Big Ugly Houses - and Smaller Well Designed Houses

**A2Mike** · January-17-14, 10:10 AM

I couldn't resist posting this link to the latest Free Press "Michigan House Envy" feature:
http://www.freep.com/article/2014011...-stalls-horses ATTACH]22445[/ATTACH] Name: barnettparishall_1.jpg
Views: 4193
Size: 62.9 KB

Name: barnettparishall_1.jpg
Views: 4193
Size: 62.9 KB

Name: ansley park house 5.jpg
Views: 3147
Size: 54.9 KB

Name: atlanta-cape-cod-cottage-l.jpg
Views: 3425
Size: 76.3 KB

Name: 4326337401_e0fbb42c64_b1_thumb1.jpg
Views: 9620
Size: 41.3 KB

Name: f7d47754fbff16af94145c989f6ea7cf.jpg
Views: 3045
Size: 32.2 KB

Name: monument xmas_04.JPG
Views: 16793
Size: 66.5 KB

Name: green_019.jpg
Views: 3132
Size: 46.5 KB

The house illustrated encapsulates the discussion here of some weeks ago about big not necessarily equaling good. Of course some big houses are very good indeed - Detroit demolished many of them - but well designed smaller houses make more attractive neighbors and neighborhoods. Here are some examples, mostly of classical inspiration, but excellent design can come in any style. The readers make have their own favorites.

**Hermod** · January-17-14, 11:27 AM

"Big, ugly house" = Waaaaah, its bigger than mine and shouldn't be allowed by zoning!

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-17-14, 01:15 PM

IMHO, some particularly ugly windows in the Shelby house.

**EastsideAl** · January-17-14, 01:24 PM

Are there any exterior photos of that Shelby Twp. house in the Free Press story? It doesn't look all that great from the inside, but some of the big new houses I see out there aren't half bad. Nothing to compare to most of the houses posted above, but also not at all hideous. Of course, far too many big new homes are indeed ugly gaudy tasteless McMansions.

**rb336** · January-17-14, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Are there any exterior photos of that Shelby Twp. house in the Free Press story? It doesn't look all that great from the inside, but some of the big new houses I see out there aren't half bad. Nothing to compare to most of the houses posted above, but also not at all hideous. Of course, far too many big new homes are indeed ugly gaudy tasteless McMansions.

yes, they are right there in the slide show - very blah. I've never understood the allure of a "big house" and I grew up in a fairly big house - 6000 sq. ft. it was nice when all of my siblings were living there, but when I was the last kid at home I decided I never wanted to live in a place that big again. 10,000 square feet is just absurd. That most of the houses featured by the freep are sterile looking as hell just makes it worse

**motz** · January-17-14, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

"Big, ugly house" = Waaaaah, its bigger than mine and shouldn't be allowed by zoning!

If you saw some of the stuff they are throwing up in Troy and surrounding suburbs, you'd get it. They are cookie cutter houses and just... ugly. They look like everything else in the outer suburbs, cost $300k and a lot of times, go up in the span of a week or two. I've watched three subdivisions go up around my parents house and you can tell they are rush rush rushing construction.

**rb336** · January-17-14, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by motz

If you saw some of the stuff they are throwing up in Troy and surrounding suburbs, you'd get it. They are cookie cutter houses and just... ugly. They look like everything else in the outer suburbs, cost $300k and a lot of times, go up in the span of a week or two. I've watched three subdivisions go up around my parents house and you can tell they are rush rush rushing construction.

There is plenty to dislike about Troy. The architecture is at the top of that list

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-17-14, 03:05 PM

The difference between new and older neighborhoods can really be quite amazing. I live in SF close to the Miraloma Park area. The difference in the appearance of the houses has always fascinated me. In this pic, the houses have basically identical floor plans, but each has a totally different exterior, creating a very interesting streetscape.

**motz** · January-17-14, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

There is plenty to dislike about Troy. The architecture is at the top of that list

Office Parkitecture is #1. Residential architecture is #2. I was lucky enough to live in a home that was build in 1916, many of my friends were raised in those "beautiful" 1960s and 1970s homes that resembled every other home in the neighborhood.

**poobert** · January-17-14, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

"Big, ugly house" = Waaaaah, its bigger than mine and shouldn't be allowed by zoning!

Or maybe people actually just don't like the same dumb ugly shit as you and have crap values.

That Shelby Twp. house absolutely screams "White trash with money." Thanks for posting some gems to remind us that there is still taste on this planet.

**scottn55** · January-17-14, 08:15 PM

I have the exact same Times Square picture that they have in their billiards room on my living room wall. It's from Ikea.

**Hermod** · January-17-14, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by poobert

Or maybe people actually just don't like the same dumb ugly shit as you and have crap values.

The beautiful 1938 mansion in Detroit where I spent the salad days of my youth.
Attachment 22458

**Johnnny5** · January-18-14, 09:57 AM

Personally, I would never want a home as large as that one pictured from Shelby Township, but it appears to be a very well done for what it is.

**p69rrh51** · January-18-14, 01:14 PM

These are in the top ten most popular homes I post. Not one of them is under 10,000 sq. ft. with the most popular homes coming in at 35,000 and 40,000 sq. ft. When it comes to homes everyone has their own taste. Personally its the home not the size of the home. You all are full of it with your seudo snob, high and mighty, we know all attitudes towards architecture. Even though I have posted plenty of images of buildings around the city, I am proud to say I have never cried, complained or looked down on another person's taste in homes on this forum.

**pkbroch** · January-18-14, 02:24 PM

^^^^^^^^^

Agree, p69,

Every has their own taste, this forum should not slam everyone who was to live in a newer house with central air, good water pressure, great garage space and spa bathrooms.

Just because a house is 50 plus years does not make it quality. A lot of stuff built between 1918 - 1950 was not that high quality.

**canuck** · January-18-14, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

These are in the top ten most popular homes I post. Not one of them is under 10,000 sq. ft. with the most popular homes coming in at 35,000 and 40,000 sq. ft. When it comes to homes everyone has their own taste. Personally its the home not the size of the home. You all are full of it with your seudo snob, high and mighty, we know all attitudes towards architecture. Even though I have posted plenty of images of buildings around the city, I am proud to say I have never cried, complained or looked down on another person's taste in homes on this forum.

You put down nationalities but dont bother criticizing taste in architecture; big deal. What´s your point?

**LeannaM** · January-18-14, 07:20 PM

Houses vary. I tend to like the look of older ones myself. I have never lived in a big house. My parents' house is three bedrooms, but they're small bedrooms.

New houses [[like new cars) need less maintenance, but you do pay for it in the price. New houses also don't necessarily look as good as older ones. I guess it depends on what your tastes and needs are.

In general I prefer older, smaller houses over new ones.

**LeannaM** · January-18-14, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by pkbroch

^^^^^^^^^

Agree, p69,

Every has their own taste, this forum should not slam everyone who was to live in a newer house with central air, good water pressure, great garage space and spa bathrooms.

Just because a house is 50 plus years does not make it quality. A lot of stuff built between 1918 - 1950 was not that high quality.

My parents' house was built in the 1930s and we've had to replace a couple of floors. The clay pipes also get roots growing into them. In the winter we get mold along the bottoms of the outside walls [[mold is common here, though). But my parents house was cheap when they bought it, so you get what you pay for. It's done its job.

Of course, sometimes a good renovation is nearly as good as a new house, but renovation is also expensive.

**LeannaM** · January-18-14, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by motz

Office Parkitecture is #1. Residential architecture is #2. I was lucky enough to live in a home that was build in 1916, many of my friends were raised in those "beautiful" 1960s and 1970s homes that resembled every other home in the neighborhood.

I think it depends on the neighborhood/suburb. Some suburbs [[particularly inner ring) have very diverse architecture. There are also some city neighborhoods that are pretty homogeneous. I will agree that overall city neighborhoods have more diverse architecture, but suburbs aren't always bad.

Sometimes very similar houses can be made different, such as with these painted ladies.
http://photos.patrickgarrettphotogra...635B#h2974635b

**Novine** · January-18-14, 08:16 PM

That house in Shelby is butt ugly on the outside and no amount of appealing towards "everyone has their own taste" viewpoint is going to change that.

**Hamtragedy** · January-21-14, 01:10 PM

Hey p69, what's that last house in B&W that you posted?

**motz** · January-22-14, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by LeannaM

I think it depends on the neighborhood/suburb. Some suburbs [[particularly inner ring) have very diverse architecture. There are also some city neighborhoods that are pretty homogeneous. I will agree that overall city neighborhoods have more diverse architecture, but suburbs aren't always bad.

Sometimes very similar houses can be made different, such as with these painted ladies.
http://photos.patrickgarrettphotogra...635B#h2974635b

I LOVE those houses! I just think that many of the more modern developments in the suburbs lack personality. I have been in more than my fair share in the Shelby/Troy/Sterling Heights/Bloomfield/etc areas, the 200-400k houses that have gone up in the past 20 years. Not all of them are poorly made [[in fact, a large amount I personally have seen seem to be pretty dang nice), but they have a very... sterilized and generic feel to them.

The inner ring suburbs are so weird because some neighborhoods, like Pleasant Ridge/Ferndale, have some really awesome houses that I enjoy [[I couldn't live without a front porch) but then you also have some, well, poor quality housing stock mixed in. It is really weird.

Regardless, the Shelby Township house just feels overdone and a bit too much. Someone will sure love it, but I'd rather take something in Palmer Woods or somesuch.

**Onthe405** · January-23-14, 07:28 PM

Real Estate "Envy"? Umm..not quite. That Shelby house is a year old? My only question for a prospect is: why would you want to lay down $1M to buy a brand new house with such outdated architecture, pool, and details? I suppose it works for a buyer who is really into 1980s nostalgia.

Also got a charge out the agent's appropriate adjective describing the place. I can just the picture the targeted client speaking to the agent: "Yes, Mr. Zibkowski, I'm looking for a property, somewhere in the $1M range, that is. . . flashy"

**Ray1936** · January-23-14, 10:04 PM

When I see a really old house.....Victorian, like some of the ones on Trumbull and Lincoln and in there......I drool over what might be tucked away and forgotten in the attic.

**beachboy** · January-24-14, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

"Big, ugly house" = Waaaaah, its bigger than mine and shouldn't be allowed by zoning!

The great Michigan poet Edgar Guest wrote:

"Home ain't a place that gold can buy or get up in a minute;
Afore it's home there's got t' be a heap o' livin' in it ..."

[["Home", by Edgar Guest, at http://sofinesjoyfulmoments.com/quotes/heapoliv.htm)