I am curious about why are homes designed so poorly? for example Ontario, Canada. Home designs will make you cry. Where do the construction companies get these "designers" and on top of it they pass them for mass building. I just don't get it.
I even searched home designers in Canada just to see if there are any modern normal Architectural studios that don't produce pure crap and came across this one. Look below image.They call this "beautiful dream" house. No B... this is a church that collided with a barn and landed on a graveyard.
The problem is not with the "designers", it's with the builders and the fools with too much money who pay for them.
Plenty of excellent residential firms in Ontario who do great residential work. It's really not that hard to find them, just be ready to pay for design quality.
The problem is mainly the RE market and how it weighs sf over all else when it values homes. "Comps" strip qualitative value from property. A 4000 ft sq house built at 100$ per ft2 is worth more than a 2000 ft2 house built for 200$ Per ft2....its all about money...
Look at the cars people drive... most peoples number one priority is cost and function... plus if they have an ipad and an iphone, they're stylish. I haven't spent alot of time thinking about it, but ugly houses sell like hot cakes... maybe we're the idiots
^ jlax. I dont think the valuation is that simple. Cost of construction is only one aspect in determining the value of a home. Cost of land, soft costs and location can influence the value more than hard costs to build. Type of construction also can be an influencing factor.
Everything being apples to apples, sq ft will drive the value up or down for comps in most cases.
That being said, i agree, cost is the number one priority in most cases... hence... the above.
most peoples number one priority is cost and function
A very broad generalization that ignores marketing, social pressure, personal vanity, etc., etc. Marketing is specific to well-defined price categories and the general "concerns" typified by that market.
driven by a "celebrity" obsessive media washing your brains on what you should have, suburbia produces this miniature models of ugly mcmansions so people believe they have the same "style" as kardashians or housewives of wherever....
All good points Miles... definitely was thinking about peoples fear of change, fear of being different as well as the comfort found in sameness as I was typing, plus manipulation by media... didn't translate into words.
Any realtors on here? Would be interesting to see if there was a premium paid for well designed homes.
Johnathon Siegel says something like, I believe that good design sells and people will pay for it when offered the choice. I've long thought of that as a market opportunity. Hope to test it in my lifetime.
If we are talking about the aesthetics of homes designed in that style, then really, it only seems to be a problem for architects.
Who are we to tell people that what they like is wrong and look down on them because they are afraid to step out of their comfort zone? It's their life, their home, and their money.
But, If we are talking about poorly build homes that don't stand the test of time, then that's another issue. No excuse for that.
Who are we to tell people that what they like is wrong and look down on them...?
Umm, architects?
Seriously.
What is currently sold in the general market is not sold because it satisfies anyone's considered preferences. It sells because it is what is made available based on a financial plan for the business producing the product. People are choosing from a stock of choices that were made without their input. They choose on price and features. And the features are largely not carefully considered design, but itemizable consumables that are sprinkled into the structures as if they lend credence to being a good building.
You're right though, it seems to be more of a problem for architects than the purchasing public. Folks don't know that something else is available. A few clients out there understand and seek out architects to do what they've been trained to do.
my only qualm with it is that there are plenty of decent catalog home available. my guess is that builders are buying building materials in bulk on sale and shoehorning them into a design...
Maybe most people just don't give shit? They know quality costs money and they don't have enough to pay architects fees, plus land, plus construction costs, permits, etc.
A bank will give them a decent mortgage on one of these turds and they take it. It has plenty of SF for their families and their possessions. Life goes on.
That off-the-shelf home depot tract home shit is cheap as fuck.
This is where modernism failed in one of the many ways - the goal was to provide stripped away clean economical buildings for the masses - instead the artsy bourgeois elite fetishistzed it into the stratosphere, meanwhile, developers figured out they could do a 2x4 cracker box with plastic windows and rake in the cash.
If architects didn't have their heads up their ass maybe they could have formed and influenced what we now look at as standard construction - horrible ugly cheap shit.
Sadly, this is just one of the other trends that is pushing our profession to be obsolete.
There were plenty of inexpensive, cheaply built houses built in America in the 1920s-1940s, designed by less-than-topflight architects...nothing new. Yet the "builder's houses" of that era were generally much, much better designed: more elegant, more restrained, better proportions, more thoughtful details. Why?
A big part of the answer is that the architects who designed those houses were the last generation of architects to receive a serious education in traditional architectural languages. Architects today are trying to meet a demand for traditional residential design, and they haven't been trained to really care about it or to do it well.
Maybe architects and designers need to spend less time in the office with their noses in the drawings and more time interacting with people and influencing them.
agreed - but since that time, the economy has gradually been slipping to favor the extremely wealthy and screwing the middle class - that is another issue all together, but middle class families in the first half of the 20th century could hire an architect and design or remodel a home - I don't know any median middle class families that can do that now. Another factor was the skilled labor available at that time, craftsmen that knew what they were doing - not just some posse from home depot - ever see a set of residential drawings from 1920? One floor plan an elevation and maybe a section? Seems like the architects didn't have much to do with it when you think of it like that - I'm sure CA didn't even exist.
EKE, I agree that the education was far superior, grounded in the practical rather than the fanciful, but trying to spin this into "traditional style is better" is a bit disingenuous.
There were plenty of problems with "traditional" design from a practical point of view, my 1919 (builder's own) house is full of them. On the other hand there are also some really smart features like deep overhangs to protect windows and doors, efficient volume and construction, etc. that have been largely abandoned. Such features are not limited to traditional design.
If you live in eastern Canada you might well want a recently constructed home with French influences. Here is one. In fact, this is the backyard! I think the larger issue is that many architects have only contempt for anything not "modern" and, having no interest in different periods and regional styles, really are incapable of producing anything attractive in a given style or period, even though they would have permission to incorporate many modern features.
Here is another French derived home, the design genes came from France to the Canadian Maritimes, to Louisiana with the Arcadians, and then a short hop to Augusta, GA.
How are those multi-million dollar "revival" homes relevant to the discussion? No middle class family is ever going to afford that house.
There are plenty of very talented architects working in traditional home design. The problem is only the very wealthy are able to retain their services. Why is no one demanding better quality out of the middle-range homes?
Perhaps you are presuming I am pushing a "trad is better" narrative here, but that really wasn't my point at all. The title of the thread is "What is wrong with home designs?" and the image posted was a pseudo-traditional design. I'm not making any statement about relative merit of traditional design vs. modernist design.
What's wrong with pseudo-trad designs like the one posted? I'm arguing it's because the architect who designed it had no training to design houses like that.
Here is an affordable pre-fab 2,500 foot square foot home by Connor Homes of Vermont. Their architects will adapt the design as needed to accommodate the client and lot, Architect-designed with a sensitivity to the style and affordable.
Funny how the general public feels the same way about architect's "superior" home designs. Most people want a nice landscape painting regardless of how much a snob artist will tell them a splattered canvas is so much better.
Modern homes are just more expensive to build...many people would love a modern home. When an Eichler goes on the market it gets snatched up immediatly. Even bad mid-century mod homes get bought up fast. Baseboards, stucco, and textured drywall are doable by low skilled labor. Faux traditional lends itself better to these materials. Almost impossible to build good modern homes with low skilled labor.
Laymen don't know enough about architecture to have an informed opinion. They see granite counter tops, double ovens, tall windows, and fancy finishes - all nice things - and think "what a great house". How many people come into contact with on a daily basis? How many people ever see well designed homes? If you don't know it exists how are you going to want it?
Feb 17, 16 12:06 am ·
·
jla-x,
I am not so sure about that. We been building modern homes for the last 50 years. We called it the Ranch style and many other modern styles of homes are made for a long time. Most of the modern styles including "International style" and it's variants are often made of wood and concrete. Aside from the predominately concrete ones, the wood frame modern homes are basically platform style homes and easy to build and often uses off the shelf materials to make like wood and plywood. We been doing that in Northern Los Angeles area in the 1960s. They are often large in scale and therefore expensive but they aren't always big nor necessarily cost a tremendous amount of money more than these McMansions.
As a matter of fact, they should cost less. McMansions are fairly wasteful in material with over convoluted roofs. I can design a modern Richard Neutra-esque style home using fairly common material from Home Depot. Most of those homes use the same building materials used in many of the California Ranch style homes which is what most of the basic building materials you find today comes from. It doesn't take a whole lot of high end woodworking skills. It mostly takes good handling of level and plumb lines.
Most of these homes used drywalls. The true traditional / crafted homes from the past requires a bit more skilled labor. The truth is modern architecture was entirely intended to design out of premanufactured building components not local custom millwork. While some of this occurs in the high end, this isn't necessary for modest international style / contemporary modern homes. The high end ones often have additional amenities where as the modest ones have less of that. One can build an international style home for close to the cost of a ranch style home on the same per sq.ft. basis. The materials you choose, whether or not you use custom millwork or not, additional amenities like outdoor pool, guest houses and other special amenities will effect cost. The craftsmanship doesn't isn't necessarily required while old craftsman / bungalow, Victorian style, and others will require special craftsman skills to even remotely do in anything close to authentic. While, components of many such homes were mass produced in large mills in the past, they aren't made that way anymore because those mills that used to do it no longer use the equipment and jigs that they had. They have sense retooled themselves to produce different products. Therefore, you have to source local craftsmen that does custom mills and will make their own jigs to make the parts in the rather low volume level but the big production mills now makes the products you see in Home Depot or Lowes and others. They don't do the old stuff. Therefore, you would find doing custom wood work and the like to be more expensive.
I would argue that it would be less expensive to product a modern / international style-contemporary style house for less. I would even argue that it could be less expensive per sq.ft. than some of the McMansions because the McMansions over complicates the roof.
Yes, we can make anything expensive. I think the issue is not so much how much it costs. I think the issue is how does the house feel.
I think the stark white look might have hurt the popularity of international | modern style becoming widely accepted because the colors feels cold. Bring some natural material in and the color & texture and WOW! it can be nice.
The question then is how to make something more palatable.
Cleaner and simpler roof forms does actually reduce cost because it reduced material and opportunity to even reduce material waste.
Feb 17, 16 12:08 am ·
·
Laymen don't know enough about architecture to have an informed opinion. They see granite counter tops, double ovens, tall windows, and fancy finishes - all nice things - and think "what a great house". How many people come into contact with on a daily basis? How many people ever see well designed homes? If you don't know it exists how are you going to want it?
If only there were such a thing as young architects and designers that home owners could hire for less expensive but still get some decent design input! Hmmmm, hmmmm. Ok, like this: after I graduated from architecture school, I was asked to do some small design projects like house additions, a cabin addition, a septic tank, a park toilet and shelter, and a farm building. But I was told by my firm that moonlighting and was illegal and unethical. I blame ourselves. We, the designers and architects, are responsible for making design something esoteric and out of reach. It is the profession who takes these young less expensive designers and mandates that they serve as drafters for their elders for what now takes over 7 years average which pretty much means you are in your 30's or later before you can go out on your own, and by then designing garages don't pay the bills for a house and family with kids too. I could have started my own firm based on little jobs as a 23 year old with a "professional degree", something I could have grown into bigger jobs quickly, but it is illegal and unethical. The mandated path had me organizing a firm's detail library, answering their phone, picking up redlines, making powerpoints and running prints (I did design stuff too, just making a point). Who's idea is that? Architects. They call it professional development. It is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. For everyone's own good, they say. The intern, the homeowner.
People pay painters 2k-10k to paint a house. They pay appliance repair people $100 just to show up and do diagnostics on the dishwasher. They can pay a designer $400-2000 for ideas and basic design and plans. They WANT to. Trust me. It is US that won't do it. They have guys at the lumberyard who will draw your plans for $400-$600. Why can't young architects do it????? Cause the old grey hairs are in control and they don't want you to. They want the homeowners to come to them, but yet they won't touch anything for less than $3500. I get asked to do small jobs still but am too expensive for home home owners, who should I direct them to? People want plans for a basement remodel, who is going to do it but a contractor or an inferior designer or a corporate basement entity. Why not a 23-26 year old architect? Oh, because they don't exist.
I did plenty of moonlight designing as a 25y old intern... a great deal of my colleagues did to. People just don't try enough and it's easier to complain about it.
Stupid thing, yes to follow the legal and ethical advice of my mentors and my profession. but what do you mean, I didn't try hard enough? Tell me more.
Non Sequitor - you are probably overlooking the fact that women are treated much differently in offices. While a young white male moonlighting on the side is likely to be "overlooked" or ignored, a young lady doing the same thing is much more likely to be reprimanded.
Boiling it down to, "Competent designers find a way to make it work, the lazy complain, and the others end up working on projects like the OP's picture above."
really means:
"Those with wealthy parents get to go out on their own, the risk-averse and anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Work are perceived as lazy, and anyone who has to make a living more than likely ends up working on projects like the OP's picture above."
It is a structural problem in the profession if it is that hard to overcome. I agree with tintt - would like to see something like tiered licencing levels - just like contractors get their A, B, and C licenses for progressively larger and more difficult and dangerous projects, so should architects.
Just to clear it up, I was in a small city where I clearly would have been caught moonlighting and would have been fired for it, regardless of being a lady. and thanks archanonymous for interpreting he-who-doesn't-follow's privileged complaint. Structural problems, there is a reason they don't call architects to help solve em!
licensure for single family detached dwellings is stupid. if you copy pasted the details from the International Residential Building Code and the local building department did their usual review and inspection the life safety risk is practically nill................by graduation an architect student should be able to put together a set of drawings for a house like this in a week or 2.
NS - absolutely is a problem here in Chicago. Sexism is particularly acute in architecture, and definitely plays a role in the higher # of young men starting practices/ working on the side as compared to women. Unless you are working in Northern Europe, I would wager its a problem where you are, too.
Volunteer - No, that house is worse. I'd rather not revert to some tired notion of ornament and historical imitation in a house I design nor one I inhabit, but I realize not everyone feels this way. I just don't think we need to give any recognition to those that do.
Olaf- totally agree. In many places you don't have to.
Limiting it to SFR work is not the answer though. You should get a provisional license or an "A Class" license upon graduation that lets you do small work, not just residences.
"No, that house is worse. I'd rather not revert to some tired notion of ornament and historical imitation in a house I design nor one I inhabit, but I realize not everyone feels this way. I just don't think we need to give any recognition to those that do."
Ok, so what do you like? More importantly, what does your client like? What is ornament and what is art? Historical imitation? Do you realize the Paris City Hall was built in a style popular 200 years earlier? In fact the Paris City Hall was built after the first skyscrapers. Shall we tear it down because it is an "historical imitation"? Replace it with a Boston City Hall look-alike?
Best/easiest part about being a chick in architecture is getting hired, people loooove chick architects, we are rarer. Maybe not in Chicago though, I can see that.
I just don't think we need to give any recognition to those that do.
it's nice that you like old stuff and stuff that imitates old stuff. it is what it is.
from what i've seen, pretty much all new construction is either apartments where you stack as many +/- 700sf units as close as you can, or 4,000sf mcmansions. why are people not building 1,000sf - 1,200sf homes? as i understand it, it has something to do with land cost. i would think there would be demand though. i can tell you as someone with a lot of education and a professional job (so i should theoretically be towards the upper side of middle class) i can't afford anything close to a 4,000sf house, but i'd like a little more space than a 700sf apartment to fit a table saw or whatever other junk i've accumulated over the past few years.
Volunteer, I'd rather not make this about style, but no, I don't think we should tear down Paris City Hall. But I also wouldn't advocate building anything new in that style.
I agree, it is driven by client to a large extent, and we are both missing the point - extravagant French Country Houses and hundred-million dollar cultural projects aside, the real question is why does the run-of-the-mill $250,000 single family home revert to a poor pastiche of historical style?
tintt, oh from what I've seen they love to hire ladies, but then they stick em with the material library and answering the phone and organizing lunch and learns, things most firms exclusively make young women do.
What is wrong with home designs?
I am curious about why are homes designed so poorly? for example Ontario, Canada. Home designs will make you cry. Where do the construction companies get these "designers" and on top of it they pass them for mass building. I just don't get it.
I even searched home designers in Canada just to see if there are any modern normal Architectural studios that don't produce pure crap and came across this one. Look below image.They call this "beautiful dream" house. No B... this is a church that collided with a barn and landed on a graveyard.
and you're ranting now because...?
The problem is not with the "designers", it's with the builders and the fools with too much money who pay for them.
Plenty of excellent residential firms in Ontario who do great residential work. It's really not that hard to find them, just be ready to pay for design quality.
neoliberal architecture and building premise #1, Cheap, Good, Fast: Pick One....and don't try to talk to the subs.
Kunstler has a pretty good take on it: https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia?language=en
The problem is mainly the RE market and how it weighs sf over all else when it values homes. "Comps" strip qualitative value from property. A 4000 ft sq house built at 100$ per ft2 is worth more than a 2000 ft2 house built for 200$ Per ft2....its all about money...
Look at the cars people drive... most peoples number one priority is cost and function... plus if they have an ipad and an iphone, they're stylish. I haven't spent alot of time thinking about it, but ugly houses sell like hot cakes... maybe we're the idiots
^ jlax. I dont think the valuation is that simple. Cost of construction is only one aspect in determining the value of a home. Cost of land, soft costs and location can influence the value more than hard costs to build. Type of construction also can be an influencing factor. Everything being apples to apples, sq ft will drive the value up or down for comps in most cases. That being said, i agree, cost is the number one priority in most cases... hence... the above.
most peoples number one priority is cost and function
A very broad generalization that ignores marketing, social pressure, personal vanity, etc., etc. Marketing is specific to well-defined price categories and the general "concerns" typified by that market.
driven by a "celebrity" obsessive media washing your brains on what you should have, suburbia produces this miniature models of ugly mcmansions so people believe they have the same "style" as kardashians or housewives of wherever....
All good points Miles... definitely was thinking about peoples fear of change, fear of being different as well as the comfort found in sameness as I was typing, plus manipulation by media... didn't translate into words. Any realtors on here? Would be interesting to see if there was a premium paid for well designed homes. Johnathon Siegel says something like, I believe that good design sells and people will pay for it when offered the choice. I've long thought of that as a market opportunity. Hope to test it in my lifetime.
of course people pay for good design, when they know what good design is, but RE and developers are not in the education business.
If we are talking about the aesthetics of homes designed in that style, then really, it only seems to be a problem for architects.
Who are we to tell people that what they like is wrong and look down on them because they are afraid to step out of their comfort zone? It's their life, their home, and their money.
But, If we are talking about poorly build homes that don't stand the test of time, then that's another issue. No excuse for that.
Who are we to tell people that what they like is wrong and look down on them...?
Umm, architects?
Seriously.
What is currently sold in the general market is not sold because it satisfies anyone's considered preferences. It sells because it is what is made available based on a financial plan for the business producing the product. People are choosing from a stock of choices that were made without their input. They choose on price and features. And the features are largely not carefully considered design, but itemizable consumables that are sprinkled into the structures as if they lend credence to being a good building.
You're right though, it seems to be more of a problem for architects than the purchasing public. Folks don't know that something else is available. A few clients out there understand and seek out architects to do what they've been trained to do.
I call it "design by checklist"
Step 1: Real Estate agent makes a list
Step 2: Marketing convinces people they need all the things on the list
Step 3: Build a box as cheaply as possible, fill it with the stuff on the list
Step 4: Sell people the box with the stuff
my only qualm with it is that there are plenty of decent catalog home available. my guess is that builders are buying building materials in bulk on sale and shoehorning them into a design...
A bank will give them a decent mortgage on one of these turds and they take it. It has plenty of SF for their families and their possessions. Life goes on.
architecture is a luxury for the rich.
That off-the-shelf home depot tract home shit is cheap as fuck.
This is where modernism failed in one of the many ways - the goal was to provide stripped away clean economical buildings for the masses - instead the artsy bourgeois elite fetishistzed it into the stratosphere, meanwhile, developers figured out they could do a 2x4 cracker box with plastic windows and rake in the cash.
If architects didn't have their heads up their ass maybe they could have formed and influenced what we now look at as standard construction - horrible ugly cheap shit.
Sadly, this is just one of the other trends that is pushing our profession to be obsolete.
go ask aravena!
There were plenty of inexpensive, cheaply built houses built in America in the 1920s-1940s, designed by less-than-topflight architects...nothing new. Yet the "builder's houses" of that era were generally much, much better designed: more elegant, more restrained, better proportions, more thoughtful details. Why?
A big part of the answer is that the architects who designed those houses were the last generation of architects to receive a serious education in traditional architectural languages. Architects today are trying to meet a demand for traditional residential design, and they haven't been trained to really care about it or to do it well.
Maybe architects and designers need to spend less time in the office with their noses in the drawings and more time interacting with people and influencing them.
agreed - but since that time, the economy has gradually been slipping to favor the extremely wealthy and screwing the middle class - that is another issue all together, but middle class families in the first half of the 20th century could hire an architect and design or remodel a home - I don't know any median middle class families that can do that now. Another factor was the skilled labor available at that time, craftsmen that knew what they were doing - not just some posse from home depot - ever see a set of residential drawings from 1920? One floor plan an elevation and maybe a section? Seems like the architects didn't have much to do with it when you think of it like that - I'm sure CA didn't even exist.
EKE, I agree that the education was far superior, grounded in the practical rather than the fanciful, but trying to spin this into "traditional style is better" is a bit disingenuous.
There were plenty of problems with "traditional" design from a practical point of view, my 1919 (builder's own) house is full of them. On the other hand there are also some really smart features like deep overhangs to protect windows and doors, efficient volume and construction, etc. that have been largely abandoned. Such features are not limited to traditional design.
If you live in eastern Canada you might well want a recently constructed home with French influences. Here is one. In fact, this is the backyard! I think the larger issue is that many architects have only contempt for anything not "modern" and, having no interest in different periods and regional styles, really are incapable of producing anything attractive in a given style or period, even though they would have permission to incorporate many modern features.
Here is another French derived home, the design genes came from France to the Canadian Maritimes, to Louisiana with the Arcadians, and then a short hop to Augusta, GA.
How are those multi-million dollar "revival" homes relevant to the discussion? No middle class family is ever going to afford that house.
There are plenty of very talented architects working in traditional home design. The problem is only the very wealthy are able to retain their services. Why is no one demanding better quality out of the middle-range homes?
Miles-
Perhaps you are presuming I am pushing a "trad is better" narrative here, but that really wasn't my point at all. The title of the thread is "What is wrong with home designs?" and the image posted was a pseudo-traditional design. I'm not making any statement about relative merit of traditional design vs. modernist design.
What's wrong with pseudo-trad designs like the one posted? I'm arguing it's because the architect who designed it had no training to design houses like that.
Here is an affordable pre-fab 2,500 foot square foot home by Connor Homes of Vermont. Their architects will adapt the design as needed to accommodate the client and lot, Architect-designed with a sensitivity to the style and affordable.
Funny how the general public feels the same way about architect's "superior" home designs. Most people want a nice landscape painting regardless of how much a snob artist will tell them a splattered canvas is so much better.
Modern homes are just more expensive to build...many people would love a modern home. When an Eichler goes on the market it gets snatched up immediatly. Even bad mid-century mod homes get bought up fast. Baseboards, stucco, and textured drywall are doable by low skilled labor. Faux traditional lends itself better to these materials. Almost impossible to build good modern homes with low skilled labor.
Laymen don't know enough about architecture to have an informed opinion. They see granite counter tops, double ovens, tall windows, and fancy finishes - all nice things - and think "what a great house". How many people come into contact with on a daily basis? How many people ever see well designed homes? If you don't know it exists how are you going to want it?
jla-x,
I am not so sure about that. We been building modern homes for the last 50 years. We called it the Ranch style and many other modern styles of homes are made for a long time. Most of the modern styles including "International style" and it's variants are often made of wood and concrete. Aside from the predominately concrete ones, the wood frame modern homes are basically platform style homes and easy to build and often uses off the shelf materials to make like wood and plywood. We been doing that in Northern Los Angeles area in the 1960s. They are often large in scale and therefore expensive but they aren't always big nor necessarily cost a tremendous amount of money more than these McMansions.
As a matter of fact, they should cost less. McMansions are fairly wasteful in material with over convoluted roofs. I can design a modern Richard Neutra-esque style home using fairly common material from Home Depot. Most of those homes use the same building materials used in many of the California Ranch style homes which is what most of the basic building materials you find today comes from. It doesn't take a whole lot of high end woodworking skills. It mostly takes good handling of level and plumb lines.
Most of these homes used drywalls. The true traditional / crafted homes from the past requires a bit more skilled labor. The truth is modern architecture was entirely intended to design out of premanufactured building components not local custom millwork. While some of this occurs in the high end, this isn't necessary for modest international style / contemporary modern homes. The high end ones often have additional amenities where as the modest ones have less of that. One can build an international style home for close to the cost of a ranch style home on the same per sq.ft. basis. The materials you choose, whether or not you use custom millwork or not, additional amenities like outdoor pool, guest houses and other special amenities will effect cost. The craftsmanship doesn't isn't necessarily required while old craftsman / bungalow, Victorian style, and others will require special craftsman skills to even remotely do in anything close to authentic. While, components of many such homes were mass produced in large mills in the past, they aren't made that way anymore because those mills that used to do it no longer use the equipment and jigs that they had. They have sense retooled themselves to produce different products. Therefore, you have to source local craftsmen that does custom mills and will make their own jigs to make the parts in the rather low volume level but the big production mills now makes the products you see in Home Depot or Lowes and others. They don't do the old stuff. Therefore, you would find doing custom wood work and the like to be more expensive.
I would argue that it would be less expensive to product a modern / international style-contemporary style house for less. I would even argue that it could be less expensive per sq.ft. than some of the McMansions because the McMansions over complicates the roof.
Yes, we can make anything expensive. I think the issue is not so much how much it costs. I think the issue is how does the house feel.
I think the stark white look might have hurt the popularity of international | modern style becoming widely accepted because the colors feels cold. Bring some natural material in and the color & texture and WOW! it can be nice.
The question then is how to make something more palatable.
Cleaner and simpler roof forms does actually reduce cost because it reduced material and opportunity to even reduce material waste.
Laymen don't know enough about architecture to have an informed opinion. They see granite counter tops, double ovens, tall windows, and fancy finishes - all nice things - and think "what a great house". How many people come into contact with on a daily basis? How many people ever see well designed homes? If you don't know it exists how are you going to want it?
Good Points.
If only there were such a thing as young architects and designers that home owners could hire for less expensive but still get some decent design input! Hmmmm, hmmmm. Ok, like this: after I graduated from architecture school, I was asked to do some small design projects like house additions, a cabin addition, a septic tank, a park toilet and shelter, and a farm building. But I was told by my firm that moonlighting and was illegal and unethical. I blame ourselves. We, the designers and architects, are responsible for making design something esoteric and out of reach. It is the profession who takes these young less expensive designers and mandates that they serve as drafters for their elders for what now takes over 7 years average which pretty much means you are in your 30's or later before you can go out on your own, and by then designing garages don't pay the bills for a house and family with kids too. I could have started my own firm based on little jobs as a 23 year old with a "professional degree", something I could have grown into bigger jobs quickly, but it is illegal and unethical. The mandated path had me organizing a firm's detail library, answering their phone, picking up redlines, making powerpoints and running prints (I did design stuff too, just making a point). Who's idea is that? Architects. They call it professional development. It is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. For everyone's own good, they say. The intern, the homeowner.
People pay painters 2k-10k to paint a house. They pay appliance repair people $100 just to show up and do diagnostics on the dishwasher. They can pay a designer $400-2000 for ideas and basic design and plans. They WANT to. Trust me. It is US that won't do it. They have guys at the lumberyard who will draw your plans for $400-$600. Why can't young architects do it????? Cause the old grey hairs are in control and they don't want you to. They want the homeowners to come to them, but yet they won't touch anything for less than $3500. I get asked to do small jobs still but am too expensive for home home owners, who should I direct them to? People want plans for a basement remodel, who is going to do it but a contractor or an inferior designer or a corporate basement entity. Why not a 23-26 year old architect? Oh, because they don't exist.
^ not this again...
I did plenty of moonlight designing as a 25y old intern... a great deal of my colleagues did to. People just don't try enough and it's easier to complain about it.
Stupid thing, yes to follow the legal and ethical advice of my mentors and my profession. but what do you mean, I didn't try hard enough? Tell me more.
General statement, t'is all.
I've heard it repeated way too many times both while in school and while an intern.
I don't think YOU are trying hard enough. What did you hear "many times"?
Complaints about not being able to make a living as a young independent designer prior to license.
Competent designers find a way to make it work, the lazy complain, and the others end up working on projects like the OP's picture above.
I thought we were talking about houses. NS, why aren't more architects/designers involved on houses? Try to stick to the topic.
Volunteer, those houses suck.
Non Sequitor - you are probably overlooking the fact that women are treated much differently in offices. While a young white male moonlighting on the side is likely to be "overlooked" or ignored, a young lady doing the same thing is much more likely to be reprimanded.
Boiling it down to, "Competent designers find a way to make it work, the lazy complain, and the others end up working on projects like the OP's picture above."
really means:
"Those with wealthy parents get to go out on their own, the risk-averse and anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Work are perceived as lazy, and anyone who has to make a living more than likely ends up working on projects like the OP's picture above."
It is a structural problem in the profession if it is that hard to overcome. I agree with tintt - would like to see something like tiered licencing levels - just like contractors get their A, B, and C licenses for progressively larger and more difficult and dangerous projects, so should architects.
"Volunteer, those houses suck"
I guess you like the first house that the OP posted?
"why aren't more architects/designers involved on houses? Try to stick to the topic. "
Because there are more shitty designers than there are good ones. The same goes with clients.
Not sure why the sexist remark by archanonymous is there. I've not seen it, but then again, could be a localized problem.
Just to clear it up, I was in a small city where I clearly would have been caught moonlighting and would have been fired for it, regardless of being a lady. and thanks archanonymous for interpreting he-who-doesn't-follow's privileged complaint. Structural problems, there is a reason they don't call architects to help solve em!
licensure for single family detached dwellings is stupid. if you copy pasted the details from the International Residential Building Code and the local building department did their usual review and inspection the life safety risk is practically nill................by graduation an architect student should be able to put together a set of drawings for a house like this in a week or 2.
NS - absolutely is a problem here in Chicago. Sexism is particularly acute in architecture, and definitely plays a role in the higher # of young men starting practices/ working on the side as compared to women. Unless you are working in Northern Europe, I would wager its a problem where you are, too.
Volunteer - No, that house is worse. I'd rather not revert to some tired notion of ornament and historical imitation in a house I design nor one I inhabit, but I realize not everyone feels this way. I just don't think we need to give any recognition to those that do.
Olaf- totally agree. In many places you don't have to.
Limiting it to SFR work is not the answer though. You should get a provisional license or an "A Class" license upon graduation that lets you do small work, not just residences.
by graduation an architect student should be able to put together a set of drawings for a house like this in a week or 2.
Bachelor of Science degree, maybe.
"No, that house is worse. I'd rather not revert to some tired notion of ornament and historical imitation in a house I design nor one I inhabit, but I realize not everyone feels this way. I just don't think we need to give any recognition to those that do."
Ok, so what do you like? More importantly, what does your client like? What is ornament and what is art? Historical imitation? Do you realize the Paris City Hall was built in a style popular 200 years earlier? In fact the Paris City Hall was built after the first skyscrapers. Shall we tear it down because it is an "historical imitation"? Replace it with a Boston City Hall look-alike?
Best/easiest part about being a chick in architecture is getting hired, people loooove chick architects, we are rarer. Maybe not in Chicago though, I can see that.
i agree with this:
I just don't think we need to give any recognition to those that do.
it's nice that you like old stuff and stuff that imitates old stuff. it is what it is.
from what i've seen, pretty much all new construction is either apartments where you stack as many +/- 700sf units as close as you can, or 4,000sf mcmansions. why are people not building 1,000sf - 1,200sf homes? as i understand it, it has something to do with land cost. i would think there would be demand though. i can tell you as someone with a lot of education and a professional job (so i should theoretically be towards the upper side of middle class) i can't afford anything close to a 4,000sf house, but i'd like a little more space than a 700sf apartment to fit a table saw or whatever other junk i've accumulated over the past few years.
Volunteer, I'd rather not make this about style, but no, I don't think we should tear down Paris City Hall. But I also wouldn't advocate building anything new in that style.
I agree, it is driven by client to a large extent, and we are both missing the point - extravagant French Country Houses and hundred-million dollar cultural projects aside, the real question is why does the run-of-the-mill $250,000 single family home revert to a poor pastiche of historical style?
tintt, oh from what I've seen they love to hire ladies, but then they stick em with the material library and answering the phone and organizing lunch and learns, things most firms exclusively make young women do.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.