5 ms·

Unfortunately this plague of bland boxes has come to my neighborhood. Internal volume is more valued than neighborhood aesthetics. It seems there's a correlatio

by kfprt 5y ago

Unfortunately this plague of bland boxes has come to my neighborhood. Internal volume is more valued than neighborhood aesthetics. It seems there's a correlation between these boxes and people never leaving the house but to work.

Loughla 5y ago
So my spouse and I built a 'bland box'. We did it for simplicity and practicality sake. Few breaks to the roof line = few opportunities for my roof to leak in 40 years. Simple design with a smaller footprint = more money available for high quality materials in the walls, floors, and ceilings. Tan siding because it's cheap and easy for me to fix on my own when it gets broken. Dark brown shingles because they will fade to light brown over their life and still look okay instead of needing to be replaced in the first 10 years of their 30 year life. Just saying, some people do these things for different reasons.
- kfprt 5y ago
  I think this very much reinforces my point. 100% focus on the structure itself (especially interior) and relatively zero on the neighborhood or exterior. In a word, atomized.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    “How dare people build houses for themselves to live in and not for me to look at!?”
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      That's a clever twist of phrasing. You could just as easily have said "How dare people build houses for themselves instead of thinking about all the other people that have to look at them?" Clearly, there's some tension between these two goals, and the balance shifts back and forth over time.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        If somebody doesn’t like the look of my house, they are more than welcome to get off my lawn.
handmodel 5y ago
I agree a lot of the balance has shifted this way but I don't see this as bad. When you are very wealthy you can have both but for those without that much money I don't blame anyone for choosing functionality over the aesthetics of a neighborhood. It seems rather insane to me to insist that your neighbor must increase their budget 20 or 40 percent (perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars) just so your house can be a couple percentage points more desirable.
- kfprt 5y ago
  Insane perhaps from the perspective of a dweller. Some neighborhoods put more emphasis on walkability, not merely from aesthetic consideration but a desire to have walkable local businesses. Of course this is not the case if the extent that you see your neighborhood is confined to your driving commute. If this is the case then aesthetics matter little and why not live farther outside the city.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  This attitude is a good-sized chunk of the reason why the article was written. The constant focus on "how to make it as cheaply as possible, now" has brought some benefits: we can make housing that in many ways (not all) is better and cheaper than it ever has been in the past. But ... building neighborhoods of "desirable" character is about more than how much your house costs right now. It's about the legacy a culture leaves to the future. It's about the difference between driving through small towns in America and small towns in Europe (probably the middle east and asia too). It's an investment, not in your home, but in your culture's future.
  - handmodel 5y ago
    I just think this is insane to me. We know the cost to build more intricate builds - it isn't a 2% cost increase its a 30 or 50% cost increase. There are already tons of restrictions on building and zoning in America. I like nice cars but I dont insist that everyone drive a European sports car just because it would be aesthetically more pleasing. Ultimately, a city/town will be better off if people can spend 20% of their income on housing instead of 50%. Not just because they are selfish or short-sighted but because they can actually use the additional resources on things for themselves, their family, and their community.

by kfprt 5y ago

Loughla 5y ago

So my spouse and I built a 'bland box'. We did it for simplicity and practicality sake. Few breaks to the roof line = few opportunities for my roof to leak in 40 years. Simple design with a smaller footprint = more money available for high quality materials in the walls, floors, and ceilings. Tan siding because it's cheap and easy for me to fix on my own when it gets broken. Dark brown shingles because they will fade to light brown over their life and still look okay instead of needing to be replaced in the first 10 years of their 30 year life. Just saying, some people do these things for different reasons.

kfprt 5y ago
I think this very much reinforces my point. 100% focus on the structure itself (especially interior) and relatively zero on the neighborhood or exterior. In a word, atomized.
- philwelch 5y ago
  “How dare people build houses for themselves to live in and not for me to look at!?”
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    That's a clever twist of phrasing. You could just as easily have said "How dare people build houses for themselves instead of thinking about all the other people that have to look at them?" Clearly, there's some tension between these two goals, and the balance shifts back and forth over time.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      If somebody doesn’t like the look of my house, they are more than welcome to get off my lawn.

handmodel 5y ago

I agree a lot of the balance has shifted this way but I don't see this as bad. When you are very wealthy you can have both but for those without that much money I don't blame anyone for choosing functionality over the aesthetics of a neighborhood. It seems rather insane to me to insist that your neighbor must increase their budget 20 or 40 percent (perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars) just so your house can be a couple percentage points more desirable.

kfprt 5y ago
Insane perhaps from the perspective of a dweller. Some neighborhoods put more emphasis on walkability, not merely from aesthetic consideration but a desire to have walkable local businesses. Of course this is not the case if the extent that you see your neighborhood is confined to your driving commute. If this is the case then aesthetics matter little and why not live farther outside the city.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
This attitude is a good-sized chunk of the reason why the article was written. The constant focus on "how to make it as cheaply as possible, now" has brought some benefits: we can make housing that in many ways (not all) is better and cheaper than it ever has been in the past. But ... building neighborhoods of "desirable" character is about more than how much your house costs right now. It's about the legacy a culture leaves to the future. It's about the difference between driving through small towns in America and small towns in Europe (probably the middle east and asia too). It's an investment, not in your home, but in your culture's future.
- handmodel 5y ago
  I just think this is insane to me. We know the cost to build more intricate builds - it isn't a 2% cost increase its a 30 or 50% cost increase. There are already tons of restrictions on building and zoning in America. I like nice cars but I dont insist that everyone drive a European sports car just because it would be aesthetically more pleasing. Ultimately, a city/town will be better off if people can spend 20% of their income on housing instead of 50%. Not just because they are selfish or short-sighted but because they can actually use the additional resources on things for themselves, their family, and their community.