*
I live in an upscale town in NE Ohio which has a historical district (where I happen to live), and strict guidelines for new construction. So, here’s a story for y’all to comment on. On the edge of town there used to be a beautiful country house (about 2500 sq ft) with a huge dutch style barn on about 30 acres. Fully mature Oak trees, horses grazing in the fields, a truly great setting. Drove past this road 6 months ago-it’s all gone. The house, barn, horses, trees-nothing. A few months later, up pops up this 7000 sq ft house-huge roof structure with intersecting lines everywhere. Huge chandelier in the foyer behind an enlarged transom window above the entry. A 2 car attached garage AND a 3 car detached garage. Looks like a stucco exterior painted pink or some other awful color. What was once a beautiful site now looks like a new casino was shipped in from Vegas and plopped right down here. And now the kicker-the recently divorced woman who got the great old farmhouse tore it down out of spite and will be living in this “casino” all alone. Unfortunately, the town couldn’t stop her and her army of lawyers from doing this. The more and more I learn about this stuff happening, the more I believe in preservation of our older structures-especially ones like this which had architectural significance and was well kept. I guess the only bright spot in this story is that her “casino” will have a huge Tax bill every year, which will go to our school district.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Fine Homebuilding's editorial director has some fun news to share.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
In every silver lining there's a cloud
*
Jim,
Welcome to modern America! I'm sympathetic to your views, but a growing population needs a place to go. I grew up in the Central Coast area of California and go back to visit every few years; I'm astonished and disgusted with what I see. The area is probably the most fertile, best suited growing area in the world. Though every year more and more agricultural land is gobbled up by sub-divisions and ranchettes. It's not only the West coast; I'm in Eastern Montana now and as desolate as it is, I see the same thing happening.
I'm begining to see more homes and lots that are razed to the ground, only to have a BIG out of scale house go in. Our society has changed a great deal. It's no longer acceptable or "cool" to have kids share a room; to have small rooms; not to have a yard; to have a functional, low roof; to walk to work or school; etc., etc. (My office is a few blocks from 2 schools, and I can't believe that I see people driving their kids less than that to school)???
I expect that in the near future all the excess will catch up with us. We'll be forced by material shortages and cost to reconsider what we really need. I'm as guilty as the next guy of excesses, I drive ten miles to work from the country in a big pickup- right there behind all my neighbors.
I designed several downtown housing re-habs for the elderly in the past few years. In a way I envy them. No need for a car, everything is a short walk away. No yard to maintain. Sociable neighbors that watch out for one another. No home maintenance to speak of....
Ah, but they don't have kids and pets and cars and boats and motorcycles and riding mowers and hobbies and workshops and compost bins and big screen TV's with all the gadgets and gourmet kitchens and home offices and all that stuff in the closets that everyone has GOT to Have......
*
Hey! We have a compost bin!
I just don't know what to say. Explaining taste is like explaining color to a blind man. I believe in moderate-high density living (obviously, with the exception of rural life!) with minimal car-dependence and excellent mass transit. Since my jobs will alway be in cities, i favor this model for the surrounding burbs. As a Los Angeles refugee, I learned to love to walk from East Coast cities. Talk about being weather-proof! No ice to scrape, no car to start, charge right over snowdrifts...
What staggers me is what stupid stuff people witrh money to spend go for -- like that $20k shower in a recent TOH. If you are determined to spend $20k, there's a lot of neat stuff you could do!
I just din;'t understand the big-house-to-impress-people thing. But a lot of people are impressed and want that stuff themselves. I don't what to say that doesn't sound patronizing, but you don't need all this stuff to be happy! Instead of a yard with play equipment, we have two community parks nearby. Instead of a 3-acre shopping warehouse, we have modest supermarkets nearby. Instead of a 3-car garage, we have a driveway and a barely 1-car garage that has become my shop. But oh my, we only have an 1/8th acre lot! (A citydweller, I feel like I'm living at Tara!)
It just makes more sense to me to live smaller, it makes individual wealth less important, you get some sense of community, and you can actually walk out your door and GO somewhere. The modern trend is towards that cocoon thing, no need to leave home -- at least if you define trends by what the wealthy do.
Oops! Almost forgot! Of course, I applaud the surge in work for new housebuilders (Blue)!!!!! Go yuppies! (actually, I'd like to find more efficient ways to redistribute their excess income than building Hearst Castles (anyone been there? wow)...
*The most interesting and impressive (to me) homes featured in past FHB issues (including annual Houses issue) have been the smaller ones that made the most of real estate, interior space, and cost per sq ft. Anybody can design a McMansion. To practicalities, the cost per sq ft seems to drop as the envelope enlarges, increasing builder profit. Safety codes and so-called design "standards" (as in X inches of countertop on each side of cooking surface) limit space utilization. My compact 1930's kitchen couldn't/wouldn't be built today.
*My old man (master carpenter/sage) used to say i "There are two kinds of wealthy people. . . those that have everything, and those that need nothing"We have 3 compost bins; 1 store bought (hand-me-down) and 2 wife built.
*A fool and his money... It's a symptom exhibited by the neuvo riche. I have been involved with some BIG homes. I take that back, at 10,000 sf it's not a home, but simply a house. How about the childless yuppie couple building their 8,000 sf monster garage attatched to their 15,000 sf "2nd home"? I tell ya', it's a travesty.I live 7 miles south of Hearst Castle, in some of the most beautiful coastline on par with the best in the world. But, this small burg is contemplating the plans for a Burger King. I sometimes forget which town I'm in because they all look alike what with all the chains moving in. And the archtitecture! Now, who would of picked peach colored stucco with turquoise trim? But, it is the same in every blasted town and city I drive through. The sad thing is, our kids and those after them won't know the diff. They will only read about how once upon a time towns all across this land used to have individual character."Soylent Orange! I have Soylent Orange, only $50.00 a pound!"Excuse me, I have to go puke.
*ChadDon't worry so much, your more in touch with the scheme than you might imagine. Anyone who works with, or for that matter even considers working with, compost can't be all that far off the mark. Way to go...composters of the world unite! God forgives you of your sin for driving that gas guzzler truck to town. Was just in the Gilroy area and it's changing just as fast. Keep gathering that high nitrogen add mix.warmly, Steve
*Are there no realists on this site? Besides me?Blue<
*You guys can keep the compost bins. We have a pile! It ends up being slightly larger than a dodge neon. Put anything that rots on it. Turn it with the bucket loader. I think the fact that people need to buy a plastic bin to make compost illustrates the problem - Appearances. "Look I'm composting everybody - but I couldn't use that terrible old snow fence at the dump, it looked just awful!"The problem I have with these houses is the complete entire lack of quality, scale, appearance, and the fact that they stick out like sore thumbs. Take a drive through the Palisades area of NJ to see what I mean. If you are truly filthy rich, or at least want to make that payment, then truly impress me. Build a house out of stone, cut granite, limestone, etc. Use real stucco in real colors. Build a monument, build a landmark. Place it on an appropriately sized piece of property with the proper number of trees, hills, geographical features. Note, I did not say "landscaping" or "weeping cherry trees" or pollarded maple trees.The problem, as I see it, is that these are basically pretentious people. And in order to fully feel self-important they need to surround themselves with like-minded people. They have to be people that are not quite as good as you though so that you are always a little better than they are. Pretentiousness can't be hidden either. It can't be obscured by trees, shrubs, or hills. It has to be right up front. Of course you lose privacy, but you can buy those expensive custom blinds and drapes to block out the real world and preserve your artificial reality. You don't need much of a yard, but you do need enough public spaces that you can brag about your material accumulations with others.What I enjoy watching is these peoples children when they run out of their parents money. They have spent their whole lives not learning one skill for basic sself survival. They couldn't grow a tomatoe plant if their life depended on it (and one day it might). I guess it comes down to a sustainable life style. I personally can't 100% sustain myslef on my property (flour is difficult to make by hand) but I am not 100% dependent on cash to get me what I need.I too drive a big 4x4 16 mpg truck, but I figure I offset that by letting the town dump 10 tons per year of wood chips, leaves, etc. on my property. This material would have otherwise been dumped at the dump. I compost anything I can, recycle what I can, and burn what's left. About 1 can a month goes to the dump.We plan to one day be rich, and one day have a 4500 sf house. But we are also planning at least three children of our own. We will have built the house ourselves, over our lifetime. We will use the money to retire early and enjoy ourselves at home ( we really don't vacation). The best part of all is that the house and grounds will be completely obscured from the road. We can very privately enjoy evreything we have ever done with our children, our family, and our friends. Maybe this is no better than anyone else, but we will have this house primarily for our enjoyment, not to impress others. We won't be paying $18,000 in property taxes either!-Rob
*Jim T, Would that "casino" be in Hudson by any chance?No offense to any one in particular but a lot of these developements are very similar to ghettoes.( we call them yuppie ghettoes).what seems to be the goal is not a slum of poverty but instead a affluent mono-culture.All inhabitants must be the same color,have the same approximate income,drive the same Ford Epedition (which has never left pavement)and belong to the same clubs etc.I don't really object to the affluence displayed,I am even a little envious to tell the truth.I just think these developments could be a little more tastefull,a little more interesting, and a lot more REAL.Most americans seem to prefer style over substance though, and the disney theme park developements will continue to expand. Good Luck, Stephen
*
Steve,
Yes, Unfortunately it's Hudson.
Now it's no longer the Expedition, but will very soon be the newly released Ford Excursion which is a few feet longer than the Chevy Suburban. Now the casino dwellers will be getting garage enlargements for their new Excursions.
*Guys & Gals,I'm really enjoying this conversation! I think as builders, developers and design professionals we need to keep the average person in mind at all times. Not everyone can afford to live in Seaside, Florida (that is the Disney developed perfect little town isn't it?). Nor does everyone want to. The "model" towns and neigborhoods usually have so many little restrictions and covenants that it hurts to fart. I think the "past" that they are idealizing is fine, though the truth is the homes are bigger, the residents are affluent, and the people that get twenty bucks to mow the 10x12 yard and to wash the windows once a month are living elswhere in a poorer satelite community.Preservation on the other hand can offer many great things. It maintains a "real" connection to our past and offers a true glimpse of the way things were. By saving that old barn in the hollow and keeping open spaces we stay in touch with where we came from. In a more urban setting, go downtown & see how many of the upper floor apartments are still in good condition and used for housing. My little town of 10,000 stopped using them, for the most part, after the railroads left in the 50's/60's and EVERYONE started to get cars, streets, driveways and garages. Maybe we can blame it all on cars! We no longer walk or ride our (open) buggy or horse to work; we don't share a bus seat or trolley; we close ourselves off in our cars, get road rage at the guy next to us, hide behind six foot fences around our suburban lots, drive miles to work and on Sunday to go to church (for those that do) and ship our kids all over to go to school, play sports, etc.If we could all afford the same things, went to nearby schools and activities, socialized with people that had everything in common with us, dressed in like clothes and all wore Birkenstocks.....Sounds like China!
*Oh boy, a thread I can really sink my teeth into! New Urbanism, Historic Preservation, Sustainable Communities, anti-yuppie snobbery. I happen to be doing some serious research right now on these very topics. Sit back, draw a brew, and listen my children...Chad - Seaside was NOT done by Disney, you're thinking of "Celebration", they are two entirely different kettles of fish underneath a vaguely similar coat of paint. Celebration is a "town" for Disney employees and the covenants are as you intimated, very very scary (anyone see X Files Sunday - LOLFD!). I'm pretty PC (second generation HIPPIE) but that place gives me the willies. Problem is around here we have a developer who loved it and is trying to recreate it in Kansas(badly!). The real tradgedy is that as bad as his subdivision is, its still the BEST thing being built here!Seaside was one of the very first "new Urbanist" or neo-traditional communities, and certainly one of the most famous. Sea Ranch in California is ten years older, better designed, and more viable, but then everyone expects Californians to do wierd things. What the developers of Seaside (Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zybeck and company)did was to analyze what it was about small towns and "Norman Rockwellian" villages that made people like to live there AND be active in the community. They did a lot of things like measure distances-sidewalk to street to porch, lot proportions, height to width ratios, fences (type, number, size), distances to destinations, density, percieved density, number and location of amenities (groceries, parks, playgrounds, small shops, cafes and resturants, yada yada yada). They had been developing these ideas as development guidlines for awhile when they met up with Robert Davis, who owned a stretch of Florida coastal hinterland. It was love at first sight. DPZ started researching deep southern towns and coastal vacation spots in particular. This led them to select a pallett of materials, general forms, size ratios, distance ratios, etc that were indigenous to that part of the country and were tolerant of the harsh climate (intense sun, salt, wind, and rain). They designed a street layout and zoning plan that gave the people places to go, pleasant ways to get there, and didn't require the isolation of a vehicle. They set out very specifically to make a physical community that wouuld encourage and foster a social community. They guidelines were NOT house plans,unlike Celebration. The materials and forms suggested were derived from the local/regional vernacular, appropriate to the climate, lifestyles, and history of coastal Florida. Architects (and some of the biggest names in the US and Europe have designed for it - Leon Krier, Michael Graves, Robert A.M. Stern, Steven Holl, Michael McDonough, Machado and Silvetti, Deborah Berke, and others) were ENCOURAGED to express themselves within the guidelines. They did, and showed (again) that resrictions are actually liberating. Ranting digression here. Celebration, by contrast, has a set package of plans residents can choose from, but even then they are restricted by their lot (only Colonials here, only Federalist Revival there), and most importantly, there is NO NO NO connection between the "styles" and the location (central Florida). These houses are NOT historic because they would not have been there, and were not there. American History shows that during the colonial and federalist periods, Florida was a Spanish possession! Disney is creating a facade - and as usuall a not very accurate one at that. To their credit they did invite world renowned archtiects to design some of the public buildings - Aldo Rossi and Michael Graves among them. But still, Celebration is to my mind everything that a "planned community", "new urbanism", or "neo traditional" design IS NOT. Ranting over.I do not want to say that Seaside is a great place. I don't think it is. I did like it a lot better than I had thought I would. The cutsey factor is high enough to choke a camel, but thankfully the greenery has grown up enough to somewhat minimize the confectionary. It IS eminantly walkable, and pleasantly quiet, and cheerful. The main problem with Seaside is its location - it is and always will be a beach VACATION spot. Because of the prices all along the coast and even directly inland, no one can afford to live there but the rich, thus limiting it's community-ness. This is very bad, but this is not caused by the plan. It is caused by the much larger forces of national socio-economics. It is too "neo" and neat for my taste, but it is a tourist destination, so I can see that. Nobody wants to have dirty dishes out for company. The funniest thing for me is that it was the set for "The Truman Show" and in this specifically designed pedestrian community, everyone in the movie DROVE TO WORK! LOLI am much more impressed with some of the recent proposals and developments. A mixed use, mixed income development in Homestead Fl, takes not only an new-urbanist plan but tries to incorporate environmental concerns as well. Several communities in Los Angeles, Pheonix, the Pacific Northwest, all are looking to learn from the lessons of Seaside. Right now the biggest criticsm I have of this kind of planning is that they tend to take over rural or semi-rural areas. The real push should be in urban and suburban locations, rehabilitation and renewal. So far, the legal, political, and ecomonic constraints make it very difficult, but this may be changing.I find new urbanism interesting because I live in the real thing. A real old-fashioned downtown that has been here since prior to the civil war, was burned and rebuilt then and has been preserved from that time. I am within walking distance of two micro-breweries, two great dart-pubs (with Guinness on tap!), two locally owned bookstores and a biggie chain, a dozen resturants, an alternative movie house and rental, three play/concert/band/party theaters, a natural foods co-op and community garden, a dozens of locally owned shops. This doesn't cover the states largest university that is also in walking distance with attendent museums, libraries, theaters, etc. Our problem is that the town is so great that people keep moving here! People with too much money and too little taste! We have a real development problem on the west side of town that is gobbling up some of the best farmland on this continent. I call it the suburb that ate Kansas. (ok, Bragging over)Sustainable Communities. Sustainable communities are not new-urbanist, although they frequently share concerns and approaches. In some ways the sustainable community movement is much deeper and more far reaching than new urbanism. There is a desire in the sustainability movement to plan for the far future as well as the near future and to evolve in the process. This refers to social and economic structures, zoning and land use, energy and infrastructure, as well as housing or business districts. Frequently people think of sustainability in building deals with materials. It does, but there is a great deal more to it than that. Energy, orientation, recyclability, adaptability, waste and water use and disposal, etc. etc. These issues are important at every scale, from house up to city. Sometimes at the small scale it is very hard to do the right thing (greywater systems, alternative energy), because there are no positive and many negative reinforcements built into the political, economic, and even social structures of society. Even those who want to build sustainably have a hard go at it, and a whole community, especially within the confines of a larger town or city, run into all sorts of blockages - reasonable in minutia, but unreasonable and destructive in the larger picture. Setbacks, zoning, parking requirements, road design are all examples of rules that were made for good reasons (for that particular issue), but the lack of a systems approach has created contradictions, bottlenecks, and shortsightedness.Both sustainable design and new urbanism like to take a broader systems approach (holistic is a word often used, but I avoid it because it frequently connotates a sort of new-age touchy-feely thing). Systems design stems from biology and ecology, the study and design of many continually evolving, interdependent, interactive systems. This is not easy to do with communities, which are physical and social and economic, and which interact with larger human and environmental systems. We have seen on this board how hard it is to discuss and understand even small systems and subsystems like thermal performance and moisture movement. It is becoming clear that we all need to consider these issues in light of other problems like materiallity, location, orientation, use, etc. Designing sustainable communities and rehabilitating our towns and cities to embrace sustainability means not just bowing to the "tree huggers", but recapturing our built and natural environment to sustain and nurture people for many generations to come. Part of it is preserving not only our physical history, but acknowledging our social history and using both to inform and complete our present and future. Part of it is preserving the natural environment as well. Consider it a bank account, like the one for the kids' college. It will be just as usefull, and probably return a better rate of interest. And like a bank account, the more people contributing to it makes us all richer. Our industry, from designers to builders to suppliers have the ability and responsibility to shape and inform our communities. While it is sometimes all we as individuals can do is to compost, or recycle, or even speak out in our communities about these issues, it is important to realize that we should be striving for more. Every once in a while an opportunity will drive by at 60+ mph. We have to run out and grab it and make it work for us. You can do this by supporting thoughtful land use, acheivable standards of living for all residents, changing growth patterns from pure QUANTITY to QUALITY. Be active in your city-talk with the city council, planning boards, historic groups and neighborhood associations. It is hard to add more things to your life (don't I know this!), but the more people doing it, the easier it is on each person.I hope that I get a lot of feedback on this. As I have said before, we (as an industry) have the ability to control our futures, rather than be forced to react to the vagaries of the market. But it needs us to discuss, understand, problemsolve and create those solutions (and there must be more than one). So put down that brew and warm up your fingers ladies and gents, and let er rip.
*Are you trying to put Joe out of business??
*
Lisa,
A shorter version of your post....
b Less is more.
J
*A better post title; "Big New Posting Insanity"
*
Lisa,
Very well said & interesting.
Just wish I had a Guiness tap in my neighborhood.
*
b Lisa, the builders only build what will sell.
With the houses getting bigger everwhere can I inject a few thoughts?
I only speak of the area that I'm in which is the Washington D.C. area.
During WW II housing took off here. This was the start of the building boom that lasted into the 50's. A drive through any of the older neighborhoods will show the change of buildings and styles as move to the outer limts.
In the centers you see the older big grand affairs with plenty of trim and big yards Ect......Ect...... there is a line as you get to the GI tract (as I call them) housing. Most of these are small(900 to 1000 sq ft) housing that most of us have grow up in.These were built cheaply and filled the need in the market. Not everone could afford the typeof house that there grandparents grew up in. The sixty's and seventy's saw larger homes(1000 to 2000sq ft)In the eighty's saw the huge monsters being started around here. Now I see two types of housing being build. Starter homes in the 1000 to 1500 sq ft size and the huge monsters over 2500 sq ft. Will it end?
As with all styles, I think that this to, will change. they have just started a retirement community here that is sold out and with a 25% build out now. Plans are on the way for a phase two and a phase three. These people are looking for a easier life style and a no maintance life style now that the kids are gone.
*Jim,Get over it.This woman owns this property, right? It's in the U.S.A.? Being on "the edge of town" it probably has a pretty clear title. So she has a right to do with it what she pleases to, provided her use doesn't tresspass on others (which is what zoning laws are intended to enforce). This includes the right to do tacky, stupid, tasteless things (I bet that transom window has vinyl striip muntins for its "divided lites").If the town didn't like it, they could have always condemned the property and paid her fair market value. Short of that, I don't think they have any right to say anything about it.I guess urban/suburban residents these days live on properties so encumbered with convenants and restrictions, they forget that private property is a fundamental right.
*Private property is a fundamental right ... says this where? Do I sense a libertarian?Personally, I'd argue out that free speech is closer to being a fundamental right, and though one might do whatever one pleases free of legal restriction, I'm not going to bite my tongue. People have the right to do all sorts of things that aren't "right." I don't think these things should be outlawed, but they certainly deserve some ... constructive feedback. Don't need the gov't's help to do it.I may agree or disagree with Jim, but it didn't occur to me to tell him to shut up. Folks share opinions here, it's what they do.Just hoping the neighbors don't paint their house chartreuse, AD
*b There are no fundamental rights...Your parents allowed your birth.J
*AJ, do you ever log off? Bathroom breaks? It seems like this board is wired into your brain.
*Andrew,I just sat down....It's easy to do this silly posting while the tube runs or while consuming a meal....or as I am now finishing off the girl scout cookies....What about the rights thing...J
*The rights thing ... is a tough one. First year law profs love to shoot down students who say, "but it's a right!" (Heaven forbid anyone speak from their heart.)Some, of course, believe rights exist by the permission of God. Others promote something murky called "natural law" which tries to imagine man in the natural state (not a pretty sight). I think it's an effort to put a scientific gloss on essentially religious law. And then there are the myriad philosophies, liberalism, existentialism, positivism, etc. There is much to debate here, and in a pluralistic democratic society it is improper to impose one conception of rights on everyone else absent some agreement to do so. The Constitution is the fundamental compact that binds us all, and the laws & amendments enacted pursuant to it embroider upon it.Rights may originate in written law, but also by implication and historical interpretation. For example, it doesn't say anywhere that marriage is a fundamental right, but the courts have decided it is. Despite this, it is constitutional to restrict marriage by age, consanguinity (can't think of a better word -- it just means you can't marry your sister or mother or daughter, etc.) and, for now, heterosexuality.Property rights are far less sacrosanct, and are to a greater degree open to regulation (zoning, environmental, taxation, and so forth) The authors of the Bill of Rights contemplated including property rights but mostly didn't. The main exception is the Takings Clause, which says the gov't can't take anything from you ... without just compensation .. so even that it not a wholehearted defense of property rights. Between private individuals there are of course property rights, but many other considerations come into play.How any question is worked out in the American courts depends on written "positive" law with a little coloring in the gaps between the rules, but not by appeal to a higher authority or philosophy that bestows "fundamental rights." This is hardly an uncontroversial stance, but I think it is the most fair and defensible.
*b "Folks share opinions here, it's what they do." Maybe you should email that one to FredL "Ridge vent problem(attn:roofers)" 3/12/99 8:56pm He seems to have missed that concept. . . yet again!!
*Andrew you have to much free time on your hands
*Found yourself a Libertarian Andrew.I was going to go to law school, got accepted, but decided I was just going because all the people I was smoking dope with were going. Took a different path.Property rights are fundemenal.JonC
*Uh-oh. I guess you have a right to share your opinion that someone else shouldn't share their opinion ... or something like that. Well, best I can say is turn the other cheek. From Matthew (this is not a promotion of religion; I downloaded a searchable Bible and enjoy looking up the "real" version of proverbs and such ... maybe I'll learn something): 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
*... and right now you are busy doing what? :) I worked all day squeezing pieces of trim together. This is relaxing.
*i "Uh-oh. I guess you have a right to share your opinion that someone else shouldn't share their opinion ... or something like that." uh....I think you missed the thrust of that one sport. . . time fer beddy-byes???Not known for subtlety=Patrick
*Yep. Time to shuffle off. And I was kidding ... need a smiley that means "irony." How about :-// ?I'm lucky in a way that it's hard enough for me to pay attention to people I'm interested in -- the others I can forget about pretty easily.
*Around here I've heard the locals say (those that understand the concept)i "ain't that ironical"All is forgiven. .. LFD
*Hear HeaR!tell em' BarryOIf ya' want to preserve it, buy it and preserve it till you die. Live and let live!Don't try to regulate it, the free market already does it's job. That property was for sale,and nobody was interested. The new owner has the right, no matter how stupid!Blue
*Lisa, are you aware that you are on a bulliten board with tradespeople?I'll attempt to translate for the commoners on this board who are too simple to understand all that you have esposed.Lisa said that some subdivisions are good, and some ain't so hot!She also said that they should put roads and sidewalks in, maybe.Pink house sell good, sometimes.Whew, and all that in just a few lines!Joe must be proud of me now!BluePs. Lisa, I'd like to play the devil's advocate with you, but I don't have any clue of what in the hell you are taliking about! Were you serious, or is this some type of a sick joke?
*Rights are not entitlements. This includes "Property rights".
*In fact (and I promise I'll stop being so tedious now) entitlements (I assume you mean Social Security, welfare, etc.) do give rise to a property right defensible in court.For a while, courts tried to distinguish between rights, which could only be taken away under certain circumstances, from privileges, revocable at whim. This has pretty much been abandoned now, since there really is a whole range of gray between one's strongest right (say, the right to live, and even this is revocable by the state) and the most trivial privilege. So putting a label on something doesn't answer the hard questions.One can assert rights as a political statement -- that's what the Libertarians were doing on the sidewalk outside the post office April 15 with the "Taxation = Theft" signs (I almost pointed out they were stadning on stolen property and better move on, but was too tired to be petty). But however passionately you may believe it, the reality is more complex.A majority of the polity, even the rich, will never (I hope) support absolute property rights. The only time you see laws like that is in third-world countries where everything is controlled by a small group of landowners. Imagine you buy a tiny million-dollar townhouse in a snobby old neighborhood, then your neighbors paint their houses various sherbert colors. Your house is now worth only $250k and you can't sell it. Question: have your neighbors "taken" $750k from you? You're that much poorer through no fault of yours. Messy stuff, maybe a zoning law would have been better to protect the original property owner's reasonable expectations of the neighborhood's influence on the value of his property. Sorry to run on -- you can see I'm one of the weirdos who really enjoyed law school.I respect the beliefs of others! I may think they're wrong, and might even say so, but it's not personal. There are idiots out there, but it's not because of their beliefs. It's because they're idiots.'Scuse me, my kid reports that he decorated the potty for me.... Back to real life.P.S. Before another wise*ss pipes up that I have too much free time, I'm looking for work & this is a warmup....
*I second the motion till I'm "blue" in the face.J
*Andrew. . . better the potty than the wall beside the potty. . . have you done that one yet?. . . talk about "bullet proof wallpaper". :<(-Da-deee
*Blue,Your stabbing for Lisa's heart...go easy if you can...but I think she can handle you herself...J
*Blue, maybe I'm a little more dim-witted than usual, this being daylight and all... I got the impression the property was a settlement of a divorce, and not for sale on the open market. Did I miss something?HE liked the OLD house/barn/trees... SHE ripped it all to shreds and built the anti-christ of a house in it's place. Or that's my skewed perception. Maybe we should check the "Wife's Post" for clarification.
*Yes, there is a downside to little boys. He peed in the potty, on the potty, around the potty... but this is progress! The other day he pooped, then got up in mid-poop to check out what he'd done and, well... sometimes my wife wishes she'd just let me get a dog like I wanted.
*oh please ... I think Lisa could cut out your heart if she wanted to ... Lisa?
*Free to do as she pleases as the owner...Blue's take on this still stands 100%JThe rest of you are whining in a big way and if you were my neighbors, I would paint poka dots on the house and put signs on the property line stating "Stop, This property is Private, paid for, and mine. Stay on your side, including your eyes and ears if needed.
*Standing on top of one of her dwarf friends, no doubt
*. . . dogs are good.
*What kind of work are you looking for?Blue
*Everything has a price! Do you really think the old lady would turn down a zillion dollars?It's hers to improve in any fashion that she sees fit. What if her opinion was the majority, and they made her president,and she ordered all the barns in the country torn down?You can easily see how forcing your opinion on others is dangerous.Blue
*Ok Sorry Lisa, I think I'm understanding now. Thanks Jack for pointing out my insensitivity. I'm getting the hang of being a politically correct slob tradesman. It feels good!Blue
*... general nuisance.Seriously, an aide for a Rep. or Senator on the Hill. I want to work somewhere that can only get better.
*I can fit you in on my crew: the only way we can go is up!Blue
*It's hers "to improve" you say? But she didn't. Gotcha! ;)... and forcing your opinion on others is dangerous? Agreed. Now, tell me is "It's hers to improve in any fashion that she sees fit" an opinion? One you think everyone should have to agree with? Danger, danger, Will Robinson!Just playing games, all in fun. School didn't make me any smarter, just more slippery.P.S. my son is sitting in my lap writing this stuff for me
*But, but, she did improve it. She recycled it in the local landfill! Don't get me wrong, I love old barns. I truly marvel at the big ones, especially the round ones.But I ain't losing no sleep over them being bulldozed! bulldozer operators love bulldozing. Should we deny them the right to see the huge monsters fall?Everybody has a different love, so if you love something enough, plunk your bucksdown. Evidently everyone loves their cars more, cause they spend more in a lifetime on them then one little old barn would cost!Every romantic has the right, and th opportunity to save these things. Just do it without complaining about others doing something different with their property!We had a group that wored hard to save an octogon. Said it was special, etc. If it was so special, why didn't anyone want to but it? It was JUNK!They ended up spending gov dollars on it.Gov should be building roads and sewers, now junk barns!I can take care of that myself!Blue
*Andrewi ". . . my son is sitting in my lap writing this i stuff for me."It shows. . . slap/slapi "School didn't make me any smarter, just more slippery."Were you the guy they used to hold down and Wizz on??? Makes you harder tob FlameI imagine?Just curious-P
*Jack, I don't think so. Less is more, which Mies van der Rohe borrowed from Robert Browning, was the fundamental concept of modern architecture. It led to the desecration of the past, the exaltation of the architect as arbitrator of behaviour, and ultimately to urban renewal. We are beginning to learn from those mistakes."Less is a bore." Robert Venturi
*b Less is More as said by me wasn't said by anyone else...I say it with my meaning and didn't copy anyone...So stuff it....Oh, and Your invited to the party to(o)!!J
*A discussion of property rights? We are really straying now.I hate to break it to you, but NO ONE has any property rights other than the law of the jungle.(you have a right to "your" property as long as your strong enough to stop anyone else from taking it)I believe the native americans might have something to remind us about.Also call up your local government and ask them what emminent domain means.I believe,loosly trranslated, it means its your house till we decide to take it from you. A little paranoid today,Stephen
*You go Steve and you can borrow my soapbox anytime...You better be coming to the Fall Fest....Slaps and Beer are reserved in your name.J
*I love it!
*
Dearest Blue,
Sorry to be so long getting back to you, but I am one of those poor souls who can only get up to her eyballs in sawdust on the weekends, so I treasure my "tool time".
I take design and planning and construction (anything to do with buildings) seriously, but I try never to be too serious about it. Enlarged egos are fair game in my book. So be aware.
I am sorry my post was so long, but it is sometimes hard to get a complex issue accross in only a few lines. Essentially I tried to discuss two things, that are not neccessarily mutually exclusive; new urbanism, and sustainable planning. The new urbanism was sparked by the mixup between two completely different developments. I was trying to explain the difference, and why the distinction is important. Since this is a forum (sort of) about FINE homebuilding, and the desire for quality I have seen expressed here goes on to beer, booze, and that other b-word, larger issues of development and community planning are appropriate.
I think that my main point about new urbanism is that it is a PROCESS and that developments like Disney's company town are Marketing Products. They both serve a purpose, although I think that new urbanism serves the broader communities instead of just making a profit for the developer. I was trying to point out that new urbanism is not as limiting as you might think, certainly no more than is found in any golf-course type development. It certainly doesn't seem to be as limiting as the social pressure that demands more and more useless and pretentious space in housing. Part of new urbanism reflects a trend I have seen on this thread and some others - smaller, better housing. Many of these developments are very popular, and from recent personal experience, I think it is much more reticience on the part of local planning agencies and zoning boards that slow down these communities. New urbanism is not the only idea coming down the pike these days, but it is an interesting and potentially very beneficial one.
Sustainable planning and "communities" are also new and growing. I am not sure what you don't understand about them, other than an interest in designing, building, and living in built communities that reflect and reinforce interest in broader, long term issues. If you think about it, sustainable design is really a very old concept. You build with what you have at hand, and plan to ensure that you will have some of it around for your grandkids. When Henry's (#7?) chapel was built at Oxford with huge carved beams, oak trees were planted nearby, so they would be ready to serve as replacements in a couple hundred years. In our global marketplace with the effects (good and bad) of the industrial revolution to deal with, sustainability in a scientific sense becomes rather more complex. I think that this could easily become a separate thread, and would be very willing to do so if you or someone else would wish.
You are more than welcome to play the devils advocate with me, be warned I bite - but only if you ask nicely.
I'm not sure this was any clearer, and I am really to tired right now to slap you, but I would dearly love a beer.
Off to see a dwarf...
*Come by sometime, got some pretty decent darts amd music too...
*
I must be temporarily (B)raindead as I don't know what the third b-word is....
J
*Jack -Hall of famerb . . . BOOGERIN'-P
*Bill, in a hot real estate market, the buyers will buy what's built. It's the new: "You wanna house?Here's my plans, I got them from Ted, the guy who's houses you looked at yesterday. What color vinyl you want on your siding?" In a depressed market with an existing stock of older homes for sale, variety is the spice of life. Now? Seems too cookie cutter.Look at the supermarket "100 House Plans" books you see customers walk around with. How many of those houses are REALLY top notch? Missing a good old Victorian building boom...
*Lisa, In response to your two excellent posts....The direct connection between "Sustainable Communities" and new urbanism can be found in the colaboration between Sim Van Der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe.In your earlier post, I believe you meant William McDonough.Mike
*Lisa, you don't have to reply to me, because I still don't have any clue. You must remember, I'm a boogerin' carpenter. I'd kinda like to know the answer to one question, and you or mike can answer it. Are you for or against communities?I'm for communities, they seem to be a nice place to live. Hermitism doesn't appeal to me, even though I don't like my neighbor anymore!Blue
*
I've seen some of these "communities" in the Houston metro area. Fine people and for the most part, lousy houses. Poor construction, roofs with no felt underlayment and no drip edge, cdx sheathing with just 4 nails (one in each corner), rafters split almost completely in two but put up anyway, I could go on but ...... Poor design too, short roof overhangs, single pane glass (can we say greenhouse effect). I think more than a few of these homes won't last as long as the mortgage.The grand scale of these developments reduces the house to a mere commodity.These large scale developments hurt smaller towns the most. New water and sewer, new schools,and the net result is taxes go up, traffic snarls, and the quality of life that was sought dissappears.
*
What you describe is a tract. Tracts have nothing to do with anything but development economics. The people who buy in (into) tracts are, of course, nice people, they are just like everyone else. They are people who need houses. When you say "some of these 'communities'" you don't give much information. Developer's rhetoric will always be that their tract is not a tract. You can find tracts of "custom houses". There's an oxymoron for you.
*It's funny, our relatively heterogeneous neighborhood was a 40's tract of Capes. Over the years, they've all evolved to look different. Because this is a good location, and because the houses were fundamentally strong, people have stayed put and improved rather than moving to the burbs to buy a new house and more space. Some have literally put $200k into a $200k house; I'll be watching the listings to see how much they get back.
*Are they lacking code enforcers?Blue
*
Mike, I'm not so sure that I see much difference between a tract and a "master planned community". Some of my attitude is from living in a small town, where the people I worked for lived or died on their reputations. Going to the big city was an eye opener for me. A big corporation putting up hundreds of homes is not necessarily a bad thing but from what I saw it was a breeding ground for shoddy workmanship. Reputation didn't seem to count for much .....it was more put big ads in the sunday home section and slick salesmanship, selling the sizzle ( wet bars, cathedral ceilings) and not the steak ( decent construction). I don't claim to be the world's best carpenter .... a lot still to learn butI still wonder how some of the crap I saw could ever be signed off on.
*Hi Mike,Nope, it is Mike McDonough. You are thinking of William McDonough, the head of the new Environmental Planning Department at the Univ of Virginia. He is another one I would like to talk to - at length.See you, Lisa
*
I live in an upscale town in NE Ohio which has a historical district (where I happen to live), and strict guidelines for new construction. So, here's a story for y'all to comment on. On the edge of town there used to be a beautiful country house (about 2500 sq ft) with a huge dutch style barn on about 30 acres. Fully mature Oak trees, horses grazing in the fields, a truly great setting. Drove past this road 6 months ago-it's all gone. The house, barn, horses, trees-nothing. A few months later, up pops up this 7000 sq ft house-huge roof structure with intersecting lines everywhere. Huge chandelier in the foyer behind an enlarged transom window above the entry. A 2 car attached garage AND a 3 car detached garage. Looks like a stucco exterior painted pink or some other awful color. What was once a beautiful site now looks like a new casino was shipped in from Vegas and plopped right down here. And now the kicker-the recently divorced woman who got the great old farmhouse tore it down out of spite and will be living in this "casino" all alone. Unfortunately, the town couldn't stop her and her army of lawyers from doing this. The more and more I learn about this stuff happening, the more I believe in preservation of our older structures-especially ones like this which had architectural significance and was well kept. I guess the only bright spot in this story is that her "casino" will have a huge Tax bill every year, which will go to our school district.
*
I think it also led to a higher home owner percentage. Even the common carpenter can now afford a house!
Blue