Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What Sort of Housing Style Do You Prefer?

Or?




Or something completely different from the above two images?

Please join in the discussion of 'What Sort of Housing Style Do You Prefer?'

Posted by David at 7:57 PM
Labels:

24 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 29, 2009 9:30 PM

    Assuming location is roughly equal, I like the second one(s).

    Mostly because they still have tons of character you just dont see in buiding anymore.

    The one on the far left has some dentil work coming off the cornice that you would never see attempted in modern architecture. Im not sure most bricklayers would know how to do it anymore.

    And see those star shapes on the facade? Those arent decorative - those are actually nuts put over metal rods running through the house.

    See the archway between the two houses on the far left? That is a pass thru. In the pre car era, it allowed the homeowner to take his horse from the street into the back yard where he would tie it up.

    Maybe im in a minority, but im a bigtime sucker for character, and these places just ooze it - it reminds me of Europe far more than most of the homogenized USA.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DavidJuly 29, 2009 9:47 PM

    "See the archway between the two houses on the far left?"

    I think you mean the far right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CoreyJuly 29, 2009 10:31 PM

    Anon - I used to wonder what the deal was with those stars on the old places in DC & Alexandria - interesting.

    And the pass through - thats wild! It makes you think about the history of this area and how different life is now than it was then. Thanks.

    Oh and David - neither style is my favorite, but if I had to choose, it would be the rowhouses in a heartbeat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJuly 29, 2009 10:43 PM

    The first, I hate hearing my neighbors through the wall. Im a sucker for not being bothered by idiots with or without character.

    In europe those homes with character would be ok, cause people have character....here they think they own the whole block.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJuly 29, 2009 10:53 PM

    "The first, I hate hearing my neighbors through the wall. Im a sucker for not being bothered by idiots with or without charactter."

    I used to live in a place like this - the wall between me and my neighbor is 30 inches thick. 5 inches of insulated stick "frame" - 4 inch open air gap - 12 inch thick english bond brick - 4 inch open air gap - 5 inch stick frame.

    In the 6 years ive lived there, I never heard my neighbor (or his 8 year old) once.

    I now live in LA. The weather is nice, but the atmosphere is so damn fake. I dont miss DC much, but I do miss those old houses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJuly 30, 2009 7:51 AM

    David, are there any other examples of rowhouses in DC and Alexandria that you could point out?

    I have some for you:
    Here

    These are more common than the plain examples shown in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJuly 30, 2009 8:38 AM

    "I used to live in a place like this - the wall between me and my neighbor is 30 inches thick."

    How thick were your windows? It would be great if those are 30 inches thick too!!! Cause I used to live in a place like this when my neighbor had his windows open blasting music I wasnt interested in hearing when trying to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  8. FrancesJuly 30, 2009 10:09 AM

    Second one! Who needs the big yard and all the work associated with it? The folks in the row houses can surely walk to greenspace publicly maintained nearby. It'll be larger and nicer than a yard would be, and you might even exchange a few pleasantries with another human being.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJuly 30, 2009 1:49 PM

    The second one hands down.

    But then I am from New Orleans and suburban-style architecture leaves me cold.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LanceJuly 31, 2009 9:04 AM

    And see those star shapes on the facade? Those arent decorative - those are actually nuts put over metal rods running through the house.

    The metal rods are used to retain a wall that's failing. Usually you see them on the side walls of the end units of a row of row houses because that's where the pressure from all the rowhouses down the block gets exerted. On this house it must have been the facade that was failing which is unusual because facades aren't load bearing. I guess it's possible though. Alternatively, it could be that someone who doesn't understand what those stars are, put them on this home for decorative purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 9:16 AM

    "The metal rods are used to retain a wall that's failing."

    HAHAHA!!! Man now I really want to live in one of those boxes!

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 11:52 AM

    Lance that isnt a "facade". That is "stacked" or "bonded" brick - as in a brick frame. The brick "facade" didnt come into practice til some time in the 1930s.

    The rods and stars are not because its "falling", its used to prevent it from falling, as evidenced by the fact its still standing after 150 years. No different from bolts on a rim joist in modern architecture.

    I cant tell from the picture but I dont think this is bonded brick. If its stack, you need to add retention rods on the front too. If it was bonded (either english or flemmish) you dont need the rods - even on the sides.

    ReplyDelete
  13. LanceJuly 31, 2009 12:54 PM

    Anon 11:52, I meant facade as in 'the front of the building' (what architects call 'the front elevation') as in meaning number 1 below.

    So, you're saying these were used as part of the construction? Why don't the other houses in the row (constructed at the same time and in the same manner) not have the same stars? I can't tell whether that's because they're decorative or whether they're real and were put in to correct or prevent a problem, but given that the other houses don't have them, I don't see how they would have been necessary 'to prevent them from falling' as part of the original construction.

    Main Entry: fa·cade
    Variant(s): also fa·çade \fə-ˈsäd\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French façade, from Italian facciata, from faccia face, from Vulgar Latin *facia
    Date: circa 1681
    1: the front of a building ; also : any face of a building given special architectural treatment (a museum's east facade)
    2: a false, superficial, or artificial appearance or effect

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 2:03 PM

    "So, you're saying these were used as part of the construction? Why don't the other houses in the row (constructed at the same time and in the same manner) not have the same stars?"

    No, they were likely added to prevent collapse. The yellow house on the left had a collapse under the right upsairs window - you can see the repair. This tells me its likely stack. Thus, in order to prevent a similar collapse, the owner of the green house added the retention rods.

    "Anon 11:52, I meant facade as in 'the front of the building' (what architects call 'the front elevation') as in meaning number 1 below."

    Thats fine, but you said facades "arent load bearing". That is false. In these places there is two courses of brick either bonded or stacked. There is nothing behind that brick that is in any way structural. There are no studs or stick framing.

    You might be thinking, well, I have studs in my old row house - thats whats holding it up. False. If you do, its only becuase the old "lath and plaster" system they used at the time was outdated. At some point in your home's history, someone removed all the lath and plaster and put in studs with sheetrock over them. However, those studs are in no way structural or load bearing. So when you said the facade "isnt load bearing" you werent correct.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LanceJuly 31, 2009 2:29 PM

    Anon,

    It may be a matter of semantics (such as the 'facade' issue) but by load bearing I meant it doesn't hold the house up ... like the side walls do. That is why in the past many row houses were so easily converted to stores were big glass windows or had the facade (i.e., front) torn down and rebuilt in a different style to modernize the look of the building.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 3:25 PM

    Lance I think it is semantics, but I still think you are missing it. You are now saying "it doesnt hold the house up" like the side walls do. This is simply not true.

    David showed us two pictures of two house types (likely) 1940s suburban and 1850s urban. On the suburban house, if you leave the side walls alone, but you strip the studs out of the front and back of the house (leaving only the brick) it would collapse.

    By contrast, on the 1850s house, if you leave the side walls alone, but strip the studs out of the front and back of the house (leaving only the brick) it would NOT collapse.

    So thats the issue. In every sense of the word it IS load bearing, it DOES hold the house up. Does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 3:39 PM

    Lance, the reverse is true. On that suburban house the brick serves only in place of siding. Take the brick away and the house still stands.

    Alot of people dont know this but there was a monumental shift in building methods sometime (im not sure when) between when those two houses were built.

    The suburban house is not really a "brick" home. It stick frame with a brick veneer that can be removed and replaced with siding or stucco or whatever.

    The urban home is brick - either stacked, or flemmish bond or english bond. Tear that brick down, and theres nothing left.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousAugust 01, 2009 7:53 AM

    There are a lot of know it alls in this thread! Its amazing how people can tell you the details of the blueprints of a home from a 100pixel sized thumbnail image.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousAugust 01, 2009 8:08 AM

    hey can anyone tell me if the first house has a deck in the backyard as well?

    ReplyDelete
  20. AjaxAugust 01, 2009 6:47 PM

    "a 100pixel sized thumbnail"

    Click on the image for a better view, 653x466 pixels.

    ReplyDelete
  21. patAugust 02, 2009 5:29 PM

    i would prefer the row house assuming equal finish and condition

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousAugust 03, 2009 2:11 AM

    "It may be a matter of semantics "

    Or something related to lance's inability to admit when he is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  23. gainesvillerealestateAugust 04, 2009 9:45 PM

    I prefer the single family home because the townhouses are ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Canada housingAugust 18, 2009 9:27 PM

    Well, it depends on the location and neighbors. Both have their pros and cons and at the moment(hm, the housing situation could be better), many people would take any style of housing. Picture one seems more attractive, though.

    Best regards, Elli.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)