Houses loosing character (floor plans, vinyl, countertops, fireplaces)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading the 'painted brick' thread and I began to wonder: have houses lost their unique character due to our transient society? By this I mean, are people gun-shy about making unique changes to their home because it might impact the re-sale value?
If this is true, I find it sort of sad. I understand the reasoning, but I still find it sad. I would much prefer to live in a unique home than a cookie cutter home.
ETA: Oops! I made a typo in the title but I'm not sure how to change it!
HOA style requirements, design standards, ease of quick construction by using preassembled components like trusses and the associated cost savings all play a part. We had a tropical storm wipe out a number of houses a few years ago. The rebuilds all look like they came from a standard design program. Thise folks that built new came to the Town Council to complain about one guy who chose to keep his original house (very little damage) and have it raised above the flood line instead. The complaint? That guy's house looks "different" than the new ones and "ruined" the look that was being attempted. Another couple have chosen to keep their house at one story (one of the oldest houses in town) and face criticism constantly from neighbors.
Couldn't agree more. I can't tell you how many houses I've been looking at that are listing for quite a chunk of cash and that completely lack any sense of character and often are worse, due to the fact that they try so hard to look like a "rich person's" house. The sad thing is when you get inside, they miss all the details that truly make a home look nice, like crown moldings, wainscoting, etc. And enough with these horrible open floor plans, they can work when done right, but often seem like a giant cop out.
Cookie cutter houses have been around for a loooong time
Ah, yet another subject that comes up frequently in "old house circles" ..... and is that "cookie cutter" houses aren't really anything new
Although it is true that in the last 30-40 years we have seen huge explosions of "planned"(sometimes poorly!) communities with repetitive house designs, this phenomena can be found throughout the US and even overseas in neighborhoods a century or more old.
In many urban US neighborhoods, one can see entire blocks of houses that are... well were..... identical. Now after several decades of minor modifications such as closed-in porches, small additions, etc... they do tend to sometimes have some distinction, but one can clearly see that basically they are the same homes. I particularly have seen this in cities like Chicago that had explosive growth in the early 20th century.
And if one goes to the working class neighborhoods of England, one can see row after row of nearly identical houses abutted right up against each other that were built anywhere from the late 19th to early 20th centuries during the industrial revolution, if not sometimes older.
And one could even make this argument to some degree with certain fashions of the time such as victorians, colonial revivals, and craftsman/bungalows where whole neighborhoods developed during the high fashion of those styles are fairly homogeneous. Remember that although "we all love" these old styles now and bemoan the loss of so many over the years, it really wasn't that long ago that it was very common for many to think victorians were far too fussy and a sign of poor taste once their fashion passed, and for craftsman or bungalow types of homes to be considered dark and cramped. And so entire neighborhoods composed primarily of these styles fell out of fashion(for various reasons).
But again, I will agree that where we have pockets of these examples, or where a certain style may predominate, we have far more and far larger examples today where the variety even within a given style is far less individualistic.
The history of planned tract housing developments kicked off following WWII, got into gear in the 1950s, but I think really took off in the late 1970s and early 1980s and hasn't looked back.
Of course just because a developer builds a huge new planned community, that doesn't mean the architecture has to be pre-defined ubiquity. But it does seem to be the default more often than not. Even in higher end "luxury" or "custom" home developments, the last few decades do seem to have produced a defacto appearance that often conforms to the McMansion model.
One alternative I've proposed for a long time is that people take a look at old plan books from the early 20th century. Many people don't want an old house, but do like the style. They'd love to have a new house that embraced older designs and dimensions, but with modern conveniences, and no immediate need to renovate. I say instead of reinventing the wheel to approximate a modern interpretation of a colonial, victorian, tudor, or craftsman, use the literally thousands of house plans available in old plan books and build exactly what they built then, just with the modern features one wants.
I've always thought that if I were wealthy, it would be a lot of fun to not only restore entire blocks of old homes, but to also build some new developments using these old plans. I think they would be a hit for those that want a reasonably sized new home with genuine old world charm.
I couldn't build a monolithic dome house, so I settled for a house that looks a lot like the other houses in the area. My landscaper (aka my mother) will be designing a front and rear vegatation scheme that makes it stand out some.
The inside is where my place will be unique. The house will be the Anti-Beige. And an open floorplan, which I FINALLY found, is really the only one that makes a bit of sense for a single person.
When you walk in and see my blue and red cork tile kitchen floor, red quartz countertops, marble-look vinyl ceiling tiles, black shag carpet, and unique window coverings and wall hangings and furniture, you won't think "cookie-cutter."
It's all part and parcel with the "Ugly American", "must have McDonald's everywhere" mentality, I think. If it's different or unique, there must be something wrong with it. That's where the HOA folk get the idea that in order for property values to be upheld, all the houses must look exactly alike and be the same colors and be the same architecture and be that way forever and ever, amen.
Yes, houses in the past were built as subdivisions where tghe houses were similar (there's one here in Austin that's frequently referenced in this regard), but the difference is, once they were purchased, they started growing and evolving based on the preferences of the people who bought them and then, of course, owned them and the right to alter them as they preferred and as fit their lifestyles. Have this happen over the course of a few generations and you get the unique neighborhoods that are so prized today.
That being said, why on earth should we re-invent the wheel and insist that neighborhoods be built in a ticky tacky all-the-same design fashion, rather than drawing from what makes those unique neighborhoods prized and from the architecture of the past and building neighborhoods with an assortment of styles from scratch? And then (horrors!) letting what happened in the past happen with those houses in those neighborhoods, rather than insisting that they remain frozen in time forever, lifeless, like galleries rather than homes.
Sorry, you got me thinking of a summer morning and my brain just sort of ran away with me.
That being said, why on earth should we re-invent the wheel . . .
I agree. I also understand that aside from spaces and floor plans, there are some architects and home builders today who are looking at the "green movement" and designing houses that are more attuned to their environment. IOW, older houses were built with timber and stones from their own environment and could sustain climates, diseases, and insects, positioned in certain directions to increase the amount of wind passing through the house, placing windows on certain sides of the house to take advantage of the sun during winter and summer months (i.e.,palladiums, open transoms, etc.), and the location and use of slopes/hillsides, trees, and the natural surroundings.
To be fair, some of the "unique" features of houses were often impractical from the start. The tiny garret room in some Victorian towers gets hot and cold and has little space for more than a chair or two. Carriage houses lost their original purpose years ago. Second story sleeping porches often not only fell or rotted into a dangerous Damocles sword, but damaged the building as well.
To be fair, some of the "unique" features of houses were often impractical from the start. The tiny garret room in some Victorian towers gets hot and cold and has little space for more than a chair or two. Carriage houses lost their original purpose years ago. Second story sleeping porches often not only fell or rotted into a dangerous Damocles sword, but damaged the building as well.
Absolutely, see similar posts about assumptions that all old houses are better built than new....
I am an admitted "old house snob", but I accept that the assumption above simply isn't always true. Some ideas, materials, and methods are deserved to be relegated to the dust bin of history.
It may well be true that "cookie cutter" houses are not anything new. . . think of the homes available through Sears, years ago. There are, however, a couple of major differences. Homes used to be built on lots that would allow for expansion, there were few, if any "associations" to dictate how one could modify one's house, etc. Me, I made sure to buy in an area that does not have an association. My house may look like a "cookie cutter" from the outside, but step in the door, and you will get the impression that you have entered a 1920's -30's Bungalow. Rooms have been added, as have fireplaces, etc. The house was "small" (@900 sf) to begin with, and is still small at a little over 1150 s.f., but it is now "perfect" for me, both in function and in appearance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cookie cutter houses have been around for a loooong time
That's true.....
