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.
It also applies to many older neighborhoods in many cities. There are neighborhoods in Denver where the same 2-3 styles of houses go on for blocks, ditto many other cities I have been in, e.g. Chicago.
It's nonsense that these older houses were better quality built, particularly the tenements. My nephew lived in an old duplex in Denver that was the same style as many other homes in that neighborhood, and indeed, all over Denver. It was drafty, had few kitchen cupboards and virtually NO counter area; when taking a shower the water wouldn't flow down the drain properly, the wiring was obviously bad (lights flickered), and that's just for starts.
Absolutely true. Boston's Three-Deckers are a perfect example. Many older, lower income homes were quite cheaply built.
To me, what makes something cookie cutter is more the build quality than the appearance. SoHo's Iron Front rows or Beacon Hill's Federalist Rows, or Baltimore/Washinton's Bowfronts all share common styling and appear similar, but I would hardly call them cookie cutter.
It also applies to many older neighborhoods in many cities. There are neighborhoods in Denver where the same 2-3 styles of houses go on for blocks, ditto many other cities I have been in, e.g. Chicago.
It's nonsense that these older houses were better quality built, particularly the tenements. My nephew lived in an old duplex in Denver that was the same style as many other homes in that neighborhood, and indeed, all over Denver. It was drafty, had few kitchen cupboards and virtually NO counter area; when taking a shower the water wouldn't flow down the drain properly, the wiring was obviously bad (lights flickered), and that's just for starts.
That has more to do with maintenance, upkeep, and changing lifestyles, not quality of the original building.
Sometimes the best intentions of urban planning has led to the cookie cutter feel. Even when trying to be intentional, new urbanists places still have a cookie cutter edge to them as they were all built at the same time using similar types of materials, even if the architecture and design attempts variation in the facades.
Suburban developments are often labled "cookie cutter" primarily because one builder or developer had the same house plan reproduced over and over on similar sized lots. As mentioned earlier, this can be found in older inner city neighborhoods on through the decades to the present suburban boom towns.
The least "cookie cutter" neighborhoods, however, are those that have sprouted up slowly over time with little pre-planning. The city I know live in, McKinney, TX has good examples of both. The original "pre Dallas suburban overflow" part of McKinney has varied architecture and interesting neighborhoods. You can find a street with ornate turn of the century Victorian mansions and less ostentatious Texas Prairie homes of the same vintage mixed in with post war cottages along with 60s and 70s brick ranches and the occasional McMansion rebuild.
Compare that to the western side of the city which has mushroomed since the 90s. Massive planned devlopment, much to a nice scale and esthetic. Still, that's where cookie cutterdom exists.
Part of what causes the "cookie cutter" is lack of variety over time. An established neighborhood has experienced change over time in an irregular fashion, showing differences in styles, ad-hoc repairs and repurposings. Especially with older cities, a walk through urban space is also a walk through time.
New developments built as a single unit, whether car-centric snout houses or new-urbanist porches with garages in the back, can look repetitious even if there is an effort to have different styles and models. The problem is that they are still greenfield developments.
That's one of the strengths of infill development--by integrating a new project into an existing neighborhood, you create variety, instead of regular sameness. It makes a neighborhood more interesting, because a new era of architecture has been added to the mix--even if it's not very good architecture.
Before the mass-produced neighborhood, property owners bought plots of land and were expected to build their own homes and have them built, even in suburban developments. So while houses might be similar in basic form (due to lot sizes or deed restrictions) they could vary in form and style based on the preferences of the owner.
Anything new that hasn't developed character yet. New York City has block after block after block of identical buildings built 100 years ago. Yet no one calls them 'cookie-cutter' because over time they've developed character. Same thing with the Houston subdivisions of the Heights and Montrose. Most neighborhoods began as subdivisions with identical buildings on the outskirts of town. Even in the 1700s.
It's nonsense that these older houses were better quality built, particularly the tenements. My nephew lived in an old duplex in Denver that was the same style as many other homes in that neighborhood, and indeed, all over Denver. It was drafty, had few kitchen cupboards and virtually NO counter area; when taking a shower the water wouldn't flow down the drain properly, the wiring was obviously bad (lights flickered), and that's just for starts.
Insulation has come a long ways, as have wiring standards and electric codes. The notion of what a kitchen is and how it should be used has changed so much I don't think of a lack of cupboard space as an issue of build quality.
Some construction examples
Today houses are framed with literally the least amount of wood that will hold up the house. And the wood that is used is weak, suspiciously fast new growth. Old houses used old growth (not available at any price today), a 2x4 meant two-inches-by-four-inches, and old houses were framed to last a very long time; generally engineered such that you literally had 50% or even 100% more and higher quality wood holding the house together compared with today's practices.
Older houses have solid old-growth hardwood (usually) trim and doors and floors. Today's houses use compressed sawdust doors and trims. I was looking at new construction and having real wood trim and interior design doors was literally not an option. Today's hardwood floors are about 25% thinner than what was used in pre WWII homes and are designed to use even the smallest, scrappiest pieces of hardwood. Again, the old-growth hardwood used throughout historic homes is literally not available at any price today. These aren't a structural issue, but it is a quality issue.
Structural brick barely exists these days. Many of the vinyl windows used today have lifespans of 5 years. With proper maintenance, a 100 year old house can have original windows. Today roofs are built to last 15 years on much new construction. Compare this with 100 year old houses that have literally the same slate roof as the day they were built.
I could go on, but the fantasy that somehow new construction is equal or better quality comes up from time to time, so I rarely go through everything in one response.
Wiring and mechanical systems are better today. Therefore we should upgrade the wiring and mechanics of older houses, not build flimsy new construction around new mechanics!
I'm not against new construction. But if you want quality you would be talking a "custom" home and would need to spend more than double what you might on a track home to equal the quality in older homes. Some local hometown builders especially in rural areas buck this trend. Some are still even building structural brick homes.
Now that's what I call overreacting to a problem: There isn't enough counter space in the kitchen, so let's bulldoze the house!
It is fairly common in the Bay Area. People buy a small 1920's bungalow, decide something is not to their liking, have it tore down and a "custom" McMansion built on a 40' x 70 ft lot.
but I love bungalows! That's farily common in Georgia also I hear.) I only hope that some of them are preserved.
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.
That's farily common in Georgia also I hear.) I only hope that some of them are preserved.
