4 ms·

> They seem designed primarily to maximize one thing: the square-footage number that will be on the listing when it’s sold. Say it again for the people in the

> They seem designed primarily to maximize one thing: the square-footage number that will be on the listing when it’s sold. Say it again for the people in the back! This is probably my biggest complaint with modern suburban housing/McMansions. You can see it in the exterior design of the house; you see all kinds of horrendous roof lines, mismatched windows of all shapes and sizes, odd material choices, etc. The houses suffer because they're trying to build the most square footage on the smallest possible lot. I know density is the way to go in urban development, but... I feel like developers have lost the plot.

wwweston 6y ago
This is also worth noting not only on the level of aesthetics and experience of a given building, but worth underscoring for consideration, especially for the crowd that thinks that leveling obstacles to increased supply is The Answer™ to housing costs. Increased supply is one necessary component, but in the same way that developer incentives can more easily push them to substandard suburban construction, urban construction is likely enough to chase something other than your goals.
diablerouge 6y ago
> I know density is the way to go in urban development, but... I feel like developers have lost the plot. This is exactly true! A lot of the time, the increased size doesn't even result in increased density - most McMansions are single-family homes. Plus, because the extra space is weirdly proportioned and placed, it doesn't provide much benefit to the inhabitants - it only serves to inflate the listed price.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  You know, when I typed that I meant density in that the houses are much closer together than older developments, but honestly... they're probably not much "denser" on a human basis. The homes have just swelled to take up most of the lot.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
stevesimmons 6y ago
"More square feet for less dollars" This was the slogan of a house builder I once analysed for a management consulting project on the future of the Australian building industry. After a week touring display homes, and estimating cost (or costs avoided), I figured out exactly how the market leaders lowered the sticker price while increasing their margins. No matter that the houses quickly fell apart after purchase... The tricks I remember included: * No plaster on the wall behind the fridge * Big mirrors in bathrooms, because mirrors cost about the same as tiles but are much quicker to install. * Eliminate walls on the ground floor, to give the open-plan look. Except that there's no sound insulation, or heat retention. And the new owners need to buy a lot more furniture, otherwise it looks too empty. * Make the eaves very narrow, to reduce the size of the roof. Even though the walls now have no shade from the sun, the interior heats up more in summer, and you spend much more on air conditioning. * Build the house like a big box, up close to the boundary line... Looks good on the plan. Less good when your neighbours' bedroom windows look right into yours. And less good when there's no shade or privacy because the builder cut down the established trees... I remember both feeling in awe at the cost-cutting ingenuity and disgusted at future problems it would bring the unlucky new owners.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  I've seen just about all of the above, and a few more: * Cheap out on just about anything that you need a lot of (knobs, drawer pulls, light switches) * Cut tile or flooring at unusual angles to avoid having to do more complex cuts * Use the cheapest lighting and plumbing fixtures possible I've actually had friends buying new construction homes tell me that they've told the builder NOT to install certain things because they didn't want to be saddled with whatever "builder grade" materials the contractor was going to use. Imagine that! Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new house, but you already don't trust the builder not to cut corners! Where's the craftsmanship?
  - StillBored 6y ago
    MDF: Particularly in most cabinetry. That stuff should be illegal because the cheap plumbing fixtures will invariably leak, and when that happens now your cabinet is ruined too. I think similarly for OSB, and don't believe a word about how its a good building material, but thankfully i've only seen it crumble once so far. Mostly I suspect because its not been in to many buildings for 30+ years of heat and moisture cycling.
bradly 6y ago
All my dad every asks when I show him a house is what the price per square foot is. His past two houses have had hallways ending in a dead-end.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Or a house with an absolutely tiny kitchen and an enormous “basement” that’s almost useless.
ajmurmann 6y ago
When I look at new developments in my area, I feel we are getting the wrist of Urban and rural living. All the houses in the huge development look the same. Almost no yard. You live practically wall to wall with your neighbors. Many are town houses so you actually do. Yet, nothing is walkable. Everyone would be better off if we could have more tall, mixed-use apartment or condo buildings with stores and restaurants at the bottom. It would give more options to get affordable housing close to where people work. It also would reduce pressure for areas further away to be build up to the point where it's just wall to wall suburban nightmare. All this happens due to a combination of builder incentives, but mostly bad zoning. Clearly the land is expensive enough that we need density, yet we cannot build more proper urban housing.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Safety and cost is another reason. For example in the Bay Area the materials allowed for 4 story buildings is different than 5+ because it needs to have much higher fireproofing. The result is many 4 story buildings and almost nothing above that because of the cost difference.

wwweston 6y ago

This is also worth noting not only on the level of aesthetics and experience of a given building, but worth underscoring for consideration, especially for the crowd that thinks that leveling obstacles to increased supply is The Answer™ to housing costs. Increased supply is one necessary component, but in the same way that developer incentives can more easily push them to substandard suburban construction, urban construction is likely enough to chase something other than your goals.

diablerouge 6y ago

> I know density is the way to go in urban development, but... I feel like developers have lost the plot. This is exactly true! A lot of the time, the increased size doesn't even result in increased density - most McMansions are single-family homes. Plus, because the extra space is weirdly proportioned and placed, it doesn't provide much benefit to the inhabitants - it only serves to inflate the listed price.

brendoelfrendo 6y ago
You know, when I typed that I meant density in that the houses are much closer together than older developments, but honestly... they're probably not much "denser" on a human basis. The homes have just swelled to take up most of the lot.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

stevesimmons 6y ago

"More square feet for less dollars" This was the slogan of a house builder I once analysed for a management consulting project on the future of the Australian building industry. After a week touring display homes, and estimating cost (or costs avoided), I figured out exactly how the market leaders lowered the sticker price while increasing their margins. No matter that the houses quickly fell apart after purchase... The tricks I remember included: * No plaster on the wall behind the fridge * Big mirrors in bathrooms, because mirrors cost about the same as tiles but are much quicker to install. * Eliminate walls on the ground floor, to give the open-plan look. Except that there's no sound insulation, or heat retention. And the new owners need to buy a lot more furniture, otherwise it looks too empty. * Make the eaves very narrow, to reduce the size of the roof. Even though the walls now have no shade from the sun, the interior heats up more in summer, and you spend much more on air conditioning. * Build the house like a big box, up close to the boundary line... Looks good on the plan. Less good when your neighbours' bedroom windows look right into yours. And less good when there's no shade or privacy because the builder cut down the established trees... I remember both feeling in awe at the cost-cutting ingenuity and disgusted at future problems it would bring the unlucky new owners.

brendoelfrendo 6y ago
I've seen just about all of the above, and a few more: * Cheap out on just about anything that you need a lot of (knobs, drawer pulls, light switches) * Cut tile or flooring at unusual angles to avoid having to do more complex cuts * Use the cheapest lighting and plumbing fixtures possible I've actually had friends buying new construction homes tell me that they've told the builder NOT to install certain things because they didn't want to be saddled with whatever "builder grade" materials the contractor was going to use. Imagine that! Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new house, but you already don't trust the builder not to cut corners! Where's the craftsmanship?
- StillBored 6y ago
  MDF: Particularly in most cabinetry. That stuff should be illegal because the cheap plumbing fixtures will invariably leak, and when that happens now your cabinet is ruined too. I think similarly for OSB, and don't believe a word about how its a good building material, but thankfully i've only seen it crumble once so far. Mostly I suspect because its not been in to many buildings for 30+ years of heat and moisture cycling.

bradly 6y ago

All my dad every asks when I show him a house is what the price per square foot is. His past two houses have had hallways ending in a dead-end.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Or a house with an absolutely tiny kitchen and an enormous “basement” that’s almost useless.

ajmurmann 6y ago

When I look at new developments in my area, I feel we are getting the wrist of Urban and rural living. All the houses in the huge development look the same. Almost no yard. You live practically wall to wall with your neighbors. Many are town houses so you actually do. Yet, nothing is walkable. Everyone would be better off if we could have more tall, mixed-use apartment or condo buildings with stores and restaurants at the bottom. It would give more options to get affordable housing close to where people work. It also would reduce pressure for areas further away to be build up to the point where it's just wall to wall suburban nightmare. All this happens due to a combination of builder incentives, but mostly bad zoning. Clearly the land is expensive enough that we need density, yet we cannot build more proper urban housing.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Safety and cost is another reason. For example in the Bay Area the materials allowed for 4 story buildings is different than 5+ because it needs to have much higher fireproofing. The result is many 4 story buildings and almost nothing above that because of the cost difference.