Stumbled on this while wandering around.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...7622229110201/


basilisk

basilisk wrote in
:


Stumbled on this while wandering around.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...et-72157622229
110201/


basilisk

+1

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/26/12 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
basilisk wrote in
:


Stumbled on this while wandering around.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...et-72157622229
110201/


basilisk

+1


You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of
styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"basilisk" wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...7622229110201/

------------------------------------
Memories

Lew

-MIKE- wrote:


You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of
styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia,
today.

I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the
60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I
don't mind much at all.

--

-Mike-

On 7/26/12 10:47 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of
styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia,
today.

I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of the
60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today - which I
don't mind much at all.


I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in
the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance.

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
times have changed.

Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348.../set-721576222...


Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses,
over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them
there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the
ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly.

I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I
can't wait
for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter
work.

MJ

On 7/26/2012 12:02 PM, MJ wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348.../set-721576222...


Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses,
over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them
there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the
ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly.

I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I
can't wait
for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter
work.

I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.

Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started
focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on
foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had certainly
become less skilled.

There are plenty exceptions for either period though.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

-MIKE- wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back
then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not
so much.

--

-Mike-

Larry Blanchard wrote:


Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually
building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking
of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.

I hope not. Brick veneer is far superior to a brick home. I'd consider a
"brick" house to be an albatross.

--

-Mike-

Swingman wrote:


I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool,
if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing
lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation
grown material.

Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that
statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but
up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled
labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest
available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today.
That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used
it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to
suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started
focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on
foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had
certainly become less skilled.


Maybe in Texas...


--

-Mike-

On 7/26/12 11:46 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in
the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance.

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
times have changed.

Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.


Sorry, but I'll take the stud wall with veneer.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 12:24 PM, Swingman wrote:
I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in the
fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool, if a
bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing lumber was
old growth and higher quality than today's plantation grown material.


I agree. Keep in mind that those houses had to be put up very quickly,
due to the fact that the boomers were being born and suburbia was
exploding. What allowed them go up quickly was that simply design, not
any shortcuts and lack of skill by the carpenters of that time.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:


I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool,
if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing
lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation
grown material.

Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that
statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but
up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled
labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest
available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today.
That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used
it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to
suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

Generally speaking it was in the 70's that developers/builders started
focusing on a less expensive to build product, cutting corners on
foundations, paint, siding, and wiring, and the labor pool had
certainly become less skilled.


Maybe in Texas...



Definitely in Texas.
And everywhere else as well.
That does not mean that ALL houses built during that period were done
that way. But a substantial portion were.
I know because I was shopping for a house for the last couple of years.

Broken slabs were common from that time frame.
(and still asking over $100k)

On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture back
then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow... different. Not
so much.


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)

You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not
just of different songs, but different styles. Every song you listened
to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway, military march, big
band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and Gregorian chant. Every
song. You couldn't listen to any one song in one style. You could
listen to an album in any one style by one artist.

That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion subdivisions
in any *affluent neighborhood.

(*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from
bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want
or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:


I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor pool,
if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the framing
lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's plantation
grown material.

Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception with that
statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything seems to be...), but
up here, no tract home was ever considered to be well built by skilled
labor. Shortcuts were the order of the day. Lumber was the cheapest
available - though even that was agreeably better than what we have today.
That said - if those guys had access to today's junk, they would have used
it. Framing took every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to
suggest that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes in
the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart
in the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of
maintenance.

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer
- times have changed.

Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually
building brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking
of double wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.

In Holland just about all houses were built with double-walled brick
exteriors. I remember that shoddy building practices at times resulted
in mortar bridging those 2 walls, an absolute no-no since it wicks
moisture from a rain-wet outer wall to the inside. Sometimes the
occupants only found out after heavy rain, sometimes fairly long after
they occupied the home. Expensive repairs needed. Almost all these
homes with double brick walls should be retrofitted with insulation in
the cavity. As far as sturdy is concerned, the method of construction
is different, yields a rather inflexible home (not good in earthquake
country), but if built well on good foundations, the home should last for
hundreds of years.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

-MIKE- wrote:


You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of
styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia,
today.

I guess it's all a matter of taste. I never did like those styles of
the 60's, so I find them to be far more ugly than the stuff of today -
which I don't mind much at all.

It is a matter of taste. Many people around here (NJ) just love Tudor-
style homes. I happen to hate that, though I can appreciate a well-
designed Tudor in its class. The open, Art-Deco or Scandinavian style of
this drawing that Basilisk linked to is something I can appreciate just as
much, if not more. But "de gustibus non est disputandum"

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

MJ wrote in
:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348.../set-721576222.
..


Sooo that's who to blame. I've been in more then one of these houses,
over time. One of my BFF's and her first husband had one of them
there split levels. My wife's sister and hubby had one of the
ranches that are too reminiscent of these plans. Ugly, ugly.

I'm waiting for the "This Old House" updates for one of these homes. I
can't wait
for Tommy or Norm talk about the cheap and lazy carpenter
work.

MJ

I think that a recent This Old House series was on just that style of
house, although vastly more upper class then Basilisk's original. They
didn't spare any money redoing it.
http://tinyurl.com/br2vdl8
or
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/p...esources/0,,10
62246,00.html

And it suffered from original design, craftsmanship or material
shortcomings plenty! --
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote:


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain
it. :-)

I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken
places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years -
thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college
could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's
view point.


You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just
of different songs, but different styles. Every song you
listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway,
military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and
Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in
one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one
artist.

Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that
are true to a form.


That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion
subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood.

Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few
beers...


(*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from
bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't
want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-)

Well - that's a whole different conversation.

--

-Mike-

On 7/26/2012 11:46 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:32:57 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different house
samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big, absurd,
homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

Amen. And watching them going up, they're either going to fall apart in
the next 50 years or they're going to require a *lot* of maintenance.

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick veneer -
times have changed.

Out of curiosity, do any of you know of a builder who's actually building
brick houses today? For the young'uns among you I'm talking of double
wall brick with *no* wooden frame involved.



How long ago was that????

Leon wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:


I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor
pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the
framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's
plantation grown material.

Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception
with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything
seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to
be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the
day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was
agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys
had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took
every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest
that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes
in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

So - back in the day... there were tract homes. Built by the guys that came
in and slammed them up as fast as they could. My father did not want a
house like that so he contracted the best guy around. The guy did not build
this way. Every corner is a built corner - no scraps of 2x4 in the corner -
all full 2x4's. A lot of overkill throughout the house. Well - that was
back in 1960. The junk homes that were being built by the dozens at the
time are still standing - just like the house my dad had built. Today, my
mom's ceilings have some cracks here and there, the center line of the
basement has had a crack since I was a kid living there, the blocks have had
to be re-pointed in the basement walls, and the brick has had to be
re-pointed. This was one of the best contractors around. He did not do
slip shod work. Yet - his workmanship resulted in this. The tract homes
were built by guys looking to get them up in a day or two, and guess what -
they are still standing today with not much more for problems than my mom's
house has today. So much of this talk about this stuff is just not all that
valid.

--

-Mike-

On 7/26/12 2:45 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain
it. :-)

I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken
places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years -
thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college
could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's
view point.


For the record, I don't remember an instructor ever saying that... it's
my opinion.



You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just
of different songs, but different styles. Every song you
listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway,
military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and
Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in
one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one
artist.

Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that
are true to a form.


That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion
subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood.

Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few
beers...

Like I said before, we'll have to include you in the next google+
hangout beer summit. :-)



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture
back
then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow...
different. Not
so much.


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)

Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I
studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me
and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how
times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence
when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was
actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he
"eventually" became a CPA.



I studied architecture in high school Oh man, I hate my self..LOL

A kitchen in the middle of the house was heavily, heavily frowned upon.
We had to design and draw complete plans for a home, I put a kitchen
in the middle of my house and was told that this was impossible and
simply not done. I had to bring a Polaroid picture of our kitchen to
class, to show that this design feature did exist, before I could
proceed with the foundation drawings. Now, very commonplace.

Somebody wrote:

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a
brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick
veneer -
times have changed.
--------------------------------------
Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick
outer) was built in the late '40's.

After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was
the standard offering.

This would have been the NE Ohio market.

Lew

On 7/26/12 3:24 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture
back
then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow...
different. Not
so much.


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)

Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I
studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me
and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how
times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence
when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was
actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he
"eventually" became a CPA.


Sounds like you stopped reading after my second sentence.
Did you miss the part where I clarified that I didn't study "enough?"
My only point was that I know enough to know that 4 or 5 mixed styles on
one house, on every house in the neighborhood, looks like ****.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/2012 2:31 PM, Leon wrote:

These homes in
the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

There was a big migration of carpenters during that period that left the
North and East and moved to California and Texas ... well known
phenomenon. The schools I went to during that period were full of sons
and daughters of carpenters and builders, many Italian, who had one
other trait besides being "yankees"... to a boy/girl, they knew their
baseball! Our LL teams were full of Bonazi's, and Trapolino's and
Minnetrea's ... and they all played shortstop or third base.

The stories are that most of the carpenters who migrated to CA were
union, and thus most of those tract homes built in CA in the post war
50's were union built, so there was most definitely a higher skill level
than there has been since the 70's.

One of my favorite old time carpenters from that period was Larry Haun,
who recently died. He wrote a bunch fine stuff down through the years
for Fine Homebuilding magazine:

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/slid...arry-haun.aspx

A boatload of carpentry skill and knowledge was lost with that old man ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/26/2012 3:24 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

I remember my father getting irritated when he was looking for a
brick
house and the real estate guy tried to sell him one with brick
veneer -
times have changed.
--------------------------------------
Last of the "Full Brick" construction (Concrete block inner, brick
outer) was built in the late '40's.

After that, "Brick Veneer" construction (Frame inner, brick outer) was
the standard offering.

This would have been the NE Ohio market.

Lew





Ohhhhhhhh, Actually there is a lot of strictly cinder block, filled
with cement, construction down her in Texas.

On 7/26/2012 3:29 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 3:24 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/26/2012 2:30 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 12:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is, at least it was a style or a step in the
evolution of a style.

All the McMansions around here look like someone bought home design
software for their PC and just started taking chunks of different
house samples they liked and assembled them together to make a big,
absurd, homogenized, stew-pot of architectural vomit.

I grew up in that era and we felt the same way about that architecture
back
then. Nothing has changed on that front except that people today look
backwards at things and like to think of them as somehow...
different. Not
so much.


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is horribly
wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain it. :-)

Oh man! I hate it when someone self qualifies themselves with, I
studied that in college. LOL. I had an employee that pulled that on me
and he ended up eating crow every time he tried that. I don't care how
times or accounting procedures have changed you don't break sequence
when opening a new box of invoices. The one he was looking for was
actually on the next shelf up from where he pulled. Idiot! And he
"eventually" became a CPA.


Sounds like you stopped reading after my second sentence.
Did you miss the part where I clarified that I didn't study "enough?"
My only point was that I know enough to know that 4 or 5 mixed styles on
one house, on every house in the neighborhood, looks like ****.




No I saw it all, BUT I had a funny, well funny now, story to tell!!! ;~)

On 7/26/2012 2:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:


I doubt that ... most of those tract and custom plan houses built in
the fifties to mid sixties were well built with a skilled labor
pool, if a bit shy or room sizes and ammenities, and much of the
framing lumber was old growth and higher quality than today's
plantation grown material.

Having been around in that era just as you - I will take exception
with that statement. Maybe it's different in Texas (everything
seems to be...), but up here, no tract home was ever considered to
be well built by skilled labor. Shortcuts were the order of the
day. Lumber was the cheapest available - though even that was
agreeably better than what we have today. That said - if those guys
had access to today's junk, they would have used it. Framing took
every shortcut that was known at the time. For anyone to suggest
that houses like that were mass produced adhered to some better
standard is either stupid or fooling themselves.

Well you either knew how to build homes or you did not. These homes
in the Texas area still look relatively good. You seldom see any
indication of foundation problems or cracks in the brick. I have
probably helped to repaint the interiors of a dozen of these homes and
they still look great, no cracks in the sheet rock.

So - back in the day... there were tract homes. Built by the guys that came
in and slammed them up as fast as they could. My father did not want a
house like that so he contracted the best guy around. The guy did not build
this way. Every corner is a built corner - no scraps of 2x4 in the corner -
all full 2x4's. A lot of overkill throughout the house. Well - that was
back in 1960. The junk homes that were being built by the dozens at the
time are still standing - just like the house my dad had built. Today, my
mom's ceilings have some cracks here and there, the center line of the
basement has had a crack since I was a kid living there, the blocks have had
to be re-pointed in the basement walls, and the brick has had to be
re-pointed. This was one of the best contractors around. He did not do
slip shod work. Yet - his workmanship resulted in this. The tract homes
were built by guys looking to get them up in a day or two, and guess what -
they are still standing today with not much more for problems than my mom's
house has today. So much of this talk about this stuff is just not all that
valid.


I think a lot of it has to do with a good plan and engineering.
I distinctly recall when I was about 15 years old the guy building a
house across the street for his daughter and her family. He did the
framing himself with a helper. He was going to use "x" amount of nails
in every stud and so on, not like the all of the other track homes in
the neighborhood built by a few builders.

A year or two later we had a rather nasty hurricane and his house was
the first to loose its entire roof, even with "x" amount of nails.. ;~)
Our house almost directly across the street lost all of the fencing in
the back yard, all of the cedar ridge rows and the front porch columns
blew down.

Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


Here's the deal. I studied architecture in college. Unfortunately,
though I studied enough to know that the style mixing I see is
horribly wrong, I didn't study enough to know how to properly explain
it. :-)

I can see where one might hold that opinion, but mixing styles has taken
places for longer than we're talking about. For hundreds of years -
thousands of years even. One might not like it, but to say that any college
could teach that it is wrong is only a reflection of a given professor's
view point.


You're a musician, right? Medleys are fun, occasionally, right? Like
when watching the Oscars or when an artist does one at the Grammys. But
let's say someone replaced all the music you like with medleys. Not just
of different songs, but different styles. Every song you
listened to was a medley of Heavy metal, classical, Broadway,
military march, big band, fusion, country, reggae, folk, polka, and
Gregorian chant. Every song. You couldn't listen to any one song in
one style. You could listen to an album in any one style by one
artist.

Agreed - but where I live, I see a mix of mixed architectures and those that
are true to a form.

I don't have a trained eye, but it's interesting. In the history of
furniture design, and music, there are plenty of places where they
combine some of the old with some of the new. I guess that's just how
evolution happens.

We have many new subdivisions from the housing-boom of not too long ago,
full of what I think of as "cookie-cutter" houses (because they all look
the same). I think I'd prefer to see "mixed-up" architectures, just to
stimulate the eye a little. %-) And yes, this includes "McMansion
subdivisions", as you call them.



That's how it is for me to drive through most new McMansion
subdivisions in any *affluent neighborhood.

Come on up - we'll have a beer and a few drives... Or a drive and a few
beers...


(*affluent: up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from
bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't
want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like.) :-)

Well - that's a whole different conversation.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:24:59 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/26/12 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
basilisk wrote in
:


Stumbled on this while wandering around.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...et-72157622229
110201/

I rather like some of the "mid-century modern" houses. That's a particularly
bad example of a cracker-box, though.

basilisk

+1


You know.... it's not any worse than the *******ized amalgamation of
styles that is the norm for McMansions popping up all over suburbia, today.

Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".

On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".


Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".


Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."



I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
Pretty funny....
http://xrl.us/mcmansion


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".


Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

"Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a
"McMansion".

Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil?

That definition reeks of silly envy.

and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."

That definition is at odds with the first definition.


What is *your* definition?

On 7/26/12 7:23 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:00:34 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".


Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

"Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a
"McMansion".


What part of "as well as" do you not get?


Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil?


Wow, really? When did I say anything about evil?


That definition reeks of silly envy.


I think you're inferring a lot.


and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."

That definition is at odds with the first definition.


I don't see it being at odds, at all.



What is *your* definition?


What's your agenda, here? You clearly have one and are trying to steer
me into it. So just get to it.

I think I made the reasoning behind my objection to these houses pretty
clear. There's no hidden malice or envy involved. I think they are f'n
ugly and completely lacking in style.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".


Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."



I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
Pretty funny....
http://xrl.us/mcmansion

That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
those who use derisive over-generalizations like;

"up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
to impress a bunch of people they don't like."

Really, why do you care what others have?

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:46:31 -0500, basilisk
wrote:

Stumbled on this while wandering around.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/4235348...7622229110201/

Hey, I like those flat-roofed styles.

Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for
that today.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

On 7/26/12 7:36 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:06:39 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 7/26/12 7:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/26/12 6:29 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no
one can
define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for
unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".


Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....

"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type
of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its
neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a
sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and
lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the
traditional local architecture.[1]"

and...

"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent,
multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably
larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may
seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property
boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either
located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller
structure in an older neighborhood."



I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic.
Pretty funny....
http://xrl.us/mcmansion

That's pretty ugly, agreed, but hardly a definition. Just seems to me that
those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly
those who use derisive over-generalizations like;

"up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy,
because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need
to impress a bunch of people they don't like."


Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest
counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the
top 10 counties for bankruptcies.


Really, why do you care what others have?


I don't. But I do care that so many people in this country are so far
in debt.
It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008
already?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply