as is feasible. It's also designed to fit between five existing mature trees on a lot that is 7,500 square feet.

Since your're asking, I'll throw in my two cents.

It sounds like more of a bunkhouse than a home. 1900 square feet with nothing but beds and breakfast. That's fine and dandy if you plan to live there forever, but there is nothing in that plan that will attract potential buyers if you ever decide to move on.

I'm guessing the four bedrooms are for a large family. Where are they supposed to go when they're sick and tired of staring at four walls of a bedroom?

The modern aspect of it is great - but the future financial 'efficiency" is lacking, IMHO.

 

[usedto]

PS. You have to understand - I've been self-employed for in excess of 30 years, and everything I do seems to have the future investment value in mind. Sometimes it gets in the way of doing or getting what I want, or how I look at things.:thmbsp::thmbsp:

 

[for_p1]

Since your're asking, I'll throw in my two cents.

It sounds like more of a bunkhouse than a home. 1900 square feet with nothing but beds and breakfast. That's fine and dandy if you plan to live there forever, but there is nothing in that plan that will attract potential buyers if you ever decide to move on.

I'm guessing the four bedrooms are for a large family. Where are they supposed to go when they're sick and tired of staring at four walls of a bedroom?

The modern aspect of it is great - but the future financial 'efficiency" is lacking, IMHO.

From real life experience - 2000 sqf is barely enough for family of 3. With 4 bedrooms (5 people or more), you should be looking at 4000 sqf. Do not to forget a dedicated HT/music room (if you on this forum, it is a must). One more thing - furniture for contemporary interior design is 2-3 times more expensive than traditional (and usually available only in large cities - for rich urban dwellers). Efficiency (if I got it correctly like low usage of energy/water/etc) costs a bit upfront, but may pay off over 10-15 years period. Do not expect to recover construction cost when you are going to sell house in the future, unless you are in reasonable daily commuting distance from downtown of major ( >1M people ) city.

 

[mhardy6647]

Four thousand ft^2 is an enormous home.

 

[for_p1]

Four thousand ft^2 is an enormous home.

It is not if you consider dedicated space (office, HT, gim). And again there is a difference between "living" space and total space when you exclude closets, utility rooms/space, stairs etc.

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

Since your're asking, I'll throw in my two cents.

It sounds like more of a bunkhouse than a home. 1900 square feet with nothing but beds and breakfast. That's fine and dandy if you plan to live there forever, but there is nothing in that plan that will attract potential buyers if you ever decide to move on.

I'm guessing the four bedrooms are for a large family. Where are they supposed to go when they're sick and tired of staring at four walls of a bedroom?

The modern aspect of it is great - but the future financial 'efficiency" is lacking, IMHO.

PS. You have to understand - I've been self-employed for in excess of 30 years, and everything I do seems to have the future investment value in mind. Sometimes it gets in the way of doing or getting what I want, or how I look at things.:thmbsp::thmbsp:

These are important considerations. I'm value-oriented, to say the least. My conservative approach has until now deterred me from doing this because it runs the risk of losing quite a bit of money if we decide to sell. But I think it could be a cool little house.

The bedrooms are on the small side, with the idea you just go there to sleep. It is indeed like a bunkhouse. The concept is to accommodate multiple overnight guests. One living area would be large enough to accommodate everyone, until they go slip into their efficient little rooms.

I will admit one thing - even the builder thinks it's a little crazy.

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

From real life experience - 2000 sqf is barely enough for family of 3. With 4 bedrooms (5 people or more), you should be looking at 4000 sqf. Do not to forget a dedicated HT/music room (if you on this forum, it is a must). One more thing - furniture for contemporary interior design is 2-3 times more expensive than traditional (and usually available only in large cities - for rich urban dwellers). Efficiency (if I got it correctly like low usage of energy/water/etc) costs a bit upfront, but may pay off over 10-15 years period. Do not expect to recover construction cost when you are going to sell house in the future, unless you are in reasonable daily commuting distance from downtown of major ( >1M people ) city.

These are good points, too. This will be well inside the city. The drive into downtown Dallas is 15 minutes or less. The average house on the block is probably no more than 1,400 square feet. Most are from around the year 1940. We'll be demolishing a house that is under 1,000 square feet.

We do plan to make this an energy-efficient house, which is part of the reason for its size. Air conditioning a big house in Texas costs hundreds of dollars in a typical summer month. With a small house, that is of course reduced proportionately. The small house uses less material, produces less waste during construction, and makes less of an impact on the limited land around us. Designing around the trees will mean the house is shaded from the very beginning. We'll use native landscaping, too, to keep a lid on how much water we use.

My original comment on efficiency also meant the space itself. There is very little wasted space in the floor plan. With small bedrooms and no formal living or dining, there's hardly a square foot that isn't useful. It's a challenge to get it small but not cramped. It remains to be seen.

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

Our 90-year-old house was 1,200 sq ft with three bedrooms and two baths until a few years ago. We decided the resale value of an addition would exceed the cost, so it is now almost 2,000 sq ft with four bedrooms and three baths. Our equity in this place might just cover the new place. I feel almost like I'm playing with the house's money, since more of our equity came from growth than what we paid in.

 

[for_p1]

For me Texas means wide open space (land). I do not see why limit yourself with tight living quarters there. If you like small spaces go to SF/Boston/NYC. At least there will be something that might offsets congestion.

 

[usedto]

The bedrooms are on the small side, with the idea you just go there to sleep. It is indeed like a bunkhouse. The concept is to accommodate multiple overnight guests. One living area would be large enough to accommodate everyone, until they go slip into their efficient little rooms.

I will admit one thing - even the builder thinks it's a little crazy.

Then double-deck the place. Have the master bedroom/bathroom and half-bath downstairs, loft and spare bedrooms upstairs. And don't skimp on the bathrooms or powder rooms. If you plan on guests, you'll need them. Or so says the wife!