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 would never claim my house is an architectural masterpiece, but my cement siding still looks great 10 years after the previous owners put it up, and at least the exterior makes sense.
BTW if you want to see a really fun example of awful architecture, look up 104 walnut in tenafly.
We'd like to do fiber cement when we finish with the inside, so glad to hear your positive experience. 104 Walnut: NOT good, not good BUT at least it's not a box!
Stucco, overdone brick in strange colors, faux badly done "rock". It seems like half the contractors in this area got the same memo. Further, some listings say things like "Builder's primary residence" like it's a bonus.
327 Forest Ave Paramus
195 Beechwood St Oradell
4 Manor Rd Harrington Park
290 West Dr Paramus
163 E Midland Paramus
What's wrong with brick? It's not my favorite look but it ages nicely and is relatively classic.
I find that brick makes houses look very dated. Maybe it's just my perception but brick seems to be more common in run down or lower income areas of cities.
I hate the stucco look but I see nothing wrong with bricks on the front and vinyl siding on the sides. Perhaps if I had a $1.5 million housing budget I would be more picky.
I would never claim my house is an architectural masterpiece, but my cement siding still looks great 10 years after the previous owners put it up, and at least the exterior makes sense.
BTW if you want to see a really fun example of awful architecture, look up 104 walnut in tenafly.
Hmm the architecture of 104 walnut is different but I wouldn't call it awful. The mix of vinl, stone, and stucco doesn't look bad either. I guess it's a matter of preference .
Brick looks ugly on capes and small colonials. When it comes down to the houses you included in the links..It's a diferent ball game and it looks great.
Almost any exterior treatment can look good if done well. I'd also think about long term maintenance. I love my cedar shakes but man are they a pain to power wash and restrain in clear every 8 years - takes us weeks to finish.
Ps. I also don't think 104 walnut looks so bad. The original houses in that neighborhood are way uglier both inside and out.
Arizona? Stucco, or daub, has been the primary house covering on wood framed buildings in England, Germany, and France, in fact the majority of Europe, for millennia.
Only in The US, Scandinavia, and perhaps parts of Asia, has wood been the most common house covering, but you don't see that much in NJ anymore, mainly vinyl made to look like wood from 150 feet. and brick/stone face, which are basically fake as well.
I would say that stucco is not traditional for NJ architecture, but nor is it especially associated with Arizona unless it is on a flat roofed neo-pueblo.
I hate the stucco look but I see nothing wrong with bricks on the front and vinyl siding on the sides. Perhaps if I had a $1.5 million housing budget I would be more picky.
Yeah that’s what I’m talking about. Asking 1.2MM for a house and you can’t even do the sides?? Just cheapens the house at that price point. Granted, I’ll never spend that on a house even if i could afford it, but i have see it everyday, which is a bummer.
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.
