Quick question: Are these architectural monstrosities occupied

[Hermod]

BTW, why is it that when the garage is in the front, the front entry of the house usually starts way in the back on either side of it or in the middle? Why can't the front entry be flush [[even) with the garage? The space it takes to walk to the front door could be a small office or an attractive entry foyer or hallway. Everytime I visit a house like this, I visually pull the front door forward.

Probably in an attempt to provide some architectural variation and not have a big flat front.

[Huggybear]

Reading this thread, the words "churlish" and "entitled" come to mind.

One, although not pretty, these "monstrosities" are not materially different from the housing chosen by 80% of our metro area. So please don't lead off a thread by suggesting that nondescript, suburban-looking houses are "monstrosities." They're sub-optimal designs [[at least in your view and mine), but that form has to be appealing to someone. It's not a "command economy," as some would suggest. People go out and have houses like this built and fall in love with them on real estate tours.

Two, the garage-in-front concept undoutedly has a safety component that those of you writing from "Not Detroit" fail to appreciate. Hibbard is in a fairly crime-ridden area [[particularly car theft). What many prefer on this thread - storing your car in a hidden-from-the-street, aesthetically-pleasing detached garage - gives you an opportunity to walk alone in the dark, to the side or back of your house [[where there are no "eyes on the neighborhood") through a backyard with little or no light, in an area with few streetlights and little police presence, to a door where you're going to be fumbling for your keys. It also gives thieves an opportunity to steal your stuff from your garage without your hearing it until it's too late. I can tell you from personal knowledge that this fear has driven people out of far nicer neighborhoods like Grandmont-Rosedale. We lost a lot of neighbors that way. At the end of the day, if someone doesn't feel safe, they leave - and this metro has ample evidence that when that happens, aesthetics run a distant second.

Third, there is no defending the 900sf bungalow with detached garage - it's the essence of Detroit's abandonment issue. No one wants to live in these regimented, tiny, cookie cutter houses. We may be replacing one sin with another by allowing mini-mansions with a low but measurable degree of variety, but the idea of the tidy white house on a 30-foot lot has been tried and failed. Let's try something new, even if it's just a little different.

And on the entitlement issue, we all want to remake Detroit in our own image. But don't let your feeling of entitlement that every development, no matter how small or challenged, should be done "your way" blind you to long-timers' feelings that they are entitled to redevelopment of these weed fields in their lifetimes. We have dozens of square miles that need a total rebuild. Don't get your stomach in a knot about an off-the-track development with a handful of houses. Instead, look forward to building momentum and the more upscale dwellings that will follow in places that are more visible.

HB

[RickBeall]

When land is cheap and the lots narrow, the solution should be to build on double lots.

[ghettopalmetto]

When land is cheap and the lots narrow, the solution should be to build on double lots.

Well, if your sole goal is to "fill-up" as much land as quickly as possible, then I suppose that's "the solution". But as I contended above, Detroit can't compete with it's own suburbs if it continues to build in a suburban manner. There is absolutely no incentive to buy one of these houses vis-a-vis an identical house outside the City of Detroit.

If cities can regulate visual items like billboards and maximum fence heights, they can sure as shit regulate the appearance of buildings that are constructed. But we all know the Detroit City Council has a history of squealing with glee about the smallest Lowest Common Denominator crumbs that come its way.

[Hermod]

BTW, why is it that when the garage is in the front, the front entry of the house usually starts way in the back on either side of it or in the middle? Why can't the front entry be flush [[even) with the garage? The space it takes to walk to the front door could be a small office or an attractive entry foyer or hallway. Everytime I visit a house like this, I visually pull the front door forward.

You knlw, I am not an architect, just an engineer. I think that if i wanted a two car garage on a house, i would split the garage and have a one car garage on each corner with the front door and windows flush with or maybe sticking out in front of the garage doors. Give the second story a three foot set back from the front of the house to keep it from being so flat looking. I think that the balance achieved by the split doors might help the design.

[royce]

In Woodbridge Estates the single family homes have garages attached to the back of the houses. In some cases a drive-way from the street is used to enter the garage from its side. For other houses, the garages are entered from Gibson Street which acts as an alley. The attached garages don't give homeowners much of a backyard but they can drive right into them. Also, it frees up the front from having too many driveways. It think this is an improvement over the houses on Hibbard, but I still would like a backyard. A side-yard with the attached garage in the back would work, but then the houses wouldn't be as close together, especially if you were concerned about density.

[DetroitPlanner]

Here are some pretty snout houses:
http://www.houzz.com/Snout-House

https://www.cnu.org/event/civic-desi...hoods-and-what

My sister lives in a snout house with a 3-car garage. I am a failure.

[Jimaz]

Here are some pretty snout houses:...

Thanks. I learned something new. From Urban Dictionary:

The resulting curb view resembles a snout or nose.