7 ms·

This gets said a lot - but in practice, very little housing is built that way. The mega builders that build big developments certainly don't match up house pla

This gets said a lot - but in practice, very little housing is built that way. The mega builders that build big developments certainly don't match up house plans with the way lots are oriented, and that's where most houses are built. I'm not trying to argue we shouldn't work on that, but to just dismiss off the shelf house plans entirely because "you have to build for the site" is rejecting the reality of how things are done. At the very least, a repository of plans that was categorized simply by the orientation it was optimized for would be a step ahead of how most housing is planned and built today.

sidewndr46 3y ago
Anyone who has driven through a bunch of tract homes knows this to be true. The homes are built to maximize the number of homes in the available space and nothing else. If you really don't believe me just survey home owners in those now 2-year old tract homes. Even if the actual houses have excellent construction you'll discover the builder completely declined to take into account things like drainage of the lot or how maintenance can be performed.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  [flagged]
ilyt 3y ago
They just want to sell a bunch of houses quickly, not to create perfect houses. Good enough is quite literally good enough for them. There will be compromises because they build for average buyer, not for you. And people that are looking for a house usually want to move there as soon as possible, doing custom not only means you need to pay more but that you also have to wait longer and pay for the place you're currently living extra year or two. Ideally all would start from some common plans then architect would customize it based on the future home owner input but that's frankly expensive.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  I think ideally we would all live in modest, reasonably sized simple rectangular houses that are built to last, to be energy efficient, and which achieve low cost through standard designs. The "then architect" part of the process results in McMansions that are awful to live in, are environmentally disastrous, and contribute to the growing unaffordability of housing for all but the upper classes.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Ideally people would have a variety of options for size and style based on what they like and can afford rather than being forced into your personal preferences. There are more important factors than energy efficiency for most buyers. While I don't have a McMansion myself, they are actually quite livable for the target market of upper-middle class suburban nuclear families with children. The major homebuilders literally hire sociologists to do field research on such families and then design house plans to fit their lifestyle.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > I think ideally we would all live in modest, reasonably sized simple rectangular houses that are built to last, to be energy efficient, and which achieve low cost through standard designs. In an ideal world yes, in the real world you'll get run out of town being called a "communist", or no one will buy the houses because actually built-to-last homes are waaay more expensive than the cheap drywall and wood stuff that one sees go up in the air with every tornado video.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      Building with bricks adds 3x the cost compared to stick framing. On top of that, they'll hold up better to a weak tornado, but anything over EF2 will structurally compromise one. Add in all of the other disadvantages, and it is small wonder why people don't use them often in construction anymore. They're pretty high up on the list of CO2 cost as well, between firing and shipping.
duxup 3y ago
I duno if I agree with this. They might not go lot to lot but a big developer also is the one who orientates the lots and selects the designs ... I think it is all relative to how they do business / organize lots. It's more general than lot to lot, but still seems to take into account the general lay of the land, the city's codes and etc.
- lostapathy 3y ago
  Maybe this varies regionally? I'm around Kansas City. The biggest builders here will be in multiple subdivisions at once, with varying topography, and they may or may not have been the ones to plat out the lots. They will absolutely sell you any house plan in their catalog to go on any lot, so long as it fits. You might get a walkout basement instead of a full in-ground basement, but that's about how much it varies. The only variability is that smaller plans would be available in nicer subdivisions (that require bigger/expensive houses) and larger plans won't be available in subdivisions where they don't physically fit on the lots.
  - mike_d 3y ago
    > The biggest builders here will be in multiple subdivisions at once, with varying topography You are ignoring the tens of thousands of hours pre-built builders put into streamlining designs that can be put on almost any plot of land. Think of it as downloading a piece of software and saying "oh it just works everywhere" while ignoring the engineering time that went into testing and bug fixing on every platform. Regardless of what you see as a casual outside observer, an architect and civil engineer are putting their stamps on each set of blueprints for each construction site.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      You are ignoring the tens of thousands of hours pre-built builders put into streamlining designs that can be put on almost any plot of land. No they aren't. This thread was started by someone saying "The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house.". Both of you (and everyone) is saying this isn't true.
digging 3y ago
What does that have to do with this thread? The OP isn't buying a prebuilt house. Probably because they're not good houses.
- lostapathy 3y ago
  Even if you're having a new house built, you get a lot less choices than you might think. To most builders, "custom home" means you get to pick the paint and flooring, not that you have appreciable input into anything structural. I'm sure it varies regionally, but where I'm at (Kansas City market) you have to be in about the $800k range, generally, to be able to work with an actual architect and build something custom - and that's just plain out of reach for most people.
  - ticviking 3y ago
    The other option is self-built. But that's been roughly the way things have always been. What's changed is the creation of a middle path of "built to sell" homes.
  - digging 3y ago
    I know, but I was assuming the OP already knew they had the opportunity to dictate the architecture of their house, since that's what they were asking about. Either they have money or they have volunteer labor and low expectations.
nonameiguess 3y ago
The entire purpose of designing your own house is to take these things into account. If you're looking for a cookie-cutter generic design, just let a mega builder use one of their templates and they'll get what you're talking about here.
- lostapathy 3y ago
  You're missing my point - it's that less people have access to the type of "use an architect and build a custom home" experience you're talking about. I was shocked when I was looking to have a new home built a few years ago how much you have to spend to actually get into a "custom home" and not a fairly templated house.

sidewndr46 3y ago

Anyone who has driven through a bunch of tract homes knows this to be true. The homes are built to maximize the number of homes in the available space and nothing else. If you really don't believe me just survey home owners in those now 2-year old tract homes. Even if the actual houses have excellent construction you'll discover the builder completely declined to take into account things like drainage of the lot or how maintenance can be performed.

datavirtue 3y ago
[flagged]

ilyt 3y ago

They just want to sell a bunch of houses quickly, not to create perfect houses. Good enough is quite literally good enough for them. There will be compromises because they build for average buyer, not for you. And people that are looking for a house usually want to move there as soon as possible, doing custom not only means you need to pay more but that you also have to wait longer and pay for the place you're currently living extra year or two. Ideally all would start from some common plans then architect would customize it based on the future home owner input but that's frankly expensive.

SoftTalker 3y ago
I think ideally we would all live in modest, reasonably sized simple rectangular houses that are built to last, to be energy efficient, and which achieve low cost through standard designs. The "then architect" part of the process results in McMansions that are awful to live in, are environmentally disastrous, and contribute to the growing unaffordability of housing for all but the upper classes.
- nradov 3y ago
  Ideally people would have a variety of options for size and style based on what they like and can afford rather than being forced into your personal preferences. There are more important factors than energy efficiency for most buyers. While I don't have a McMansion myself, they are actually quite livable for the target market of upper-middle class suburban nuclear families with children. The major homebuilders literally hire sociologists to do field research on such families and then design house plans to fit their lifestyle.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > I think ideally we would all live in modest, reasonably sized simple rectangular houses that are built to last, to be energy efficient, and which achieve low cost through standard designs. In an ideal world yes, in the real world you'll get run out of town being called a "communist", or no one will buy the houses because actually built-to-last homes are waaay more expensive than the cheap drywall and wood stuff that one sees go up in the air with every tornado video.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    Building with bricks adds 3x the cost compared to stick framing. On top of that, they'll hold up better to a weak tornado, but anything over EF2 will structurally compromise one. Add in all of the other disadvantages, and it is small wonder why people don't use them often in construction anymore. They're pretty high up on the list of CO2 cost as well, between firing and shipping.

duxup 3y ago

I duno if I agree with this. They might not go lot to lot but a big developer also is the one who orientates the lots and selects the designs ... I think it is all relative to how they do business / organize lots. It's more general than lot to lot, but still seems to take into account the general lay of the land, the city's codes and etc.

lostapathy 3y ago
Maybe this varies regionally? I'm around Kansas City. The biggest builders here will be in multiple subdivisions at once, with varying topography, and they may or may not have been the ones to plat out the lots. They will absolutely sell you any house plan in their catalog to go on any lot, so long as it fits. You might get a walkout basement instead of a full in-ground basement, but that's about how much it varies. The only variability is that smaller plans would be available in nicer subdivisions (that require bigger/expensive houses) and larger plans won't be available in subdivisions where they don't physically fit on the lots.
- mike_d 3y ago
  > The biggest builders here will be in multiple subdivisions at once, with varying topography You are ignoring the tens of thousands of hours pre-built builders put into streamlining designs that can be put on almost any plot of land. Think of it as downloading a piece of software and saying "oh it just works everywhere" while ignoring the engineering time that went into testing and bug fixing on every platform. Regardless of what you see as a casual outside observer, an architect and civil engineer are putting their stamps on each set of blueprints for each construction site.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    You are ignoring the tens of thousands of hours pre-built builders put into streamlining designs that can be put on almost any plot of land. No they aren't. This thread was started by someone saying "The idea of planning a house without taking into account the site where it will sit will never produce a good house.". Both of you (and everyone) is saying this isn't true.

digging 3y ago

What does that have to do with this thread? The OP isn't buying a prebuilt house. Probably because they're not good houses.

lostapathy 3y ago
Even if you're having a new house built, you get a lot less choices than you might think. To most builders, "custom home" means you get to pick the paint and flooring, not that you have appreciable input into anything structural. I'm sure it varies regionally, but where I'm at (Kansas City market) you have to be in about the $800k range, generally, to be able to work with an actual architect and build something custom - and that's just plain out of reach for most people.
- ticviking 3y ago
  The other option is self-built. But that's been roughly the way things have always been. What's changed is the creation of a middle path of "built to sell" homes.
- digging 3y ago
  I know, but I was assuming the OP already knew they had the opportunity to dictate the architecture of their house, since that's what they were asking about. Either they have money or they have volunteer labor and low expectations.

nonameiguess 3y ago

The entire purpose of designing your own house is to take these things into account. If you're looking for a cookie-cutter generic design, just let a mega builder use one of their templates and they'll get what you're talking about here.

lostapathy 3y ago
You're missing my point - it's that less people have access to the type of "use an architect and build a custom home" experience you're talking about. I was shocked when I was looking to have a new home built a few years ago how much you have to spend to actually get into a "custom home" and not a fairly templated house.