The Historic District

Well you pegged me with this statement then! :

vvzz wrote:And the said part is that the majority arent even able to see all those problems

I certainly would be happy to own that home. But I do see your point. Standards sure have changed.

The inside is the cold, sterile, trendy style of today's houses. In a few years all this will be getting torn out for whatever the new fad is.

they could have put a little wood into it. and some wavy glass

I partially agree with the premise of this thread. The old standards/rules of thumb that were used to design houses in the past seem to have been thrown out or forgotten. But, as a design professional, (my work only involves commercial stuff, though) I feel confident that I could design a house with the same design character of an old house, if asked to do so. Of course, I live in an old house, and have looked at scores of other old houses online. So, my eye is kind of trained to know what looks correct.

One point about modern houses, including the one on the OP, (although I don't think that house looks bad, exactly...) it seems like quantity of doodads and widgets is confused with architectural character. This is especially true with McMansions, where lots of doodads and widgets are thrown together without consideration of how they work together. A co-worker once joked that the best way to add value to a new house design, is to add gables.

the extreor looks kind of nice, for a new house but I think they ran out of money on the interior, that's probably why they resorted to things like laminate floor ( it's not like you can't get real wood) and painted MDF throughout. it wouldn't have cost much more in labor but the interior materials reflect some serious budget restraint.

Sara wrote:Well you pegged me with this statement then! :

vvzz wrote:And the said part is that the majority arent even able to see all those problems

I certainly would be happy to own that home. But I do see your point. Standards sure have changed.

Definitely didn't want to offend anyone, so I apologize if I did! I mean, who's even to say that classical architecture is the definitive benchmark.

phil wrote:the extreor looks kind of nice, for a new house but I think they ran out of money on the interior, that's probably why they resorted to things like laminate floor ( it's not like you can't get real wood) and painted MDF throughout. it wouldn't have cost much more in labor but the interior materials reflect some serious budget restraint.

I think it's most definitely real hardwood(or engineered floors at the very least) But I agree that it looks like $0.59 laminate special for some reason.

Willa wrote:There is a lot wrong with the porch roof.

At first it doesn't look so terrible, but once you start looking it's like Craftsman crossed with Victorian-ish crossed with Kardashian.

Like the difference between silk and polyester...

I'm with Willa on this one, can't make up thier minds, tall Craftsman or large Queen Anne. Well dam it let's build both. I see really nothing interesting in this home. Just another McMansion

JRC, as a pro, your thoughts on building this in today's world. With mods it could be brought up to code. Could it be done for the same 4 million, or even 5?

I see nothing here that could not be souced today.

The one thing you might have trouble sourcing is craftsmanship.

I preface this by stating that I know almost nothing about building a house but it occurs to me, having seen more than a few authentic late 19th and early 20th century houses, that those who attempt to build reproductions might direct their focus at styles earlier than the exuberant Queen Anne. Italianate is probably too ambitious, given the skills and materials available today. A convincing Greek Revival (or earlier) house seems like a feasible project for someone willing to pay attention to proportions and scale.