New home styles - Seattle vs The Eastside (Bellevue, Kirkland: townhomes, neighborhoods)

[mkarch]

Something I've noticed in 2012 is that around half of the new single family homes built in Seattle are modern style, whereas a few years ago Craftsman style homes were all the rage.

Compare that to the Eastside where it's still 90%+ Craftsman/farmhouse derivative styles - even in the older "infill" neighborhoods. Except for a few moderns in the Kirkland/Bellevue area, virtually everything else is the exact same look from 5-7 years ago.

Seems odd that the style so popular over here is barely even represented just a few miles east. Aside from infill, there don't even appear to be any new modern subdivisions in the outlying areas.

Eastside example:



Seattle example:



Reference - both homes approximately same size and price:

http://www.redfin.com/WA/Kirkland/12.../home/40270422

http://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/707.../home/40518469

[michel77]

I think maybe the modern type homes still come at a premium price/sq ft, therefore on the Eastside (where people might expect larger homes) it would be easier to stick with the proven spec homes? In Seattle and its closer urban neighborhoods, I think there is a shift to where people, young families or couples with no kids, value things like walkability, community, functionality and practicality over sheer size and most of the newer modern homes being built offer open floor plans, no "formal" dining or living rooms, etc.
The downfall is that lately it seems all the builders that jumped on the six-townhomes-to-one-tiny-lot-bandwagon a few years ago are now on a modern streak but fail to incorporate the finishes that make these homes what they are and should be.

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by michel77

I think maybe the modern type homes still come at a premium price/sq ft, therefore on the Eastside (where people might expect larger homes) it would be easier to stick with the proven spec homes? In Seattle and its closer urban neighborhoods, I think there is a shift to where people, young families or couples with no kids, value things like walkability, community, functionality and practicality over sheer size and most of the newer modern homes being built offer open floor plans, no "formal" dining or living rooms, etc.
The downfall is that lately it seems all the builders that jumped on the six-townhomes-to-one-tiny-lot-bandwagon a few years ago are now on a modern streak but fail to incorporate the finishes that make these homes what they are and should be.

I picked examples that would even out the price and size. Both houses are well suited to a family with 2 kids under age 10.

Functionally, I'd say the new construction homes on either side of the lake are equivalent at the same price point. What puzzles me is why the style is starkly different.

[Inkpoe]

I guess maybe it's all demographics. Those in the suburbs have the more traditional taste whereas the urban dweller goes for the modern look.

I guess one can say Issaquah Highlands is a bit closer to the modern edge while maintaining the traditional taste-- so it could be changing slightly.

[Hemlock140]

Your observation is correct, and it makes for an odd picture to see 100 year old victorians next to ultra-modern new construction, as is now common in Seattle. I don't consider it to be a matter of taste as much as lot size. The modern homes lend themselves to a long but narrow, small lot which had a little 1,200 sf hoe on it. Builders can put in a 2,800 sf 2-3 story modern house in the same space, or even a duplex, while a craftsman or more traditional house would be much smaller and therefore not bring the same price.

[Count David]

They're both ugly IMO.

[civic94]

theres also a big difference... homes in the suburbs have a 2 car garage, while homes in seattle dont, and they squeeze the max amount of sq foot that the lot size can handle.

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Your observation is correct, and it makes for an odd picture to see 100 year old victorians next to ultra-modern new construction, as is now common in Seattle. I don't consider it to be a matter of taste as much as lot size. The modern homes lend themselves to a long but narrow, small lot which had a little 1,200 sf hoe on it. Builders can put in a 2,800 sf 2-3 story modern house in the same space, or even a duplex, while a craftsman or more traditional house would be much smaller and therefore not bring the same price.

I get your point that boxy moderns fit better, but that was just as true 7 years ago when builders were cramming skinny "craftsman" homes on to 2500 sq ft lots.

[civic94]

Originally Posted by mkarch

I get your point that boxy moderns fit better, but that was just as true 7 years ago when builders were cramming skinny "craftsman" homes on to 2500 sq ft lots.

they are still doing that. homes are less than 10 feet from each other, and the yards are a joke. and were talking about suburbs here.

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by civic94

they are still doing that. homes are less than 10 feet from each other, and the yards are a joke. and were talking about suburbs here.

Right, but I was responding to a comment that the Greenwood modern on a 5,000 foot lot was an example of design built around lot size. What I'm seeing this year is new homes that aren't necessarily lot constrained showing markedly different styles.

5000 sq ft lots are pretty common on either side of the lake, 2500 is kind of rare out east but there are examples of it.