Pros and Cons of Zero Lot Lines (Dallas, Plano: for sale, houses)

[TheotherMarie]

We plan to move to (most likely) North Irving and are just beginning to research homes for sale. Some of the houses we are seeing online and at open houses are zero lot line properties.

What are the pros and cons?

I can see where the privacy would be great.
The small lots are not ideal.
What about foundation issues, especially with the recent earthquakes?
If one house develops problems, I would think the ones next to it would too, given how close they are.
And in houses with "normal" lots, we are told to water our foundations. Is that not the case in zero lot line homes? Do you have to rely on your neighbor to water his side?
Or are foundation issues just to be expected?

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

Need space for kids, dogs, gardening? Not the best idea. More mature, want more free time, good idea. I have no idea of re-sale. I hope TC80 will chime in.

[WorldKlas]

I own 2 villas now in Irving (zero lot) and owned one in Valley Ranch until a few years ago. All great; private, plenty of space....great resale on the one I sold -- no different than a regular SFH.

[turf3]

We had a zero lot line house for several years.

Small lots are ideal if you don't like yard work. Layouts vary; we had a small very private back yard which was really more like a small garden with a patch of grass. I could mow and trim front and back in 30 minutes.

It's going to be difficult to put in something like a shed or workshop, because there just isn't any yard space.

You need to be on reasonable terms with your neighbors.

If you buy a house built after say 1985 or so, you will almost certainly get a post-tensioned slab foundation and these are not prone to the problems of the mid-70s Fox and Jacobs houses. Have a careful inspection and if there's any doubt hire a structural engineer to do his inspection. It's not that much money.

I just put soaker hoses along the side of the house all the way round, including along the house on my neighbor's side (after asking her, of course).

[octo]

I understand the lazy ("low maintenance") rationale but to be frank, zero lot is primarily a cost savings measure.

It looks cheap to have as many houses as possible crammed into a development.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by octo

I understand the lazy ("low maintenance") rationale but to be frank, zero lot is primarily a cost savings measure.

It looks cheap to have as many houses as possible crammed into a development.

You know what opinions are like, and everybody's got one. I disagree. I enjoyed living in the zero lot house. I suggest you compare photos of Louisburg Square, Boston, Mass., with pictures of a fresh treeless subdivision in darkest Plano.

De gustibus non disputandum.

[numbersguy100]

Originally Posted by turf3

You know what opinions are like, and everybody's got one. I disagree. I enjoyed living in the zero lot house. I suggest you compare photos of Louisburg Square, Boston, Mass., with pictures of a fresh treeless subdivision in darkest Plano.

De gustibus non disputandum.

You're free to enjoy a zero lot house, but comparing builder's grade tract housing in the Dallas suburbs to row houses in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the US is absurd.

[HP48G]

Originally Posted by numbersguy100

You're free to enjoy a zero lot house, but comparing builder's grade tract housing in the Dallas suburbs to row houses in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the US is absurd.

I agree the typical dfw newly constructed subdivisions with many houses look cheap, however a lot of it is a function of the flat dull topography and the lack of dense tree coverage. 10-15 years later when the trees and landscaping have matured they look so much better.

[turf3]

The point was that the OP asked questions about what it's like living in a zero lot line, with especial concerns about foundation issues. "Octo" chimed in saying he thought zero lot line housing looks "cheap", which is non-responsive to what the OP asked, and is purely a matter of opinion. I provided a pair of counterexamples. OBVIOUSLY Louisburg Square looks fancy and generica looks cheap. This proves that it's not the density that makes it look "cheap" or "fancy" but other factors (like builder grade tract housing vs. one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the US).

Among zero lot subdivisions I have seen, I think there actually is a tendency to put more money into the amenities of the house (detailing and facade) than for comparable standard lot subdivisions, as the original buyers of zero-lot houses are probably somewhat interested in trading lot size for amenities. And, the land cost being lower does offer the builder the chance to add some of those amenities.

So, if you don't care about having any more than a very small yard, a zero-lot can offer (in some cases) a lower price with a nicer house, because you're not paying for as much land.

Finally, the fact that it is a detached house largely eliminates the noise problem from neighbors that is endemic in any kind of semi-detached or block type housing.

[octo]

The looking cheap is not just an opinion. It is a fact that it is cheaper at least for the developer.

So the pro is: Cheaper (for the developer)
The con is: Cheaper looking (esp. hundreds on a prairie)

The option of having nice sized land is one of the pros owning a house in the metroplex. I truly doubt that the average buyer buys a zero lot home for the low maintenance (though I'm sure that some do). IMO this is rationalization because more land is more expensive.