"cookie cutter" homes in Architecture

Cafe Society
1

Inspired by the recent threads in architecture, I offer this up for discussion. I will remain neutral at first in order to not taint the thread.

“cookie cutter” homes are a slang term for row after row of houses that are identical or rather similar. these are homes typically found in developements founded by one developer. For example,here is a cookie cutter builder in my neighbrhood

These homes are often viewed, particularly by those in the arts and architecture, as bad architecture.

so here are some questions. If you live in a ‘cookie cutter home’ I have put an * by questions directed at you.

why are cookie cutter homes bad?

  1. Are they bad because of the simularity in design? if so, then why are typical homes in Italy (or Europe)not considered bad? or are they? Why are the houses in San Francisco considered quaint, then?

  2. Is it because they are cheaply built? (*does this bother you? Would you have paid extra to use stronger/better materials? Did you prefer to spend money on the home’s interior rather than exterior? Do you consider this house, in the grand scheme of thing, temporary? Do you see yourself groing old in it?) Is it because they look run down in a few years? (*how old is your house? does your neighborhood look unkept?)

  3. Is it because they have the “unAmerican” stigma of unoriginality? (*does it bother you that a person down the street has a house similar to yours?) Should all houses be unique? Does urban planning not matter then? Architects such as Le Corbusier often designed mass housing. Was theirs ok because a) it was a famous architect or b) it was typically a high rise?

  4. is it because they are not well designed? Who then, defines “well designed”? How is “well designed” defined?
    Would row after row of house designed by Tadao Ando be ok?

  5. What about the cost?

  6. If you are not American, what is your perspective on this?
    This is all I can think about for now.
    Please feel free to add to the topic.

2

  1. Perhaps there’s a snob-factor involved. A line of row houses were often built to accommodate workers in factory setting (the Phelps-Dodge subdivision in Arizona comes to mind). Now that a lot of water has gone under the bridge and those homes have survived several generations of people take a different look at them. If you read Smithsonian Magazine you’re aware that there has even been a small movement to identify and glorify “factory” houses designed early in this century by Sears, Roebuck and Co.
    Oh, and those row houses in San Francisco today cost a king’s ransom to buy.
    They were well built (look at the earthquakes they’ve survived…not on paper, IN REAL LIFE!) and the real estate market there is the second highest in the nation.

  2. Now you’re getting into an interesting area. Cheaply built is cheaply built. Poorly built homes have a habit of eventually destroying themselves.
    A lot of these row houses were made of the same wood and brick and mortar that the rich folks got. The difference was the “efficiency” used. A good row house builder knew the board feet he’d need to the inch. After building a block of planned housing the only thing he’d have left over was sawdust.

  3. Un-American? Don’t ask anybody in Levitown on Long Island if they’re un-American! Those homes were actually very well built.

  4. See hypothsis 1.

  5. A row of houses built to one or two floor plans should be cheaper. It may be the only way certain folks are able to get into a new home.

  6. Does not apply.

3

-In the UK -

I think mainly the stigma comes from the developer being more interested in getting as many units as possible onto his site rather than worrying about the quality of the development.
It is a money-making exercise, but thats business.

A lot of developer schemes (on which I do some work) only employ the architect for drawing packages, tender, planning & building control approval. Then the architects involvement ends.
Thus, the design is then compromised, changed, materials underspec-ed and finishes cut back. And full snagging checks are not carried out after completion. This leaves the pontential buyer with a lessened product to live in.

Of course there are (some) developers who have a conscience and will build luxury developments and allow design features to be included and realise the vaule of gardens and amenity spaces. But they are rare.

A lot of the ‘blame’ for the shoddy developments thrown up by the money-men must lie at the hands of the general public who still give a market to these developments. If they didn’t sell, the developer would soon take notice and change his proirities.

The architect can only influence the design if he/she is included in the process. So you can’t throw the blame back to the architect in large developer led schemes. Especially if they are procured under ‘design & build’ contracts, which is becoming all the more common here.

4

I think there are a few reasons for the stigma:

  1. poorly built–often built cheaply, with shoddy workmanship, lousy insulation and energy-saving features, etc.

  2. no class–made to seem highfalutin, but it’s like getting your fine china at Wal-Mart = giant entryways that serve no purpose but to look big and gaudy and expensive; unattractive vinyl siding, etc.

  3. large rather than well-designed–people want BIG HOUSES, so they buy big houses … rather than smaller houses that can often feel more spacious, have rooms that you actually use, etc.

  4. no yards–most cookie-cutter developments I see nowadays are 3000-sq-ft McMansions squeezed onto quarter-acre lots.

  5. all these big developments = no more farmlands or wilderness–let’s face it: most people would rather look out the window at rolling pastureland or forests than an endless sea of identical vinyl-sided buildings.

  6. just plain ugly–personally, I just don’t find them aesthetically pleasing; I do think some high-density housing projects look nice (there’s a particular condo complex where I’d like to rent, but their waiting list is too long…), so it’s not an anti-cookie-cutter thing. It’s just an anti-MOST-cookie-cutter thing.

5

I’ve always been annoyed by cookie-cutter houses.

First off, I’m not into the whole suburbia thing. I like neighborhoods, sitting on your porch and watching the people go by, walking the places you need to go, and shopping and eating at places that arn’t part of a chain. Cookie-cutter sub-divisions are the opposite of that. They are designed largely for people who drive their cars to WalMart when they need to buy something and drive them to McDonalds (or the Olive Garden if they are getting fancy) when they want to eat. The garages are prominently displayed, as if the car is the most important thing in the house. There is nothing within walking distance except for row after row of houses, and maybe a fancied up strip mall with a Blockbuster Video, large chain supermarket, Starbucks coffee and an Outback Steakhouse. They are places where you might wave to your neighbor if you see them, but you wouldn’t invite them to your barbeque. There is a lot of isolation- you drive your car to work and home and rarely venture into public spaces.

Not only does this lifestyle not appeal to me, but I’ll make the sweeping judgement that it isn’t good for people in general. Isolation makes us sad (but luckly we can now pop prozac for that), the need to drive cars makes us unhealthy and allows us to live existances with minimal interaction with other. Dependence on chain stores destroys neighboorhood pride and cohesion, promotes mindless sameness and is generally a bad thing. Since people watchng, walking to the corner store or visiting the local park isn’t really viable as a major form of entertainment, we are forced to get all of our entertainment from television or expensive passtimes (like, say, lazertag or visiting Disneyland, or watching movies at the multiplex). We loose the ability to entertain ourselves. We forget how to enjoy ourselves without spending money. We seach desperatly for the happiness that we lost- something to fill the space created by isolation- but all we ever find is emptier wallets.

Secondly, these “communities” really are poorly planned. They have backyards the size of postage stamps. They have gigantic master bedrooms, but then they have kids rooms that are tiny. They don’t have trees! A lot of times they become slums as the first batch of residents move on to nicer digs, the houses start to fall apart, and the thrown together infrastructure breaks down. Everyone just moves to yet another subdivision, and the cycle starts over.

6

Sounds like some of these complaints are not about cookie-cutter homes per se, as they are about lack of a viable homeowner’s association, community pool, etc.

What about the neighborhoods with good HOA, commons, and similar floorplans?

7

From an appraiser’s viewpoint – Whenever I get an assignment for one of these, I know it’s going to be an easy job. Homes located in “cookie cutter” neighborhoods are a snap to research, measure, and accurately provide a value for. When I have to pull up comparable sales for the subject property, I know that all the sales in the subdivision will (more than likely) have the exact same floor plan, features, etc. (You can’t typically go inside the homes you are using as comps) Any existing differences (add-ons, pools, etc) stand out in realtor’s reports, making any adjustment a simple task. My point? People who dislike this type of home do so because of a perceived lack of character in the neighborhood. New cookie cutter subdivisions typically have no trees and a monotonous layout of the same type of home all the way down the street. I can think of many subs in the Arlington area that look like someone just dumped a monopoly board out into a field.

Beautiful? No. But dammit those things are easy to appraise.

8

The average cost of a new home in the US, according to one source I saw on PBS, is $150,000. All the houses on your website are over $200,000. I’m not sure where Fort Collins is… but one of the criteria for a cookie cutter house is cheap and affordable without the individual’s personal style.

Considering that 95% of Americans, at least, cannot design and build their own homes [the ultimate non-cookie cutter house], I would have to say that you need to narrow down your topic.

Moreover, there are some areas in London, for example, that are highend, cookie cutter in the sense that they all look alike from the outside. Take a look at any Merchant/Ivory movie that has a London townhouse with black wroughtiron gates.

Finally, more folks are now homeowners, thanks to low interest rates and creative mortgage plans, than god knows when. This goes for all ethnic groups. I think this is a more important consideration than whether "cookie-cutter"houses are an ok thing.

9

Well, I’ll give you my .02

In my city, there are usually only a few builders developing in any one area of town. So, right there, unless you go “custom”, many of the homes are going to be “similar”.

These builders, generally build a handful of floorplans, and they build them before they are sold. They are called “spec” homes. They all contain similar features and finishes (although colors of course change).

My builder for example build 3 floorplans, and thats it. He has those homes down pat. He is also very good, makes a damn good house. We bought our house when it was a foundation in the ground, so we were able to make a few changes (IE - Move a wall here, there, put in a 6ft soaker tub…) but the basic house was similar to all the other homes of that floorplan.

Now, to throw out some points:

As mentioned earlier, the builder will know EXACTLY how much material is going to go into that house. He also knows what it is going to cost him in the end. There is no fuzzy-guessing for materials or time required. They build them often enough, they know the trouble spots to look for during construction.

  1. Bad? I guess thats all personal taste. Hypothetically, lets say you drive a 2002 Corvette you see a red 2002 Corvette on the road. Do you get mad? Is it a bad thing?

  2. Cheaply built? Just because homes are similar does not mean they are cheap. That is up to the builder. You could design a 5,000sq/ft home and have a builder use utility grade studs and poor concrete. My builder for example uses no “bottom of the line” or “seconds” items. Of course, YMMV.

  3. All houses unique? That would be tough. If a neighborhood developer has building covenants that every home has to be a minimum of 1100sq/ft, max of 1300 sq/ft, double attached paved driveway bi-level, your going to have similarities. Some, even by different builders, will look almost identical.

  4. Well designed? Do you mean asthetics? Thats subjective and personal. What is well designed for me may be horrible for you.

  5. Cost is usually why builders have their own “spec” home designs they build in the first place. They know exactly how much is going into it and how much they sell it for and be competitive. Once again, since they build the same/similar homes several times, they get damn good at it and can get it up faster than doing custom homes all the time. Time=money. The faster its built, the faster its sold.

  6. Canadian. Same thing here as the US. Its not unique, at least not in North America. I have no problem with similar houses in the same neighborhood as long as they are not identical. Generally as well, many neighboorhood developers have covenants so builders cannot put identical floor plans on lots next to eachother. You have to be 2 or 3 lots away from the nearest, similar floorplan. Of course, a competing builder may put a similar floorplan next to yours, but they have no idea of whats going in next door.

10

kiffa said:

Fort Collins is in Colorado, north of the Denver metropolitan area. Two hundred thousand dollars in the Denver area is cheap. The average single-family home here goes for around $269K, I believe. My 1700 square foot house is now worth over $210K.

$200K is a cookie-cutter house (by your definition) on the Front Range in Colorado. Location location location…

11

A quick aside, they were framed well but were sub-par compared to their 1950’s contemporaries. For example: gypsum (sheetrock) sheething instead of T+G planking or plywood.
There are 2 reasons I don’t consider levitt homes row housing:[ul][li]There were main 4 styles to choose from (not including garage options)[/li]99% of the streets are curved and winding, which obscures the homeowner’s ability to see his style house 4 doors down in either direction.[/ul]

12

I recently moved out of a “cookie cutter” neighborhood. The houses really were poorly built. When you shut the door, you could feel the wall shake. My new house was built 60-70 years ago and this sucker is solid.

Part of the problem that I have with cookie cutter neighborhoods is that they feel too new. They haven’t had time to develop any character. Most of the houses in my neighboorhood were built in the 1930s/1940s, and they all look somewhat similar. But over time, people have made modifications, so that even though their similar, they’re not all the same. New subdivisions just look like movie sets, not like places where real people live.

And honestly I think tight-assed Home Owners’ Associations contribute to the lack of character. I’ve driven through subdivisions where even the mailboxes were all identical. Who the hell wants to live in a neighborhood where you can’t choose your own mailbox? I like being able to tell something about my neighbors by looking at their houses. One of my neighbors has a gorgeous flower garden; another grows vegetables in her sideyard. One of them has a yard full of concrete deer, etc. I wouldn’t put it in my yard, but it makes me happy that she can.

13

I live in what could be called a “cookie-cutter” development. It’s 50 years old, 3 different floorplans, all ranchers. Within the 3 floorplans, they are flipped (mirrored) every so often, so they aren’t all exactly alike.
They’re very solidly built. I can walk to several shopping centers if I chose, and the library, the post office and several restaurants.

There’s nothing special about the inside, an L-shaped living room and dining room, smallish kitchen, originally 3 bedrooms, ours has a fourth bedroom added on, one bathroom on the main floor, one bathroom in the full finished basement, and a full detached garage. We have just over a quarter-acre.

The neighborhood is old enough that the houses don’t all look alike anymore, what with the mature trees and additions and landscaping done throughout the years. There’s a certain amount of uniformity (which I happen to think is nice), but they aren’t all identical. Some are all brick, some are brick and siding, some are all siding. Even when new, they didn’t look exactly alike.
We do have an HOA, but not one of those evil Nazi ones that dictate what color your trash cans have to be.
Ours is pretty cool. As long as you keep your grass cut and aren’t running a crack house, they leave you alone.

14

Doug Bowe:

I agree that there is a certain snobbery towards cookie cutter homes.
About the homes in SF. I lived there. They may still be standing, but, at least the one I lived in, I would not consider it well built at all. The cost of real estate there has nothing to do with the homes themselves, per say. You could sell a cardboardbox for a billion dollars.

Aro:

I completely understand about Developers using one architect and modifying the plans to cheapen the building costs. The design & build is very popular here, too.

toadspittle:

I am much amused how there seems to be a kit of “classy architecture bits” that developers employ.
“hmmm. yes, let’s add columns! oh, and a paladian style window, too! except that we will use cheap versions of them!”

One of my neigbors lives in a monstrocity. The Husband is very proud of the fact that the wife designed it. (read: she picked out the details, etc" Normally I would be pretty blase about it, but I am soooo tired of the following jokes:

oh, baboon, you better watch out! My wife will take your job! (um, no. picking out shutters does not make you an architec. sorry)

how do you like our house! it’s architecture.

(that one baffles me. it’s architecture? aren’t all houses?)

"how do you like our columns?

(well, aside from the huge seam on them, they are rather HUGE, don’t you think?)

but I say nothing and smile politely.
(nice name by the way!)

even sven:

“Secondly, these “communities” really are poorly planned. They have backyards the size of postage stamps. They have gigantic master bedrooms, but then they have kids rooms that are tiny”

but the odd thing is, people really WANT this. This is what sells.
So you can’t blame the developer for selling what people want.

A trend in my neighborhood is to tear down old houses and build McMansions (a great term). A few have a nice sized yeard, etc. The majority are as you described. wanna guess which ones are still unsold?

MachV:
hey, did you appraise my home? :wink:
kiffa:

to begin with, a house need not be cheap to be a cookie cutter home. We have a neighborhood here that is “exclusive” and it is filled with such homes.

And the website, I am sure, shows only the best houses. I admit I didn’t look in depth in that site: I just looked for a developer that is building stuff here (or was). But 200,000 is not a lot for a home in a fair sized city.

I realize that not everyone can design their own home. My point is: everyone (it seems) hasnegative things to say about cookie cutter homes - but yet, some one is buying them. I personally don’t like them, but (aside from the manner in which they are built) if the owners genuinely like them, who am I to say anything about it?

Bernse:

“1) Bad? I guess thats all personal taste. Hypothetically, lets say you drive a 2002 Corvette you see a red 2002 Corvette on the road. Do you get mad? Is it a bad thing?”

exactly.

your builder, however, is an exception.

What I detest most about these houses is that they are cheaply built. I see them cut corners all the time. The way that they put waterproofing up completely negates its purpose. The way cheap wood is used. The way that ‘nicer’ materials are upfront and cheap ones are inthe back. The cheap foundations and pipes.
They tend to have a rundown look withina few years. Maintence is a big help in upkeeping these homes, but I guess a lot of homeowners aren’t inclined. What I see happeneing is that the homes start to look run down and then people move.

I just see so much snobbery against these homes (but in my field, its to be expected, I am sure), but the bottom line to me is: if this is what people really want, why are they considered “poor taste” and “declasse”?.

15

Currently houses are not built with regard to the surrounding environment. A house (or suburb) in Lubbock Texas looks pretty much the same as one in Camden Maine. For example in the south where it can get extrememly hot, builders could do simple things like place windows south side or in the roof to give sufficient light. They could be placed where they let the sun shine directly in during the
winter, to provide additional heat, and indirectly during the summer, to avoid some of the heat. Also, trees are not used effeciently.

I remember my grandparents old neighborhood in Fort Worth. The sidewalk was lined with trees, so even in the heat of summer, when we visited, we could still go for a good walk because most of the sun was blocked. Where I grew up, old trees were few and far apart. Also, there was no sidewalk and we had to walk on the street, but since there was really nothing worth looking at other than similar style houses, and no shade walking became less enjoyable.

The ground temperature, I believe is usually around 60 degrees year round. Houses could be build underground or partially underground which would drastically reduce energy use and costs. There would be a problem with humidity, but it could be dealt with without substantially increasing energy use. Unfortunatley, unless you are Bill Gates, you could probably never have one built. I am not sure what the building law states, but most likely the hurdles would be set impossibly high if someone wanted to build one in the “modern” suburbs. Unfortunatley I do not have a cite for where I saw this, but if I find it again I will post it.

People do not really cook anymore, but old southern houses would have dog runs which separated the kitchen from the rest of the house to reduce the effects of the heat. These are fairly simple things that should be taken into consideration, but unfortunatly are not for whatever reason. If we ever do run out of oil or have a major energy crises, our current inefficiency will come back to haunt us.

16

You guys aren’t asking enough questions, though. Cookie-cutter homes aren’t ‘bad’ or ‘good’ - they are a design solution to a housing problem. The advantages of them are - they can be built on smaller lots, they are amenable to mass-production, which keeps costs down. The labor force building them becomes efficient because they become familiar with the construction issues around the particular design.

People generally don’t like to live in places where there is row upon row of identical houses. However, lots of people DO live in these neighbourhoods, so clearly there is something about them that attracts people.

The reason people move into those neighborhoods is price. If you ask someone if they want to live in a cookie cutter neighborhood, they’ll say no. But if you ask them if they are willing to pay an extra $100,000 to live somewhere else, or if they are willing to live in a better neighborhood that requires an extra 2 hours of commuting time a day, you might get a different answer.

The fact that these types of neighborhoods are growing like crazy means that a lot of people have weighed those options and made this choice. More power to them.

17

I believe, and I think several other posters have already mentioned this, that the biggest drawback to the current crop of cookie cutter houses is that they are so poorly built.

And yes, I agree that people do want them, because they are certainly selling. To me, this begs the question: What is going to happen 25 years down the road when it’s impossible to sell these things? In previous housing communities, where quality and durability of building materials was a higher priority, resale potential in many areas is still going strong. However, I just can’t imagine a future homeowner wanting to purchase a poorly designed house* that is ALSO falling apart.

  • For the sake of this thread, I would even say OK, let’s not call it poorly designed, but rather designed to the personal taste of Baboon’s column-loving friends. Far be it from me to criticize someone’s personal choice in housing. However, when it comes time to sell, will they be able to find a buyer that also enjoys huge columns and is also willing to take on a “fixer-upper.” It seems like there is a market for either scenario – sure, you might be able to overlook the columns if the house is rock solid, and a good value. Or, you might find a darling house that you love, but it needs some extensive, expensive work. But both?

One of the reasons that many housing developments have aged so well is that the series of owners of various homes have made personal modifications and alterations. Over the years, each house/yard has been given more individualized features, yet the neighborhood as a whole still has a unified “look.” I suppose this could also happen with these newer developments, yet I suspect the high costs of upkeep and repair might decrease the funds that homeowners are able to spend on modifications.

18

Anyone have evidence that these homes are built poorly? Aside from anecdotal evidence, of course. Can you point to any building codes or standards that are lower for these houses?

Certainly some areas are cut back. For example, many of these houses have 15-year shingles instead of 25-year shingles or Cedar Shakes. But if that knocks 5 grand off the price of the house, someone may be willing to accept the higher maintence cost 15 years down the road in exchange for lower up-front costs.

For example, if the extra 5K means an extra $30 per month in mortgage payments, it may make more sense for a young couple who are barely able to afford a house to defer that cost until 15 years later, when it’s assumed that they will have a higher income and can more easily afford it. That’s a rational choice, not just ‘cheapness’.

19

Sam Stone,

I am an architectural Intern.

I KNOW the houses in my neighborhood are poorly built. Cheap wood is used. Liners are placed improperly. So is flashing. Masonry ties are not used in a manner typical of industry standards. The site is not leveled correctly. Studs are not nailed to typical specs. Roofing felt is placed improperly. Pipes are not used correctly. I could go on - usually what happens is that if you can’t see it, it will be of inferior material.

They may not be techincally breaking a building code law, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t poorly built.

The houses in my neighborhood are not for “young couples”. They are houses selling for 350,000.

One can’t really blame the developers entirely.
Owners often have the final say in how their house is built. But too often I see that owners (in my neighborhood at least) prefer to put their money elsewhere rather than in the building itself.