ja and sw -

we did do a house years ago where the first bank the client went to passed on doing the loan because, in part, it was more 'modern' than anything he had had any experience underwriting. keep in mind, this is quasi-mid century type styling, nothing more complicated. but, for all the homes we've done (and most have been financed), that's the only lender i have talked to who actually admitted style was a consideration.

things like flat roofs, in general, give the underwriters more pause because of their perceived (and actual) failures over time if not properly maintained. that's also worked against us with contractors (on the same house above, after it was over the contractor told us if the exact same design had had a hip roof on the drawings, instead of a flat roof, he could have saved approx. 10% with his subs.)

so, there is some tiny little evidence out there. and this was back in the days when banks and brokers actually paid attention to loans...

not enamored, don't worry, just find it interesting. I am glad that something is causing changes, something I was sure would happen sooner or later (the tip from over-sized to smaller/efficient).


I do know that there were problems with getting financing for prefab homes, due to the stigma of them being 'cheap'. That was a year or two ago, but can't imagine it has gotten better given the market.

trace,
that is something i have definitely heard of. in fact, a lot of modern prefab manufacturers have had to develop financing relationships to make sure they don't get lumped into those stigmas.

okay, just a thought....what could we as architects do to bring financial systems more in line with what are good building principles?
dense, urban cores with diverse populations, public transportation systems, sustainable infrastructure and building technology......

I bet in dense urban settings modern stylistic homes are easier financed than suburban and exurban locations simply because of context

futureboy, i think if "good building principles" are put in the perspective of economic return then banks will be responsive. it's up to loan seekers to pitch that argument, and it's up to architects to give the loan seeker the information to make that case. lenders are not stupid; they know a good investment when they see one.

unfortunately, the idealism behind some the principles you list above - dense, urban cores with diverse populations, public transportation, etc. - fall outside of an economic argument. it's there that i feel your pitch may fall on deaf ears.

well that is exactly what i am talking about jafidler. if we do look at this from an economic perspective it goes like this:

dense urban core with diverse population, public transportation, etc....

1. reduce spending on highways - both impelementation and maintenance

2. reduce spending on water, electric, sewer, etc. infrastructure extensions - both implementation and maintenance

3. reduce amount of land given over to storage of automobiles

4. reduce impervious cover, increase natural drainage patterns, reduce sewage treatment and run-off

5. increase community involvement and density to foster greater support of smaller, local businesses - decrease monopolization of commerce. increase wealth within communities that stays within communities. increase opportunity for wealth distribution, decrease overall poverty and wealth disparity, decrease need for affordable housing initiatives, decrease issues of homelessness

what i am saying is that currently our tax and economic evaluation systems run counter to many of these concepts given it's tendency to promote suburban single-family house development patterns and "individual rights" which increase overall infrastructure costs, wealth disparity, and reliance on un-sustainable fuel sources and un-sustainable development patterns.

the argument for good building principles is much easier to make at the scale of a building than it is the scale of a neighborhood or a city. it's largely an issue of time. return on investment on a building is evident in a few years; return on investment on a neighborhood or city takes decades. banks don't like waiting for their money (and after the subprime fiasco who's to say they will even be around 10, 20 years later).

what i am saying is that currently our tax and economic evaluation systems run counter to many of these concepts given it's tendency to promote suburban single-family house development patterns and "individual rights" which increase overall infrastructure costs, wealth disparity, and reliance on un-sustainable fuel sources and un-sustainable development patterns.

i think this is exactly what our professional organizations should be fighting for, not so much the semantic games that too often characterize our lobby. these are larger issues than what a single firm or architect can take on in practice.

exactly. this is the real battleground.

big deal- the fact of the matter is you are using someone else's money to purchase something and the only collateral you are offerring is the very thing you are purchasing...

in that case the person with the money- the bank- can make whatever conditions they wish on a loan.