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.
To me it looks like a cheap, uh, date. Dressed up in spandex and cheap baubles to create a false impression of style. Way too many new home designs seem to be just random collections of architectural elements thrown into a lego set and put together at random. One builder when I was in Colorado had houses with these huge slab walls that had various bay windows, box windows, and such hung on them at random. You would have a fireplace box (sided, not brick, no chiminey, just a box to hold the fireplace) hanging on the side of the house. Next to it a bay window so close the side window of the bay looked at the fireplace box, and next to that a box bay so the two bays sort of looked at each other. The end result was a two story slab of faux siding with boxes on it looking like warts.
In Florida, a lot of the newer homes had chinese drywall issues and were very poorly made. I won't even look at a home that was built between 2000 - 2010.
I see a lot of "new" homes that are manufactured homes which look like they would blow away with a category 1 hurricane. But some of the new, block construction homes are lovely.
With building codes the way they are now, I seriously doubt any home built in the last decade would blow away in a category 1 (or 2, or even 3) hurricane.
The fact is, while many of these new homes are cookie cutter... they are typically going to be up to code and be very, very solid in a hurricane. Much more so than a home that is several to many decades old.
As for just just not looking at homes built over a course of a decade... that is your business. Some have issues I am sure, but before you buy a house, shouldn't you do your due diligence, regardless of when it is built?
None of the new houses pictured in this thread are appealing to me - at all!
I prefer pre-1935
Agreed - people say they will be outdated in 40 years.. most likely not standing! I've seen 10-20 year old homes that show more age-related damage than a 100 year old home. Materials aren't what they used to be.
this is true. also when people refer to older homes, there is alot of different eras and an entire of spectrum of build quality.. this one is a 1920's tudor style architecture, and sells for more than mcmansions 50% larger in size in ridgewood, nj. http://tours.tourfactory.com/tours/m...9/16566947.jpg
this home will never look outdated simply on quality of construction and classic build. on the block, no two homes look alike.
there were homes built in the 60's that were basically cookie cutter of their times, the split level/bi level/cape cod/ranch construction. though if maintained well, they still have character over many new stucco faux brick/faux stone buildouts today. not saying there aren't spectacular new construction, in every era, there were crap buildouts and really great ones. however, my observation is more homes were built properly in the past.
another huge thing is landscaping. these older homes are built to proportion to their land. when i see a 5500 sq foot home on a 1/4-1/2 acre lot, it sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't feel like it fits there, and then there is not enough land to do proper landscaping. landscaping makes a home complete, also people these days do cookie cutter landscape design as well, line the front of the house wall with some boxwood and evergreen shrubs and call it a day.
this is true. also when people refer to older homes, there is alot of different eras and an entire of spectrum of build quality.. this one is a 1920's tudor style architecture, and sells for more than mcmansions 50% larger in size in ridgewood, nj. http://tours.tourfactory.com/tours/m...9/16566947.jpg
this home will never look outdated simply on quality of construction and classic build. on the block, no two homes look alike.
there were homes built in the 60's that were basically cookie cutter of their times, the split level/bi level/cape cod/ranch construction. though if maintained well, they still have character over many new stucco faux brick/faux stone buildouts today. not saying there aren't spectacular new construction, in every era, there were crap buildouts and really great ones. however, my observation is more homes were built properly in the past.
another huge thing is landscaping. these older homes are built to proportion to their land. when i see a 5500 sq foot home on a 1/4-1/2 acre lot, it sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't feel like it fits there, and then there is not enough land to do proper landscaping. landscaping makes a home complete, also people these days do cookie cutter landscape design as well, line the front of the house wall with some boxwood and evergreen shrubs and call it a day.
a half acre lot is huge. really, single family homes taking up more than a quarter acre is why so many Americans are so sprawled out and sitting in traffic for tens of thousands of hours of their lives.
as for "faux brick"... i am guessing that the vast majority of these cookie cutter homes built over the last 15 years that look like brick are... brick. i know many homes in my neighborhood are in the 1200-1700 square foot range and under $250k and are as cookie cutter as it gets. and they are made out of brick. real brick. and they meet far more stringent building codes than homes from decades gone by.
a half acre lot is huge. really, single family homes taking up more than a quarter acre is why so many Americans are so sprawled out and sitting in traffic for tens of thousands of hours of their lives.
as for "faux brick"... i am guessing that the vast majority of these cookie cutter homes built over the last 15 years that look like brick are... brick. i know many homes in my neighborhood are in the 1200-1700 square foot range and under $250k and are as cookie cutter as it gets. and they are made out of brick. real brick. and they meet far more stringent building codes than homes from decades gone by.
not when there's a 5000 sq ft home built on it and front door close to the curb was my point. 1/4 - 1/2 acre is fine as long as the house footprint is proportional to the lot.
fair enough, they use real brick but nearly every new construction uses faux engineered stone, or veneer. or the dreaded patched stucco. same goes for flooring.
you also notice that nobody stains mouldings, it's because they mostly use engineered products and paint them all white. doors.. nearly all new homes use cheap prefab white hollow doors. unless you're building a custom home with an engineer and builder, >90% of new homes built in past 15 years are built via inferior, cheaper materials. builders wanna make a profit, not spend money on things they would want. it all looks real nice and shiny from outside when they're just built and displayed in the real estate ad, but 10 years later when the materials fade, you wonder why you're spending so much money to fix and maintain your home. this happens to alot of people.
there is also another discussion for lumber.. trees have been cut so much that they are now cutting younger trees, which leads to weaker softer wood which cracks and rots easier. older homes were built with trees 50-100 years old. we did a renovation in our home, and used oak, and the old oak in the rest of the house built in the late 80's is clearly far superior.
Last edited by ControlJohnsons; 04-16-2016 at 06:16 PM..
a half acre lot is huge. really, single family homes taking up more than a quarter acre is why so many Americans are so sprawled out and sitting in traffic for tens of thousands of hours of their lives.
so true! I had co-worker who although generally a nice smart guy would go on and on about urban sprawl and the environment, but when it came time to buy his own house only wanted one on at least a 1/2 acre lot! I kept on pointing out that it was exactly people like him indirectly causing the sprawl!
a half acre lot is huge. really, single family homes taking up more than a quarter acre is why so many Americans are so sprawled out and sitting in traffic for tens of thousands of hours of their lives.
as for "faux brick"... i am guessing that the vast majority of these cookie cutter homes built over the last 15 years that look like brick are... brick. i know many homes in my neighborhood are in the 1200-1700 square foot range and under $250k and are as cookie cutter as it gets. and they are made out of brick. real brick. and they meet far more stringent building codes than homes from decades gone by.
When newer houses have brick on the outside, it's essentially just expensive siding. They don't actually hold up the house. And, to be fair, they did this sometimes back in the old days, too. (at least as far back as the 1910s and 20s) But, it was much more common then for the brick in old houses to be structural.
The 1st house would be everything the typical Las Vegas homeowner would aspire to get into. Even custom homes out here are just some version of that on an even bigger scale. Coming from the East Coast 15 yrs ago, I was shocked to see these cookie-cutter McMansions. And all in the same shade of desert brown. Yawn! Now, I'm used to it.
That house is looking absolutely beautiful. Not ugly at all.
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.
