Why? (Houston, Plano, Richardson: how much, house, neighborhood)

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Thoughts/Devils advocates stuff:

Sorry, I should have clarified. When I said "junk," I was referring to the design, not the quality of the construction. While I do think some of the materials of yesterday were perhaps better, the engineering and processes of today are better. And like you said, electrical is unquestionably safer. However, I'd argue that most of that stuff was at least good enough sixty years ago, so as a buyer, the design merits win the day for me.

I did, however, once have a 1960s house with a grounding rod that was much, much too small.

You can find well-designed houses on the new build market, but it's tough if you aren't looking at custom stuff. This is probably the fault of buyers -- builders build what buyers buy. But in terms of the OP's question, it is very clear to me why some people prefer older construction on mature lots.

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by biafra4life

Is Richardson really still a premium location on par with Coppell and Plano? I've had loads of coworkers living in Frisco, Prosper and McKinney and I have yet to meet one that would swap their current home for the same home in Richardson even if it resulted in a shorter commute to work. Note that I'm not the one saying that Richardson is mediocre, but the consensus I see anecdotally is that it's not considered top tier, not anymore. This ain't the 90s.

YES, absolutely it is considered a premium location. Any home in JJ Pearce zone or zoned to any good RISD elementary in Lake Highlands or Richardson HS zones will be a significant premium per SF compared to almost anything in Frisco / Prosper / McKinney.

The people buying in RISD don’t really overlap with those buying in the far north burbs because 1) the RISD homes aren’t new save for some tear down action and 2) RISD residents are significantly more likely to have grown up in Dallas area vs being new transplants.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Sorry, I should have clarified. When I said "junk," I was referring to the design, not the quality of the construction. While I do think some of the materials of yesterday were perhaps better, the engineering and processes of today are better. And like you said, electrical is unquestionably safer. However, I'd argue that most of that stuff was at least good enough sixty years ago, so as a buyer, the design merits win the day for me.

I did, however, once have a 1960s house with a grounding rod that was much, much too small.

You can find well-designed houses on the new build market, but it's tough if you aren't looking at custom stuff. This is probably the fault of buyers -- builders build what buyers buy. But in terms of the OP's question, it is very clear to me why some people prefer older construction on mature lots.

Oh yea. I think it's more about where older neighborhoods tend to be situated around city centers but I'm a big fan of older homes.

[hunterseat]

Why? Is that your thread title?

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by EDS_

No. But I'll answer for him and be close to what he would say.

1. Small one story homes are built to price points. Given that high vaulted ceilings yield higher AC and heating bills and cost more assuming standard construction techniques. High vaulted ceiling can be built with very high R-values using SIP panels but that adds expense that violates the price point angle. Same bit per bathroom size.

2. To whatever degree that's true it's so because lots are usually rectangular or close and rooms are virtually always rectangular. So home shapes will be rectangular generally. Further, back to price points excepting circles the closer to square shaped a home is the less the outside running dimensions per cubic foot of space. Ergo squares and squarish rectangles simply make sense from a cost perspective.

2.1. Front doors opening into something like foyers with kitchens and a living spaces right goes back to Pagan/Danish dining halls and the dark ages at least. You'd have to ask them.

3. I have no thoughts on short and wide windows. I may ask him about that.

As for 1, it was not always this way. Those high ceilings were commonplace back in the 80s and early 90s. So were the larger bathrooms. This is a recent change. Even the larger houses are putting in smaller bathrooms.

In addition, from what I've been told, bumping up the ceiling is not so costly as one might think. Similarly, the larger bathrooms are just a matter of proportions. The proportions of rooms have changed and not for the better. A larger bathroom does not cost that much more. These houses still have gigantic kitchen "continents" that have no place in them and would seemingly not belong in the lowest cost houses.

As for 2, this is also a recent change. Lots should be square shaped, not rectangular. They are too long and too narrow. What is the cost-advantage of building a lot that is 40 x 105 vs one that is 60 x 70? This would allow a better floor plan without requiring larger lots. This division of lots by width is a new and strange phenomenon, and I have no idea how it got started. In any event, they should make them more square than rectangular.

Back to 1, that leads to the question of why smaller homes should have to correlate to price points? People with higher incomes and more wealth do not always have large families and may not want excess space or rooms but don't want a cheap-looking, downgraded structure either. This is a serious oversight on the part of market analysts if you ask me. If the location is good enough, builders should be able to charge high prices for nicer, smaller houses. If the market will not bear the added cost of such smaller homes, then that tells me it's an undesirable location. Good locations should have housing of all sizes, and they should all be able to command high prices.

[NoClueWho]

Originally Posted by NP78

Those neighborhoods the OP refers to in Plano are no different, they are just 30 year old versions of those neighborhoods. It helps that the trees have grown, but that’s about it.

Exactly. DFW has some of the most cookie-cutter suburbs and houses I have ever seen. Especially on the Dallas side of the metro.

[jiping]

high ceilings

https://www.highlandhomes.com/dfw/me...section#models

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by jiping

high ceilings

https://www.highlandhomes.com/dfw/me...section#models

Those houses are a bit too large, and once again have the problem of throwing everything into one rectangle. All the room sizes are out of proportion, and the kitchen "continents" are way over the top and out of place. In all honesty, people have flipped their lids to pay that much or buy that kind of house next to a garbage dump in an exceptionally unattractive and inconvenient location.

I will say Highland's classic series of floor plans is an anomaly in new home construction. They have others in that series for their smaller lots that actually look larger but are only built in a couple of undesirable locations, although all better than Melissa.

Even so, the house I have grown up with has ceilings sloping from 8 to 15 feet, and it looks a lot larger despite being two thirds the square footage. Darling Homes had excellent floor plans back then. Too bad they didn't do a better job on construction and site preparation.

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by Rakin

This. Can you find a better city, schools, location than Coppell ?

No you can't unless you can afford the Park Cities maybe.

WHAT??? Sorry, can't hear you for the 747s landing overhead.

[Texan#1]

Originally Posted by TurtleCreek80

YES, absolutely it is considered a premium location. Any home in JJ Pearce zone or zoned to any good RISD elementary in Lake Highlands or Richardson HS zones will be a significant premium per SF compared to almost anything in Frisco / Prosper / McKinney.

The people buying in RISD don’t really overlap with those buying in the far north burbs because 1) the RISD homes aren’t new save for some tear down action and 2) RISD residents are significantly more likely to have grown up in Dallas area vs being new transplants.

Exactly! My wife and I are both from this area and know we can have a larger/newer home up north, but prefer being closer in-town. The only thing that makes us toy with the idea of moving to the northern suburbs are the schools. The schools here (RISD) are mostly good, so we’re fine not having a 10 “great schools” rating. I also travel about twice a month and fly out of Love, since it’s much easier for me to get into and out of versus DFW. I think most people I come across around here work downtown, off of 75, or the many close hospitals (Presbyterian, Medical City, Baylor).