You wanting a bigger house is bad for America

[GringoSalado 1652]

14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I stopped reading when she demonstrated intellectual dishonesty with statistics in the 4th paragraph. 

I was able to power through that bs and continue on.

 

You didn't miss anything.

[Ldogg53 514]

14 hours ago, butthurt said:

It's not. Far better codes for wind storm and etc, along with more fire/rot/mold resistant materials used, make todays home more structurally sound. Not to mention more energy efficient.

Yeah I know.  I used to build houses and also remodeled/flipped a few.  It just annoys me when people trot out that line of BS. 

The "cheap" factor for houses today comes in the finishes.  If you don't actually look around and employ good design you wind up with cookie-cutter stuff, which is what builders do on everything not custom.  The other side of that is that many finishes are so much more attainable and just not luxury the way they once were.  Technology and manufacturing have made things that required a craftsman/artist very easy to get at low price points.  And then absent a legit interior designer people slap together a hodgepodge of these luxury items without rhyme or reason.  Architects have also seemed to have lost their damn mind and do some ugly ass shit to houses.  It's like they give very little thought to exterior design vs interior sqft. 

But, none of that makes the houses worse/cheaper in terms of construction both for the guts or the finishes.  It just means that a lot of tasteless and ugly shit gets built.

[Jiggy-Z 3437]

From a baseline standpoint houses today could be built much better than they are, but at a costs to the $/ft number.

It is a lot of little things that you cannot see and nobody wants to pay for(but should):

Foam insulation

Hi SEER AC

Galvanized masonry lintels 

Jacketed electrical wiring.

More robust framing

Better engineering and construction on foundations.

Better windows, doors, and vents.

Upgraded hot water heaters

Thoughtful outdoor spaces and more roof overhangs

Better ventilation and house breath ability.

Quality low voc paints and finishes.

Not to mention a whole hosts of local sourcing options, recycling during construction and use of recycled materials. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, Ldogg53 said:

Yeah I know.  I used to build houses and also remodeled/flipped a few.  It just annoys me when people trot out that line of BS. 

The "cheap" factor for houses today comes in the finishes.  If you don't actually look around and employ good design you wind up with cookie-cutter stuff, which is what builders do on everything not custom.  The other side of that is that many finishes are so much more attainable and just not luxury the way they once were.  Technology and manufacturing have made things that required a craftsman/artist very easy to get at low price points.  And then absent a legit interior designer people slap together a hodgepodge of these luxury items without rhyme or reason.  Architects have also seemed to have lost their damn mind and do some ugly ass shit to houses.  It's like they give very little thought to exterior design vs interior sqft. 

But, none of that makes the houses worse/cheaper in terms of construction both for the guts or the finishes.  It just means that a lot of tasteless and ugly shit gets built.

Yep to most everything you've posted.  Thus is getting in to thread drift, but floor plan is my over riding design feature.  You want a well designed exterior shell, but you live inside. So how a house lays out is more important than creating  a wow elevation that doesn't live well.   How does furniture fit, what are the traffic patterns, site lines from room to room and room to outside, sun exosures. And every elevation is important not just the front elevation curb appeal.

Simpler is better in my opinion, that's something we've gotten away from, and it makes homes needlessly expensive sometimes. Especially the gable gable gable houses with roof lines that need a NASA engineer to figure out.  I've tried to go simpler and bolder with designs (when clients allow me that option).

Homes are definitely engineered and built better today, but they're not as robust in terms of the heft and scale of materials in many cases.

[Armybrat 40920]

[Ldogg53 514]

26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Simpler is better in my opinion, that's something we've gotten away from, and it makes homes needlessly expensive sometimes. Especially the gable gable gable houses with roof lines that need a NASA engineer to figure out.  I've tried to go simpler and bolder with designs (when clients allow me that option).

Totally agreed.  I'd really like to know from architects if it's just the buyers that push the ugly design because they don't know any better.  I'd hope that someone formally trained in architecture would have a greater appreciation for how it works aesthetically. 

Man I wish I could go back into building houses again.  I really enjoyed that.

[Celery Man 21004]

Assuming I liked my maximum of two kids, I think I could live indefinitely in my 3/2 1500 sft house if I also had a tiny house/office in the backyard.

[Parliament 14337]

Gimme a full basement with 9' ceilings plz.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

40 minutes ago, Ldogg53 said:

Totally agreed.  I'd really like to know from architects if it's just the buyers that push the ugly design because they don't know any better.  I'd hope that someone formally trained in architecture would have a greater appreciation for how it works aesthetically. 

Man I wish I could go back into building houses again.  I really enjoyed that.

I wish I knew how these things came to being.  Client driven or architect driven ??  I push people to stay true to architectural styles, and go smaller if possible.  As it gets more expensive to build I'm also starting to see more and more contemporary design. I've designed more contemorary homes in the last 5 years than my entire 35+ year  career. Of course part of that's because I practice in a pretty conservative region of the country where Williamsburg had a strangle hold on design up into the 80's.  You couldn't get a loan for a contemporary home for along time around here with some banks.

I think some of these Mc Mansion homes are designed by designers/ draftsmen not architects, and probably some that are architects working for developers who push the over the top ugly/ no style/ rhyme or reason shit.  

Then there are just clients who only want more square footage and style is secondary.  Then there are the clients who just have horrendous taste and force the architect to add more and more shit to cover up ugly design.  I've run across a few,  but fortunately not many.

I had  clients who purchased an amazing 1930's stock broker Tudor style home who wanted to butcher the new proposed design and ignore the homes original style,  They got angry when I tried to steer them to a solution that complimented the original design instead of ignoring or destroying it.  I questioned (to myself) why one would buy such a gem and then just ignore the style with such disregard.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

16 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Gimme a full basement with 9' ceilings plz.

Start with 10' if possible so when you have to frame down for HVAC soffits (at the room perimeter) you still have 9-10' in the center.  

I'm fighting this exact fight with a contractor now on a small downsizing house. 2-3 more courses of block, taller studs, and a bit more HVAC cost make for a better happier client in the end when they can use a basement space and not feel like they're in a dungeon.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Parliament 14337]

 I questioned (to myself) why one would buy such a gem and then just ignore the style with such disregard.

Hot take! People are stupid.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Parliament said:

 

 

Hot take! People are stupid.
 

 

That, and no matter how much money you have you can't buy class or tase.

[G650 14278]

22 hours ago, huge said:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/ethical-questions-big-houses-american-dream-12916168.php

The idea has some merit but this is sloppy ass writing.  Or am I just tired after my delicious lunch?

Obvious news is obvious.

[irishtexan 11522]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Assuming I liked my maximum of two kids, I think I could live indefinitely in my 3/2 1500 sft house if I also had a tiny house/office in the backyard.

I like my two kids but know that for everyone to stay alive and avoid killing one another, we will soon need a bigger house than our 1700 sft house. 

[huge 3795]

Yeah.  I currently live in a 1400sq ft house built in 1920 and gutted in 2011.  The lack of room for a beer fridge/deep freeze in the garage makes me angry.

Where I want to move will be, let's just say, very dear.  I will be fine with a 3/2.

[idigTexas 2291]

15 hours ago, bolverk said:

For those of us who are current Austin homeowners and would be happy to downsize to a more central location, there's an obvious dilemma. I live alone in a 3/2 house (1500 sf) in South Austin between West Gate and Brodie about midway between Davis and Wm Cannon. My mortgage, homeowners insurance, and property taxes currently cost me about $1250 per month (though the property taxes keep rising).

There is absolutely zero "product" on the market that I could own to get a little closer to downtown and have any semblance of a backyard or any sort of outdoor space. As a matter of fact, in a lot of those old apartment complexes from the 1960s off Manchaca north of Ben White that have been fixed up and turned into condos, a one-bedroom would cost more than what I'm living in now. Hell, even a two-bedroom apartment in my neighborhood would cost more.

As a rational person, I understand that where I live is an extremely inefficient use of space. But, also, as a rational person, why would I give this up? I have a very easy commute to my downtown workplace and have even taken to riding the bus to save on gas, get exercise, and preserve my sanity. It's awesome.

Give me a tangible financial incentive to downsize and I'd be happy to take it (after my 12-yo, 90-pound mutt who actually uses the backyard passes).

I don't think you are part of the problem.  I may be biased, though, as I live in the same hood, also alone in a 3/2, though mine is squeezed into only 1000 sf (no 90-pound dog).  I pay more than you do, but only bought a year and a half ago, and would have had to look in a more remote burb if I had waited much longer.  One thing that is different in my case is that I currently work from home, so my commute is a walk of 30 feet.  I would rather be more central, but it isn't going to happen on my income, and I have nothing bad to say about South Austin. 

[F250 28826]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:45 PM, Samson's Wig said:

I'm going to enjoy my giant house and the ridiculously large pickup truck that I only own at the expense of the poor while I can, and the rest of the world can bust the fire hydrant if they need to cool off in summer.  I'll be in my pool.   

I am F250 and I approve this message.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Those big houses employ a shit ton of people in the building industry.  Take em out of the equation and unemployment starts to shoot thru the roof.  The building industry  touches almost every single type of supply chain there is from shipping, manufacturing, sales, installation thru trades, food services, taxes, tool/supply  companies, engineers, architects.......

[Rusty Shackelford 414]

Wow, is that 3 iPads I see?

[Paper_jam 838]

As a tangent to the increasing interior size of American homes, what has happened to lot sizes? Smaller lots are good for density and anti-sprawl and ecological reasons, but they look and function like crap. I grew up in a neighborhood where the standard suburban lot size was about a half acre, which gives a reasonable buffer to let you actually do stuff in your yard, like fly a kite or play ball, and still enjoy a little privacy. I get why urban lots of that size are impossible, but I hate seeing new tract neighborhoods pop up on open farmland or country that have tiny 5000 sq ft lots., with McMansions that are are practically touching eave-to-eave. If it was up to me, I'd mandate a minimum lot size of at least 1/4 acre.

 

[utee94 15868]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Those big houses employ a shit ton of people in the building industry.  Take em out of the equation and unemployment starts to shoot thru the roof.  The building industry  touches almost every single type of supply chain there is from shipping, manufacturing, sales, installation thru trades, food services, taxes, tool/supply  companies, engineers, architects.......

Let them eat cake.

[phdhorn 6224]

Is this where we Rocko stub our square footage?

[bolverk 29734]

4 hours ago, idigTexas said:

I don't think you are part of the problem.  I may be biased, though, as I live in the same hood, also alone in a 3/2, though mine is squeezed into only 1000 sf (no 90-pound dog).  I pay more than you do, but only bought a year and a half ago, and would have had to look in a more remote burb if I had waited much longer.  One thing that is different in my case is that I currently work from home, so my commute is a walk of 30 feet.  I would rather be more central, but it isn't going to happen on my income, and I have nothing bad to say about South Austin. 

Welcome to the hood, idig. In fairness, the ex and I bought the house in 2004 when Austin was still recovering from the dot.com bust, and I'm fortunate that she walked away without wanting anything to do with the house which I was able to keep through the divorce.

Edited May 16, 2018 by bolverk

[butthurt 1531]

12 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No I disagree, framing lumber is most definitely inferior to older framing lumber.  

Trees are harvested sooner, they're not old growth.  Faster growing weaker trees,  growth rings are less dense.  Less tree resin making them more susceptible to moisture, rot and insect invasion.  We harvest trees sooner which means less strength, durability, and resin content.

No knots ? Because they strip branches from trees as they grow.

Straighter?  Most lumber hacks have more and more returned studs because they're not straight.  Try finding a straight 10' long 2 x 4 or even a 2 x 6 stud today.  I hear complaints from the older framers on every job site.

I've seen at least 2 reductions in the allowable lengths of floor joist, roof rafter and ceiling joist spans in my career. That's a direct result of inferior, weaker lumber.

Better building codes ?  Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of lumber, and more to do with technology and better building practices.

The rise of pre engineered floor joists is a direct result of weaker wood.

I was wrong. I should've asked my dad, 30+ years owning his framing company, his opinion. He pretty much said the same thing and not to listen to what salesmen at the lumber store say. I owe you and phl some rep.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

17 minutes ago, butthurt said:

I was wrong. I should've asked my dad, 30+ years owning his framing company, his opinion. He pretty much said the same thing and not to listen to what salesmen at the lumber store say. I owe you and phl some rep.

No worries. The industry is better but some of the products aren't the same.

[ABSR 5325]

10 hours ago, Armybrat said:

 

So if I downsize to this it is good for America?

[NeverMarryAStripper 21946]

No that's bad too, just in a different way.  It's kind of like being married, no matter what you do it's wrong.

Edited May 17, 2018 by NeverMarryAStripper

[utee94 15868]

10 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

No that's bad too, just in a different way.  It's kind of like being married, no matter what you do it's wrong.

So, one is like marrying a stripper...

...and the other is like marrying a scat porn star?

[Armybrat 40920]

7 hours ago, ABSR said:

 

So if I downsize to this it is good for America?

As long as you send Al Gore a donation to offset your carbon footprint, it's all good. (no/CR).

[Catpfish 618]

22 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

 

Foam insulation

Better ventilation and house breath ability.

 

Aren't these fundamentally at odds with each other?  The whole purpose of the foam insulation is to seal the envelope.  I know that when we want a fire in the fireplace, we have to crack a window to get it going.  Once it's going, it will draw from a separate vent we put into the chimney for that purpose.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

40 minutes ago, Catpfish said:

Aren't these fundamentally at odds with each other?  The whole purpose of the foam insulation is to seal the envelope.  I know that when we want a fire in the fireplace, we have to crack a window to get it going.  Once it's going, it will draw from a separate vent we put into the chimney for that purpose.

Yep, air infilration is cut to basically zero.  You need to add an ERV (energy recovery ventilation). When you expel air to create a flow of fresh air into the system, the ERV will take the heat or cooling from the old air and mix it with the new fresh air coming in to the house.

[elfenix 34338]

17 hours ago, Paper_jam said:

As a tangent to the increasing interior size of American homes, what has happened to lot sizes? Smaller lots are good for density and anti-sprawl and ecological reasons, but they look and function like crap. I grew up in a neighborhood where the standard suburban lot size was about a half acre, which gives a reasonable buffer to let you actually do stuff in your yard, like fly a kite or play ball, and still enjoy a little privacy. I get why urban lots of that size are impossible, but I hate seeing new tract neighborhoods pop up on open farmland or country that have tiny 5000 sq ft lots., with McMansions that are are practically touching eave-to-eave. If it was up to me, I'd mandate a minimum lot size of at least 1/4 acre.

 

hey jim crow, how are you?

 

(historically, minimum lot sizes and house size requirements were used to keep the "poors" and other "undesirables" out)

Edited May 17, 2018 by elfenix

[G650 14278]

20 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

.  Take em out of the equation and unemployment starts to shoot thru the roof.

Ha. You're funny.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

46 minutes ago, G650 said:

Ha. You're funny.

It's true, as building goes so goes the nations economy.  I'm definitely not advocating those BS Mc Mansions, but a healthy building industry is good for me for damn sure.....  Build a great America..... again and again....

[G650 14278]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's true, as building goes so goes the nations economy.  I'm definitely not advocating those BS Mc Mansions, but a healthy building industry is good for me for damn sure.....  Build a great America..... again and again....

I'm a residential site developer, I get it. You are talking about those McMansions, which is why I laughed.

 

22 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Those big houses employ a shit ton of people in the building industry. 

 

[Jiggy-Z 3437]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, air infilration is cut to basically zero.  You need to add an ERV (energy recovery ventilation). When you expel air to create a flow of fresh air into the system, the ERV will take the heat or cooling from the old air and mix it with the new fresh air coming in to the house.

Yes and there is also a lesser consideration of being able to vent/dry the exterior of the house. Case in point, stucco membranes that allow water vabor to wick out along with any additinal off gassing by foam, osb etc.

My original point was more about the total system.

[utee94 15868]

Any of you building to PassivHaus specs?  There are a lot of interesting possibilities there.  Obviously it's well established in Europe, but it's gaining traction here in the US.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

59 minutes ago, G650 said:

I'm a residential site developer, I get it. You are talking about those McMansions, which is why I laughed.

 

 

Yep, it's a huge double edged sword.

[G650 14278]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, it's a huge double edged sword.

Except smaller houses account for way more jobs...