Which Style Townhouse Do You Prefer

[dorado0359]

I don't quite get it. Everyone picking the second townhouse in the OP seems to be captivated by the stone and brick facade (which makes the TH look stately), but those houses lack style and design features. Replace the stone and brick with vinyl siding and all you have are flat front town homes with no design.

The first TH in the original post has more design features (dormers, A-roof line above garage pump outs, etc).

Folks, stop looking at the stone and brick work on the second TH and judge it on style, then you'll see the first TH is a much better designed town house.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

I don't quite get it. Everyone picking the second townhouse in the OP seems to be captivated by the stone and brick facade (which makes the TH look stately), but those houses lack style and design features. Replace the stone and brick with vinyl siding and all you have are flat front town homes with no design.

The first TH in the original post has more design features (dormers, A-roof line above garage pump outs, etc).

Folks, stop looking at the stone and brick work on the second TH and judge it on style, then you'll see the first TH is a much better designed town house.

I think the first house looks like it should be a singles... they call them Villas too?.... the picture cuts off the next poorhouse, so the true connected appearance is lost? BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A TOWNHOUSE. Most have a traditional view of a TOWNNHOUSE new as # 2. Also #1 sits flat ground level, therefore might be build on a concrete slab?
As I said and believe.... why attach # 1 into Rows? I personally rather it detached? For my preference.... and a detached garage in the back You are more likely to keep the car outside in the driveway, You have the garage open in front EVERYONE HAS A CLEAR VIEW INSIDE when open. Less viewed in back. The houses can then at least be separated by a driveway. The drawback is more driveway to shovel snow in winter? But then post says Georgia? Some like URBAN LIVING better and townhouses work for some on that context? Again houses #2 which looks more urban.....houses #1 looks clearly suburban.... partly because the others attached perspective is lost in the picture the way it is taken. #1 has a bit more blandness to it yes, with sparse landscaping..... vs. #2 again which looks complete.

#1 has a bit of a plain Tudor look or Cape Cod to me, that the development probably wants kept all the same? But here are Tudor examples with a bit more flair though I chose simpler varieties with Older concept of alley in back with garages on tighter Big City blocks but NEED NOT BE ROWS..... and loose window light between them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9405...EdmHW8AMaA!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9397...6xDYycP4yg!2e0

⤴ WOULD THEY BE BETTER WITH A GARAGE ALONSIDE THE HOUSE AND CONNECT THE BLOCK OF HOMES AS ROWS? ⤴

[dorado0359]

Originally Posted by steeps

I think the first house looks like it should be a singles... they call them Villas too?.... the picture cuts off the next poorhouse, so the true connected appearance is lost? BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A TOWNHOUSE. Most have a traditional view of a TOWNNHOUSE new as # 2. Also #1 sits flat ground level, therefore might be build on a concrete slab?
As I said and believe.... why attach # 1 into Rows? I personally rather it detached? For my preference.... and a detached garage in the back You are more likely to keep the car outside in the driveway, You have the garage open in front EVERYONE HAS A CLEAR VIEW INSIDE when open. Less viewed in back. The houses can then at least be separated by a driveway. The drawback is more driveway to shovel snow in winter? But then post says Georgia? Some like URBAN LIVING better and townhouses work for some on that context? Again houses #2 which looks more urban.....houses #1 looks clearly suburban.... partly because the others attached perspective is lost in the picture the way it is taken. #1 has a bit more blandness to it yes, with sparse landscaping..... vs. #2 again which looks complete.

#1 has a bit of a plain Tudor look or Cape Cod to me, that the development probably wants kept all the same? But here are Tudor examples with a bit more flair though I chose simpler varieties with Older concept of alley in back with garages on tighter Big City blocks but NEED NOT BE ROWS..... and loose window light between them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9405...EdmHW8AMaA!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9397...6xDYycP4yg!2e0

⤴ WOULD THEY BE BETTER WITH A GARAGE ALONSIDE THE HOUSE AND CONNECT THE BLOCK OF HOMES AS ROWS? ⤴

Personally, I think those Tudors would look better with garages in the front. I've seen similar style homes in my area, and have not been particularly fond of them, because they look look like 1/2 a house... as though someone just cut off the other half. IMHO, those Tudors just don't look complete without either a garage or windows on the other side of the entry door.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

Personally, I think those Tudors would look better with garages in the front. I've seen similar style homes in my area, and have not been particularly fond of them, because they look look like 1/2 a house... as though someone just cut off the other half. IMHO, those Tudors just don't look complete without either a garage or windows on the other side of the entry door.

Apparently we get conditioned a home with no garage in front attached.... has a home look incomplete? It can for a Ranch? But many styles can stand on their own. Colonial's, Tudor's, Cape Cod's and Bungalows can and do.
Realizing though, them Tudor homes were built on Smaller Big City Lots in Chicago that were long and narrow 25'-30' x 125'-130' So no garages alongside, all are in back. The city did not embrace Row Homes as the East did. They are TYPICAL Tudor (gingerbread) homes, that never get aesthetically outdated. But with or without a garage.... to connect them Tudor's or the cities vast Bungalow stock, would NOT have been a good choice. In Philly ....yes they probably would have got attached. Ironic these Big City lots still had more frontage then your new Rows? There are a few Tutors by me in PA in a more rural setting, and they still work with detached garage in back keeping that Gingerbread look.
Though I live in PA now where I am from. Loads of older Row homes by be do not impress me. Even how Philly is virtually all Rows. So when I did live in Chicago and the vast majority of the city has NO Rows. I found as preferred. I call it a Pre-suburban sprawl look. Some one from Philly called it Quasi-suburban. Because of front lawns and singles.

I did click on the first picture #1, to gain the other angle view of the 2 other attached homes next door. But still the GARAGE dominates the home as most Ranch's. I have seen homes where the garage shoots out front more then the living part. I also prefer at least a step elevation of the home from ground level too. But they still are pleasant enough, new and developers continue to do things to lower cost. Perhaps these are on just a slab? But typically #2 is the typical idea of Row (Townhouse). It also has a COMPLETE LOOK to it. So most will see it as a true Townhouse.
To attach #1 into at least 3 in a row? Gives them probably able to squeeze one more home in.... then if they were separated too? But still to me.... maybe most people? Why then.....connect these #1 homes into what I will call Quasi-Townhouses, if in a suburban setting? If in a bigger city,....Perhaps more warrant then?