Is this just me? or do others think that the new houses they are
building today are ugly? They were running one of those realtor shows
on tv and I did not like any of the new homes. They all look like
boxes. I will admit that I have an artistic taste and like lots of
gingerbread like the old houses had, and I also do not like the look
of vinyl siding, but it's more than that. New houses are just plain
ugly. If I had the choice, I'd rather have an older home, and thats
based solely on appearance. (I also know older homes are built better
as far as the lumber used). Of course I am aware that older homes
generally lack enough insulation, and need to be replumbed and
rewired. But I'd still have an older house.

wrote in message
...
Is this just me? or do others think that the new houses they are
building today are ugly? They were running one of those realtor shows
on tv and I did not like any of the new homes. They all look like
boxes. I will admit that I have an artistic taste and like lots of
gingerbread like the old houses had, and I also do not like the look
of vinyl siding, but it's more than that. New houses are just plain
ugly. If I had the choice, I'd rather have an older home, and thats
based solely on appearance. (I also know older homes are built better
as far as the lumber used). Of course I am aware that older homes
generally lack enough insulation, and need to be replumbed and
rewired. But I'd still have an older house.

Around hear (Sacramento CA Area) there is a wide variety of new homes
styles. But it seems the style is this grand appearance with tall ceilings
and very open. Well they do look good but a lot of the design is For lack of
better words non functional more show than livable. But if you look you can
find the best of both worlds. As for Quality, track homes and quality very
seldom meet. Our older home was built in 1963 definitely quality
construction, for 63 the design was all right but nothing like newer homes.
The house we just bought was built in 91 you can see the quality is lacking,
but I new that going in and am about 90% remodeled. It's kind of a give and
take how much do you want to put in a older home verses buying a newer home.
In our older home I would of had to enlarge kitchen, up grade AC & heat,
patio room needed to be torn out the cost for everything was just to much
for the area. There is just so many ways to look at it.

wrote in message
...
Is this just me? or do others think that the new houses they are
building today are ugly? They were running one of those realtor shows
on tv and I did not like any of the new homes. They all look like
boxes. I will admit that I have an artistic taste and like lots of
gingerbread like the old houses had, and I also do not like the look
of vinyl siding, but it's more than that. New houses are just plain
ugly. If I had the choice, I'd rather have an older home, and thats
based solely on appearance. (I also know older homes are built better
as far as the lumber used). Of course I am aware that older homes
generally lack enough insulation, and need to be replumbed and
rewired. But I'd still have an older house.

Cost. Everything comes down to $$$.

If you look at many of the older homes there are varied roof lines, alcoves,
dormers, all sorts of architectural niceties that take time to frame, more
time to roof, side, drywall, etc. Rectangles save money.

Many now have garages facing the front and look bland that way also. This
is cheaper than having a side facing door and the curved driveway that it
needs. Add some of the fancy trims, porticos, eaves, etc and you can easily
add $5k to $50 tot he price of the house. Can you afford it and if so, do
you want that or the latest appliances in the kitchen and the plasma TV in
the game room?

Are new houses better made? Some are, many are not. Lumber is not as good
as the old growth, but some of the laminates and engineered beams are
stronger, lighter, more warp resistant so if used properly, they will
endure.

Cost. Everything comes down to $$$.

If you look at many of the older homes there are varied roof lines,
alcoves,
dormers, all sorts of architectural niceties that take time to frame, more
time to roof, side, drywall, etc. Rectangles save money.

Many now have garages facing the front and look bland that way also. This
is cheaper than having a side facing door and the curved driveway that it
needs. Add some of the fancy trims, porticos, eaves, etc and you can
easily
add $5k to $50 tot he price of the house. Can you afford it and if so, do
you want that or the latest appliances in the kitchen and the plasma TV in
the game room?

Are new houses better made? Some are, many are not. Lumber is not as good
as the old growth, but some of the laminates and engineered beams are
stronger, lighter, more warp resistant so if used properly, they will
endure.



A lot of the big builders are going to steel studs, never warped at one
time cost about half.

Any experiences or guesses about how many "builders" use engineered
beams? My gut feeling is many if not most builders are just HMO
spelled differently!

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:56:39 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

Are new houses better made? Some are, many are not. Lumber is not as good
as the old growth, but some of the laminates and engineered beams are
stronger, lighter, more warp resistant so if used properly, they will
endure.

"Sacramento Dave" wrote in message

A lot of the big builders are going to steel studs, never warped at one
time cost about half.

The price of steel has gone crazy so some of the price advantage is gone but
the are still straight. . Seems as though everything has been going crazy.
If I was to build today, I'd go with insulating concrete forms for good
energy efficiency. Cost to build is competitive with stick built but
heating cost is down about 60%. www.polysteel.com www.standardicf.com

The reason older houses seem so much better is that all the cheap,
poorly designed and built ones were torn down a long time ago, and only
the good ones are left standing. Most people lived in ugly drafty
homes that they didn't own. No bank would give you a mortgage with
less than 40% down so good design and workmanship (not to mention
gingerbread) was just a dream for most people. So now when so many
more people can afford to buy a house (or at least are led to believe
that they can) there's a high demand for ugly rectangular tract homes
that can make anyone's American dream come true. A hundred years from
now they'll mostly be gone and someone will be pining for the great old
houses that were built in 2005.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:04:43 -0600, wrote:

Is this just me? or do others think that the new houses they are
building today are ugly? They were running one of those realtor shows
on tv and I did not like any of the new homes. They all look like
boxes. I will admit that I have an artistic taste and like lots of
gingerbread like the old houses had, and I also do not like the look
of vinyl siding, but it's more than that. New houses are just plain
ugly. If I had the choice, I'd rather have an older home, and thats
based solely on appearance. (I also know older homes are built better
as far as the lumber used). Of course I am aware that older homes
generally lack enough insulation, and need to be replumbed and
rewired. But I'd still have an older house.

Las Vegas can average 8.x houses on an acre of tract land. Only about
15% of Nevada is privately owned, which helps keep values up. You
have a 2X6 outside frame, "tar paper and chicken wire" and stucco shot
on by hose. Some places you can turn the hose and start the next
house or fence. USA has become dense, faster everything We live in the
"microwave" society and every thing is fast. I appreciate the older
things, not like when I was younger.

Peace!

Oren
"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

wrote in message
Las Vegas can average 8.x houses on an acre of tract land. Only about
15% of Nevada is privately owned, which helps keep values up. You
have a 2X6 outside frame, "tar paper and chicken wire" and stucco shot
on by hose. Some places you can turn the hose and start the next
house or fence. USA has become dense, faster everything We live in the
"microwave" society and every thing is fast. I appreciate the older
things, not like when I was younger.

I have to go to Las Vegas about once or twice a year. I'm still amazed at
the number of houses being built at any one time. They all look pretty much
alike. Three different colors of roof tile depending on the development,
all the same color stucco. Not for me, but a lot of people still moving in
there.

Being in the residential construction industry the only way to make money is to hurry up and get to the next one. It may be true that houses aren't built as good as they used to be but new homes don't cost as much as they used to relatively speaking. When I here people complain about the poor craftmanship in their new home I usually tell them "If this house was built the right way, you couldn't afford to live in it".

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:56:39 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

Can you afford it and if so, do
you want that or the latest appliances in the kitchen and the plasma TV in
the game room?

Let's be real You need plasma tvs in the bedroom also, and the kids'
rooms after they are old enough to want one.


Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:00:53 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


wrote in message
Las Vegas can average 8.x houses on an acre of tract land. Only about
15% of Nevada is privately owned, which helps keep values up. You
have a 2X6 outside frame, "tar paper and chicken wire" and stucco shot
on by hose. Some places you can turn the hose and start the next
house or fence. USA has become dense, faster everything We live in the
"microwave" society and every thing is fast. I appreciate the older
things, not like when I was younger.

I have to go to Las Vegas about once or twice a year. I'm still amazed at
the number of houses being built at any one time. They all look pretty much
alike. Three different colors of roof tile depending on the development,
all the same color stucco. Not for me, but a lot of people still moving in
there.

I agree with everyone in tihs thread, Just a few comments.

Jerry-built homes have been around for a long time. All alike. In a
way row houses and town houses are the same thing.

When I lived in NYC I made a point to go out to long Island to look at
?? My mind is a blank. (there is another town by the same name just
north of Philadephia. ) .... Levittown! Tiny houses built for vets
for wwii, and the GI bill, built I think between 1948 and 1952, I saw
them about 1980 and they didn't look so similar anymore. 90% had
ahead additions built on them. And they had trees and bushes and
different colors that made them look different. they were still in
good condition but it was onl 30 years. (Maybe I'll have time to
see the one near Philly, which should be about 55 years old now.)

I can't quite see how my house will last 100 years, even though the
n'hood is in good condition after 25. (Of course I was in great
condition when I was 25!)

Still, the homes of my grandparents are still around. You know, I
don't know where on the scale they were when they were built. And
none of my grandparents had any money when they got to the US, but I'm
not sure how they were doing when they bought the houses I know about.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:37:00 +0000, Sacramento Dave wrote:


Cost. Everything comes down to $$$.

If you look at many of the older homes there are varied roof lines,
alcoves,
dormers, all sorts of architectural niceties that take time to frame, more
time to roof, side, drywall, etc. Rectangles save money.

Many now have garages facing the front and look bland that way also. This
is cheaper than having a side facing door and the curved driveway that it
needs. Add some of the fancy trims, porticos, eaves, etc and you can
easily
add $5k to $50 tot he price of the house. Can you afford it and if so, do
you want that or the latest appliances in the kitchen and the plasma TV in
the game room?

Are new houses better made? Some are, many are not. Lumber is not as good
as the old growth, but some of the laminates and engineered beams are
stronger, lighter, more warp resistant so if used properly, they will
endure.



A lot of the big builders are going to steel studs, never warped at one
time cost about half.

What about the cost of the electrician? Surely they're not using Romex
in steel studded walls?

--
Keith

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:05:32 +0000, kirk28
wrote:


Being in the residential construction industry the only way to make
money is to hurry up and get to the next one. It may be true that
houses aren't built as good as they used to be but new homes don't cost
as much as they used to relatively speaking. When I here people complain
about the poor craftmanship in their new home I usually tell them "If
this house was built the right way, you couldn't afford to live in it".

I've said something similar for a long time.

"Thank goodness for cheap houses, or I'd have no house at all"

Although lately I've felt that it isn't so cheap at all. My
girlfriend 22 years ago had a house that cost 3 times as much, but
other than being bigger, with a big lot, it seemed about the same.

(My nice home built in 1955 had silver-colored doorknobs and I think
silver door hinges for the bathroom, to match the silver faucets etc.
Her semi-custom built house had gold like all the other doors, and
silver fixtures. (OTOH, the fool I bought this house from painted all
the hinges the first year the house existed.))



Edwin Pawlowski Wrote:


Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

I can't quite see how my house will last 100 years, even though the
n'hood is in good condition after 25. (Of course I was in great
condition when I was 25!)

Hell, keep it dry and the paint in good condition and a shack would last a
hundred years. It's all a matter of maintenance and materials. Some
maintain easier than others, it's usually inversely proportional to their
cost. Cheap stuff requires more maintenance, more expensive stuff usually
requries less. Good, fast, cheap... pick two. Pay now or pay later, etc.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:09:21 -0500, mm
wrote:


When I lived in NYC I made a point to go out to long Island to look at
?? My mind is a blank. (there is another town by the same name just
north of Philadephia. ) .... Levittown! Tiny houses built for vets
for wwii, and the GI bill, built I think between 1948 and 1952, I saw

I easily give the wrong impression here. Levittown was privately
built and privately bought. I think that the biggest market was from
WWII vets who were just getting married, but that was certainly not
required. The town near Philly doesn't just have the same name, it
catered to the same market.

I don't know why Imentioned the GI Bill. I didn't get any sleep last
night, but I don't think that had anything to do with it.

them about 1980 and they didn't look so similar anymore. 90% had
ahead additions built on them. And they had trees and bushes and
different colors that made them look different. they were still in
good condition but it was onl 30 years. (Maybe I'll have time to
see the one near Philly, which should be about 55 years old now.)

And WK, I'll try to keep my house lasting in v. good condition, at
least until I move or die (of course dying will probably require
moving.) So far, my neighbors are pretty much doing the same, and
the HomeOwner documents allow us to repair their homes if they don't,
and to bill them for it, and if they don't pay, to foreclose, and sell
to someone who will probably do much better. I don't think it has
ever gone that far.

Since 1980 or earlier in Md. or central Md. no new n'hood can be built
by one builder (or maybe even by many) without a homeowner's
association. Although it doesn't have to meet, I think they all have
powers like this, which they can call upon if necessary.



Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

The things I hate the most about new houses are the crap they they call
lumber (particle boards for roofs!) and all the plastic crap and
oversized houses with vaulted celiings. I'd rahter have an attic that
I can store stuff in or superinsulate and have access to for
maintenence.

"mm" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:09:21 -0500, mm
wrote:


When I lived in NYC I made a point to go out to long Island to look at
?? My mind is a blank. (there is another town by the same name just
north of Philadephia. ) .... Levittown! Tiny houses built for vets
for wwii, and the GI bill, built I think between 1948 and 1952, I saw




I easily give the wrong impression here. Levittown was privately
built and privately bought. I think that the biggest market was from
WWII vets who were just getting married, but that was certainly not
required. The town near Philly doesn't just have the same name, it
catered to the same market.


There were three Levittowns total. New York, north of Philly, and one was
in New Jersey and in the 1970's they changed the name to Willingboro.



them about 1980 and they didn't look so similar anymore. 90% had
ahead additions built on them. And they had trees and bushes and
different colors that made them look different. they were still in
good condition but it was onl 30 years. (Maybe I'll have time to
see the one near Philly, which should be about 55 years old now.)

The one in Philly was built in at least two stages. The first was off Rt
13, the second was more west, has some larger houses, and ran into Route 1.
IIRC, there were five diferent houses and they were also turned on the lot
90 degrees in the series so no two next to each other would be the same.
They were mass produced and very reasonable in cost.



Since 1980 or earlier in Md. or central Md. no new n'hood can be built
by one builder (or maybe even by many) without a homeowner's
association. Although it doesn't have to meet, I think they all have
powers like this, which they can call upon if necessary.

You can be certain I'd not move there. I will not live where there is an
HOA.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:58:53 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:



There were three Levittowns total. New York, north of Philly, and one was
in New Jersey and in the 1970's they changed the name to Willingboro.

Thanks. Very interesting.


The one in Philly was built in at least two stages. The first was off Rt
13, the second was more west, has some larger houses, and ran into Route 1.
IIRC, there were five diferent houses and they were also turned on the lot
90 degrees in the series so no two next to each other would be the same.
They were mass produced and very reasonable in cost.

Sounds like they learned from the repetitveness on long island. Maybe
I should go see this one too


Since 1980 or earlier in Md. or central Md. no new n'hood can be built
by one builder (or maybe even by many) without a homeowner's
association. Although it doesn't have to meet, I think they all have
powers like this, which they can call upon if necessary.

You can be certain I'd not move there. I will not live where there is an
HOA.

I guess we will only be neighbors from afar!


Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

wrote:
Is this just me? or do others think that the new houses they are
building today are ugly? They were running one of those realtor shows
on tv and I did not like any of the new homes. They all look like
boxes. I will admit that I have an artistic taste and like lots of
gingerbread like the old houses had, and I also do not like the look
of vinyl siding, but it's more than that. New houses are just plain
ugly. If I had the choice, I'd rather have an older home, and thats
based solely on appearance. (I also know older homes are built better
as far as the lumber used). Of course I am aware that older homes
generally lack enough insulation, and need to be replumbed and
rewired. But I'd still have an older house.
Beauty is in the eye of a the beholder, I'd rather see good looking gal
wearing a bikini in front of a trailer house then a fat gal in front of
a mansion.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:00:53 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


wrote in message
Las Vegas can average 8.x houses on an acre of tract land. Only about
15% of Nevada is privately owned, which helps keep values up. You
have a 2X6 outside frame, "tar paper and chicken wire" and stucco shot
on by hose. Some places you can turn the hose and start the next
house or fence. USA has become dense, faster everything We live in the
"microwave" society and every thing is fast. I appreciate the older
things, not like when I was younger.

I have to go to Las Vegas about once or twice a year. I'm still amazed at
the number of houses being built at any one time. They all look pretty much
alike. Three different colors of roof tile depending on the development,
all the same color stucco. Not for me, but a lot of people still moving in
there.

I call them Taco Bells without the sign. Any options like switched
ceiling lights and fans are options. Some large dev elopements have
building inspectors on site, so things move fast. A mid-range home is
bland. The "street of dream homes" are spectacular, but I don't have
the millions for one and I don't fit in there well.

I think the last time people numbers were mentioned and I divided
those numbers it was like 1 person a minute, moving here on average.

Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

In article , says...

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:00:53 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


wrote in message
Las Vegas can average 8.x houses on an acre of tract land. Only about
15% of Nevada is privately owned, which helps keep values up. You
have a 2X6 outside frame, "tar paper and chicken wire" and stucco shot
on by hose. Some places you can turn the hose and start the next
house or fence. USA has become dense, faster everything We live in the
"microwave" society and every thing is fast. I appreciate the older
things, not like when I was younger.

I have to go to Las Vegas about once or twice a year. I'm still amazed at
the number of houses being built at any one time. They all look pretty much
alike. Three different colors of roof tile depending on the development,
all the same color stucco. Not for me, but a lot of people still moving in
there.

I call them Taco Bells without the sign. Any options like switched
ceiling lights and fans are options. Some large dev elopements have
building inspectors on site, so things move fast. A mid-range home is
bland. The "street of dream homes" are spectacular, but I don't have
the millions for one and I don't fit in there well.

I think the last time people numbers were mentioned and I divided
those numbers it was like 1 person a minute, moving here on average.


Is there water for all those folks?

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
I think the last time people numbers were mentioned and I divided
those numbers it was like 1 person a minute, moving here on average.


Is there water for all those folks?

Banty

This week, yes. Next week? Who knows. Lake Mead has dropped considerately
in the past couple of years. People still want lush green lawns in the
desert and use water that should not be for it. Humidity is noticeably
higher in the past ten years.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:57:02 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Banty" wrote in message
I think the last time people numbers were mentioned and I divided
those numbers it was like 1 person a minute, moving here on average.


Is there water for all those folks?

Banty

This week, yes. Next week? Who knows. Lake Mead has dropped considerately
in the past couple of years. People still want lush green lawns in the
desert and use water that should not be for it. Humidity is noticeably
higher in the past ten years.

"Real sod" is now restricted in new construction. Synthetic grass is
being used if one wants the look. We have water restrictions and
those with lawns water on given days. The water authority will pay a
home owner to remove sod, given proper inspections.

A picture of the water level:
http://www.snwa.com/html/drought_index.html

Oren
"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

On 19 Dec 2005 07:12:35 -0800, wrote:

The things I hate the most about new houses are the crap they they call
lumber (particle boards for roofs!) and all the plastic crap and
oversized houses with vaulted celiings. I'd rahter have an attic that
I can store stuff in or superinsulate and have access to for
maintenence.

You hit this one right on the nail.
The reason the houses are so bland, is because they build them way too
big. And part of the reason they are so big is because there are no
usable attics and such for storage. Then all that space has to be
heated and cooled, and cleaned. I wouldn't even want a house as big
as most of the new ones. Give me a smaller house build of solid
materials, WITH an attic and basement, and make it look nice. It dont
need to be real fancy, just use a few angles, and a little gingerbread
trim, and NO plastic siding. I lived in a house most of my life that
was about 900 sq. ft. and had a useable attic which had one finished
room, and a nice basement. That was plenty room for me.