Architectural style vs. Location (duplexes, housing, properties, townhouse)

[pannierpacker]

I'm learning during the home search process that if you focus on a certain style of home (i.e. Rambler, Victorian, Craftsman, etc.) you are sort of limited to particular neighborhoods due to development cycles over time. For example, I really appreciate craftsman homes, but most of them were developed in the 1920s and are usually located 3-4 miles away from the dowtown core since that was about as far outward as the city was developed when those homes came into style. Because of this, I'm finding that my neighborhood choices are automatically somewhat limited if I focus on that specific architectural style. This is unfortunate, since there are a number of neighborhoods about 2 miles from downtown that I would normally be interested in due to amenities. However, because these neighborhoods are missing the right architectural style I consider them to not have proper inventory and some of them I even think have blocks that are ugly.

Has anyone else found themselves in this dilemma? How did you resolve it? The phrase "location, location, location" sounds great at first, but unless you have the money to do a tear down and rebuild on the property you are searching for (and don't mind that the neighbors houses will all look different) it seems that you really have to pay attention to location and compromise on it a bit if you are looking for a certain style of home.

[davebarnes]

We solved it by buying a new modern house in a gentrifying neighborhood just before (2011) the boom hit.
We got the advantages of location (streetcar suburb) with (now) 26 restaurants within 6 blocks of the house.
The original houses (except for a dozen large Victorians) were 1000 sqft low-end wood structures built in 1908.
Of course, the new duplexes replacing many of these scrapers are now selling for $800K/side.

[rational1]

Well, your choices are to change your preferences or get used to commuting.



In my case, the neighborhoods close to work were full of Tudor houses which is a style I liked.

[Piney Creek]

We had similar choices when we were doing our search: there was a gorgeous Tudor house in a nice enough neighborhood, but not close to stores, and not really the neighborhood we wanted. We thought about it a long time, and ultimately decided the neighborhood was too important to us. I'm really glad we did; we love this neighborhood and managed to find a house we could like there, too. But that's what worked for us, another person might make the other choice and be equally as happy..

[spencgr]

I commute 1.5 hours each way for a house style I love - 85 year old stone front Cape Cod. Sometimes you have to compromise in areas.

[fishbrains]

Everybody makes these compromises. I want a 2000 sf craftsman, with original woodwork, in Greenwich Village. Just because I want it doesn’t make it feasible, or even possible.

All development happens according to zoning, population density, commute distances, etc, and that history shows in current housing and commercial stock. We all make compromises of one type or another to incorporate reality into our plans.

[Schmooky]

I’m fixing this by building what I want. We picked the right location and neighborhood and are working with an architect to blend our style preferences into the local vernacular, so it doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb

[Parnassia]

I guess I don't focus rigidly on a style until I research what building types seem to "fit" the area I'm moving to. It's also fun to discover ones you hadn't thought of before. A house in a style you hadn't considered in one area might hit you differently in another. There are reasons some styles work better in some places. If you try to buck the practicality aspect too much you'll end up with a house that isn't comfortable. A mid century modern place with big open rooms and massive window exposures may feel cold in the rainy PNW (a sibling of mine owns one near Seattle; they complain about the visual and thermal "chill" every year). Grew up in a Spanish adobe-style house in the SW. It really felt like a cool and comfortable retreat from the summer heat and glare. It's not a style I prefer, but was pleasant in that environment.

[T. Damon]

You could get very lucky and find a block like ours with, because of the long span of development despite its small urban size, has a particularly rich architectural variety on it. Basically a couple of original estates started the block on several of the original 25’ wide lots and sold off chunks of them through the decades.

There are 120 y.o. Swiss Chalet and Airplane Bungalows, 100 y.o. Cape Cod (moved to its lot from somewhere else) 90 y.o. French Storybook style, Spanish and Pueblo Revivals, Craftsman Cottage, a handful of MCMs, a couple of ‘70s Sausalito style townhomes, an ‘80s tract style Split Level (this is the least successful of the bunch haha) a Neo Craftsman built about 10 years ago and a couple of modern urban townhouses (like davebarnes’) around the corner.

Pick a style, you are bound to find something you like! I guess some people might find it a bit disjointed in appearance but trust me, it works. It almost looks like a movie set sometimes and it’s a fantastic, vibrant, fully gentrified street-car suburb village neighborhood a couple miles from downtown.

[emotiioo]

We won't live in a house we don't find architecturally appealing. Hence no no builds, no subdivisions with silly names slapped up in the last 30 years or so, no Chinese drywall. We have owned some truly spectacular properties and some downright cute ones. We have a strong rule that we don't even look at anything built past 1963. Even when we lived in NYC our building was prewar.

Has our commute been longer at times? Sure. Have we paid more to live in a great location in a charming old property? Absolutely. Have we had to deal with fixers with good bones? Sure. But there is always a ranking of priorities that make sense to us financially.