Agreed, any comments were not meant to be taken personally.............stosh said:
New House Construction Porn
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Wow...didn't catch THIS on his site...he can swing a hammer AND surf...
and since there are no trees providing shade, yr AC costs just went up again...
I agree, Its pretty sad here in American how most suburban homes (designed by developers not Architects no less) feature large garage doors pushed out towards the front of the lot. If there is a front porch, it is recessed back in - pretty much as anti-community as you can get in design. Anybody here ever heard of new-urbanism?valve bouncer said:N8, promise me you won't build another house where the main feature of the front of the house is a 12 f*cken car garage door.
It'ds just as bad in Australia mind you, it's a horrible practice.
If I was able to afford a house like that, I could probably afford the utilities. Cleaning it would suck though. We have a hard enough time finding two hours each week to vacuum and clean the bathrooms.SkaredShtles said:You have *no* idea what a nightmare it would be to keep a pad like that heated in the winter and cooled in the summer.
I'll bet in your location it'd be ~$300+/mo. for utilities alone.
And around here the construction is shoddy on those big houses.
Actually, the construction is pretty shoddy on any house built after '92.
-S.S.-
Esspecially with that huge heat collector of a roof...............SkaredShtles said:
We moved from a 1400sq foot house to a 2500sq foot house and cleaning just doesn't get done.I Are Baboon said:If I was able to afford a house like that, I could probably afford the utilities. Cleaning it would suck though. We have a hard enough time finding two hours each week to vacuum and clean the bathrooms.
We pick up the clutter every couple days, but actual cleaning is rare.
-S.S.-
No what is it?Archslater said:
We have 1800 sq feet. The main level is hardwood floors and the CAT FURBALLS pile up like you would not believe. If we don't vacuum once a week, the floors look like hell with cat fur everywhere.SkaredShtles said:We moved from a 1400sq foot house to a 2500sq foot house and cleaning just doesn't get done.
We pick up the clutter every couple days, but actual cleaning is rare.
-S.S.-
The trusty shovel solves yet another problem. They could make a nice jump while they were at it.stosh said:
I hear ya. A cleaning lady would definitely solve the problem, but that's an expense we don't want to take on.stosh said:
train your dog to eat the hairballs.
First they have to rename the cat Hariballs.narlus said:
Well she eats cat poop from the litterbox, so maybe hairballs won't be that hard to teach.narlus said:
Naw - if you could afford a house like that *and* afford to keep it cool/warm, you'd definitely have enough money to have a maid.I Are Baboon said:If I was able to afford a house like that, I could probably afford the utilities. Cleaning it would suck though. We have a hard enough time finding two hours each week to vacuum and clean the bathrooms.
-S.S.-
Andyman_1970 said:
Its a trend where actual thought is put into designing communities to be sustainable, walkable, diverse, etc.... Typically homes have large front porches, with garages facing the alley behind the house. Retail/Commercial space is planned within a walkable distance. Home sizes/designs are diverse to get a mixed population.
Go to http://www.newurbanism.org
Its irritating though that this is the way our communities were in the early part of the century and we got away from it for various reasons that I won't get into.
I'll get off of my Architectural soapbox now.
Never been to that one.stosh said:Ever been to Radburn?
Don't blame the developers.Archslater said:
Blame the people buying the houses.
After all - it's what they *want.*
-S.S.-
That in some ways is the one that started it all in NJ 1927-28.Archslater said:
Check out The Radburn Idea on the internet.
Our office is currently working on a "traditional neighborhood" developement here in town.
We're doing the house plans for it.
well, to be fair the people buying the houses don't have a say in the street and house layout. by the time they are looking to buy it, that part of the design is done, and was done by the developer.SkaredShtles said:Don't blame the developers.
Blame the people buying the houses.
After all - it's what they *want.*
-S.S.-
of course you can say that one doesn't have to buy the house, but i'd say most of the developments i've seen recently aren't really community-driven concepts.
Many people buying homes just don't know any better. Its up to developers to put a well designed product out there.... which seldom happens. Communities certainly aren't doing there part to help the process......SkaredShtles said:Don't blame the developers.
Blame the people buying the houses.
After all - it's what they *want.*
-S.S.-
Actually it goes back much further than that....... as in centuries ago in Europe. We Americans have just done a good job turning our backs on it since we've had the luxury of all of this space.stosh said:
Do you mean like the Medieval cities?Archslater said:
Also Radburn was a town that included the automobile in it's design which is an important part to any well designed community these days. The medieval citites are nice but you can't use your car in them.
I'll have to take issue with your "up to developers" statement. It's up to developers to build houses that people will buy.Archslater said:
It's up to the communities to set the standards - so they set standards that they *want.*
It may sound surprising, but most people don't want to be "close" to their neighbors. I think it's mainly because Americans tend to be an inconsiderate lot.
Data point: Our house has a nice big porch on the front.
-S.S.-
Part of new urbanism is having small lots but large contiguous open land for all to use. Believe it or not by having homes close together it encourages community and people keep the common green spaces clean and safe.SkaredShtles said:I'll have to take issue with your "up to developers" statement. It's up to developers to build houses that people will buy.
It's up to the communities to set the standards - so they set standards that they *want.*
It may sound surprising, but most people don't want to be "close" to their neighbors. I think it's mainly because Americans tend to be an inconsiderate lot.
Data point: Our house has a nice big porch on the front.
-S.S.-
Some Americans do want to live on huge plots of land but I bet you would find that if most people were able to live in communities that were set up properly the positive aspects would far outweigh having to mow a huge lawn and not knowing your neighbors.
Ditto what Stosh said. I don't believe that Americans prefer to be isolated from their neigbors, drive long distances through heavy traffic to get to schools, workplaces, and retail.SkaredShtles said:
I agree that communities need to be more active in setting up intelligent planning guidelines.... but it just isn't happening
Its always interesting to me when people I know who live in sub-divisions travel to Europe and come back marveling about how great it is there being able to walk everywhere, not traffic, etc... It doesn't even occur to them that it could happen here to.
well, capitalism has a way of going against this concept. to get stuff cheaper, you need bigger stores (walmarts, costcos, home depot, etc). those retail operations don't exactly fit into the walk-to-the-local-store ideal.Archslater said:
Problem is most homes are built one at a time even in a community where the lots are set up ahead of time. Most developers won't go do far in the red if the homes aren't already sold.Archslater said:
Also it's funny we're doing a "traditional neighborhood" here in town. Funny thing is it's for 55 and older people. HOW THE HELL can a "traditional neighborhood" not have any kids in it? The only way a lot of townships are letting "sub-divisions" fly anymore is if they only add to the tax base and don't add kids to the schools.
My biggest complaint with living in a community is that you have to keep your house colors, size, design, cars in driveway, and so on within a certain prescribed limit. But even with that I don't feel it's to much to ask.
Many towns in Europe have been around for centuries and were laid out before there were few alternative to walking. Most urban growth in the US took place after the auto. The few cities that grew before that are more walking friendly than ones that grew after. Just compare LA and NY.Archslater said:
They don't have to. The problem is, most Americans view 5 blocks to be a "long distance"......... I live in suburbia and there is pretty much everthing you "need" within walking distance. And you know what - hardly *anyone* walks.Archslater said:
I'm pretty convinced most Americans don't care if they're isolated from their neighbors. I think people are too busy now to relax on the porch with their neighbors.
I think it'd be nice, but I don't think most people care.
-S.S.-
I've spent time in Philly lately, and the old city part is awesome. There are all kinds of stores within a 1 block radius of anywhere. Yeah the stuff is slightly more expensive but imagine how much more you're saving not having to DRIVE to the store.narlus said:
Thats America's problem is we're penny wise and dollar short.
Imagine if you didn't need a car at all? Or even just one for the long trips to see family or go on vacation.
This is an apples - rutebega comparison.Archslater said:
It can't be like Europe here.
-S.S.-
Ironically in the long run it all ends up costing communities far more. Eventually these sprawled out suburban communities get annexed by a city which has to sustain the sprawled out infrastructure (water, gas sewage, roads, etc...) Since suburban communites have MUCH more infrastructure, it leads to much higher taxes for the community.narlus said:
I've never really "walked" around in LA so I can't compare.Westy said:
It's interesting that part of Boston's plan with THE BIG DIG is to create a center pedestrian friendly city. Cheers to them!!!
The model of "European" citites and how they are able to related Public, Semi-Public, and privates spaces is a good model to follow and thats his point. A well designed "developement" should be able to encorperate the Auto and the Pedestrian.
Although it's nice to theorize about stuff like this, it just isn't realistic. A good public transport network would be required and that is currently cost prohibitive here.stosh said:
I'd theoretically like to live without a car, but my desire to go to the mountains, ride my bike, go hiking, etc. quickly throws that idea out the window.
People want to do what they want to do when they want to do it - and that means driving a car for the vast majority of the country.
-S.S.-