Pick your house

In My Humble Opinion
1

I thought about making this a poll, but there’s no way I could reasonably list everything. There are many architectural styles for houses. In the prefab house thread I mentioned Huf Haus. That got me thinking of home architecture in general. So what kind do you like? Here are a few examples:

Huf Haus
Storybook
Tudor Revival

Around here there Craftsman houses. My own house started as a ‘cabin’, but it’s had a room added to the front. I’m told that in the last 76 years it has had three additions. I don’t know what the style is, but it seems just a little bit ‘Craftsman-y’ to me.

Log Cabin homes seem fairly popular.

Victorian
Edwardian
Colonial
Geodesic

… and so forth.

I like the Huf Haus homes because they look modern and efficient. I like the open architecture. I like space! When I look at one, I remember a Speed Racer’s house (from the cartoon). Not the same, but it had a modern feel to it, and had a lot of space. Tudor Revival is attractive because I can imagine myself sitting in a Tudor-style pub on a snowy night, sipping a good beer and enjoying company. I was young when Lord of the Rings became very popular again in the late-'70s. (Styx did a LotR song at the time.) So I like Storybook. I used to drive by Spadena House occasionally when I lived in L.A. One of my neighbours said she trick-or-treated at ‘The Witch’s House’ when she was a little girl. Hobbit House (top three photos) was practically around the corner from my apartment, and I passed it frequently when I walked to the theatre.

So what if a large-ish meteorite crashed into my house while I was away? First, I’d be seriously pissed off at losing my stuff! Then I’d have to replace the structure. Tudor Revival would be popular with the Canadians who own property and vacation here. But grounds maintenance would be a bitch. A house like that needs proper landscaping. Storybook would fit the neighbourhood nicely. The houses around here are Craftsman, Cabins, and a few single-wide and double-wide trailers. Storybook would fit with the former two. It would be a fun house to live in. Something like Huf Haus offers (either prefab or designed by an architect and built on-site) really appeals to my modern/future tastes, and is designed for efficiency. I like efficiency.

I haven’t heard of any dangerous meteorites ever landing in this area. I’m on a hill, so my house should be safe from a small tsunami. Looking at maps, it appears that if Mt. Baker erupts the lahars will pass well to the south of me. So it’s all academic unless I decide to move, which I won’t. (Anyway, I’d rather spend the money on a flying thing. :wink: ) But I’m curious about what styles other people like.

2

Having lived in the Pasadena vicinity for about 13 years now, I’m gonna have to say Craftsman.

(Unlikely that I’d get to live in that one, of course - or any Greene & Greene - but I love the style, and they’re EVERYWHERE around here.)

3

‘Old Town’ Orange has a lot of small (-er than the one you linked) Craftsman homes. I remember one was being given away free – if you agreed to keep it intact and move it to your own lot.

4

I have to say colonial all the way for me. I am naturally drawn to simple clean elegant lines. Think tulips and you’ve got my design aesthetic.

5

Craftsman for me, as well. I loves me some quartersawn oak.

6

My dream is a Victorian Storybook log home: http://www.loghome.com/log_castles_by_betr_bilt_victoria_castle_log_home_plan/floorplans/floorplan/1278

7

I live in an Eichler :slight_smile:

8

I want a earth-sheltered home. Here’s onethat is quite nice.

9

*2-3 story Colonial. 3-4 bedrooms.
*Finished attic, finished basement.
*Garage that can store stuff on a second floor (like bikes).
*Deck out back. Hut Tub in a room that is adjacent the deck but useable indoors during winter.
*Shed in the back corner of the property for rakes & out of season lawn equipment.
*Garage that can (and does) hold two cars.
*Sky-light in the ceiling above one second floor room with a telescope beneath it.
*One second floor room is the Computer Room.
*Two dressers per room, and one room is always, always the guest room.
*And, just in case, the couch is Always a pull-out couch.
*Furnature: Mahogany. Even the Kitchen Table.
*Kitchen should have a center island with burners and cabinets all around the outside.
*A Wood-burning brick fireplace in the livingroom.
*A pot-bellied wood burning stove/heater in the bedroom (mostly unused).
*Gas heat, with old clanky-assed radiators that go “dink-dink-dink” all night each and every winter night.
*At least One Claw-footed bathtub.
*King Sized Bed (none of this “queen sized, the sheets are cheaper” BS) in the master bedroom with Full down-comforter coverage.
*A woman who loves me inside of it, 11 to dawn minimum. <3
*Pets are optional, but highly encouraged.

“…Shouldn’t I have this? Shouldn’t I have this? Shouldn’t I have all of this, and…
Passionate kisses! Passionate kisses, whoa oh oh! Passionate kisses from you…” - Mary Chapin Carpenter

10

Anyone for an earthship home? Actually, if I could choose any house, I’d get me a pretty Santa Fe style.

11

If I lived in a desert, definitely. Up here in the Pacific Northwet? Maybe if it were designed as a Hobbit hole.

12

Ah, don’t say “colonial,” unqualified

Actual colonial styles encompassed a bunch of rather different traditions and aesthetics (French not much much like Georgian, etc.), and what gets called “colonial” in these latter days are often Colonial Revival (which incorporate features never seen in original colonial houses) or Neoclassical, or sometimes nothing too clear.

Or “storybook.” That’s a marketing word, not a specific aesthetic.

For me, the choice depends first on context.

If I were building a new house in an existing neighborhood, integration with the rest of the street would be critical–which is not to say that styles can’t vary along the block, but some things go with some others, and some don’t. A huge-columned, and huge, Classical Revival among modest Craftsman houses is just obnoxious as shit. I know of such a case; I’m told “nobody likes them,” and while cause-and-effect might be debated, I don’t think it’s coincidence.

For myself, for an attached or semi-attached place in a real city, I’d lean toward masonry Italianate styles, Richardsonian, that kind of thing. There’s nice old neighborhoods of brick Adam townhouses and such, but I need some kind of porch–ideally a tower or balcony or two, too. :cool:

For a house in a small town, I think immediately of wood Victorians, specifically Stick, Shingle, and Queen Anne (which is itself a big field; it need not go crazy), but the character of the town might make Prairie or Craftsman more appropriate–wood, perhaps with stone pillars or cladding on the first floor only. In any event the porch here is of major importance–it’ll be both broad and deep, and one of the house’s centers in most seasons.

For a country house (set among trees, not plopped on a bald hill), a brick or stucco half-timbered Tudor (a few of the pics on the “storybook” link above are in fact these) or French Eclectic. Here the porch as such shrinks in importance, because its function can be taken over by semi-walled patios and gardens and such.

There are other styles that look great in certain places–Mission, Pueblo–but I’m not living in the desert. There’s a Mission-tiled Spanish Eclectic house not too far from me here that looks ridiculous. People call it the “Taco Bell,” not because it really looks like a Taco Bell franchise, but because it comes off as a kind of hoked-up allusion to “the Southwest”–in a place that looks more like County Kerry than Arizona. The owners probably spent several hundred thousand in construction alone to achieve this derided effect. :smack:

13

I disagree. ‘Storybook’ is a recognised style that has several unique design aspects. What would you call it?

14

For those needing a reference: House Styles: The Look of the American Home

My dream house would be a Tidewater meets Greek Revival (Wrap around porches but with a more substantial air) and would appear to be wood, but closer examination would reveal it to be built of concrete, stone and steel.

15

Victorian all the way. I love the tower-type thing. I love having nooks. I love it, love it, love it. Just like this house.

16

I would call the houses pictured in your link several different things.

As I noted, some are Tudors*, but most aren’t; some are eclectics or folk styles with Tudor-pitched roofs (also called Medieval) but not other Tudor features. I also see clear Chateauesques, various Romantic/Gothic and Victorian features, all kinds of stuff. A lot of them are really pretty, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with buildings combining distinctive elements of different styles (that’s “eclectics”), but those can still be described and differentiated according to what features are present and how they’re combined; eclectics as a group do not make a unified aesthetic.

I am aware that there are people, even practicing architects (but more often, I think, high-end real-estate dealers) who make a case for a distinctive Storybook style, I just disagree with their notion; everything that is mentioned as being “unique” about it (for example) already existed. Yes, some so-identified examples may be distinctive in their specific eclectic combinations, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing as some other specific fanciful blend of different elements.

Yes, that sounds lovely, and not-coincidentally it’s easy for non-students to say, “there, that one makes me feel child-like and happy” without saying why–but the fact is that houses and other buildings can create this feeling in several different and distinctive ways, and these ways already have names and histories behind them.

Oh, and I find the concept of parts being deliberately set askew when new to be insulting to builders who know how to use and plan for, rather than simulate, aging and weathering. There is a certain brick walkway that I treasure because of its rippling over the earth, its uneven gaps between bricks, its mosses and even tiny flowers growing through it. It’s a “fairy-tale” pathway, if you like. None of those details existed as such when it was made twenty-five years ago, but they developed inevitably in the course of settling, and years of rain and foot traffic; the path’s maker knew that not only was there no need for a hard impermeable bed under the bricks or mortar between them, but that (for its context) the path would in time be better without it, so the bricks were simply laid, level and regular, on sand in a simple excavation. By the same token, a wrought-iron gate that has fallen out of plumb over the years as its fence has been overgrown with vines can be charming; a similar gate installed crooked is just fakery, and if direct comparison is possible, anyone can feel the difference.

From my point of view, the problem is that so many buildings just look like crap, have no coherent aesthetic whatever, aren’t built to last, and most of us are so used to this, that practically any well-done eclectic house with Romantic or Exotic elements and some wildflowers is going to make somebody say, “oh, it looks right out of a fairy tale.” Sadly, we’re not accustomed to beauty and fancy being made real.

Apologies for ranting; the intent is not to argue, just to explain myself and perhaps convey a little of my passion. Other opinions welcome.

  • Ah, just saw TruCelt’s link. Note the Cotswold description,

“Picturesque storybook cottage” is the evocative description, but Cotswold and Tudor Revival are the actual architectural terms, with specific meanings. “Storybook cottages” aren’t necessarily Cotswolds, so it would be a disservice to describe this one simply so.

17

My wife and I are planning on building a Topsider. It’s an octagon-based design that she fell in love with. I’m trying to get her to let me build this one with a detached garage (second story on the garage for offices for me ‘n’ her).

Tripler
I’m buildin’ it. With these two hands, like Grampa did.

18

I understand your opinion, and respect it. I just don’t agree. ‘Storybook’ is a style popular in the U.S. in the first half of the last Century. Not strictly Tudor, and not strictly Cotswold, they are, as you say, eclectic. But ‘Eclectic’ already is used for other styles. Taken as a group, they do have a style that is their own. Some more closely resemble Tudors, and others more closely resemble Cotswolds. Still others look as if they were taken directly from fairy tales. If ‘Storybook’ is objectionable, as it was a marketing term, I’ve just looked it up on Wiki and they say that Provincial Revivalism is the proper term.

As far as not liking the style, ‘Different strokes’, and all that. The ‘fakery’, as you call it, is intentional. The whimsy is the charm, for people who do like it. If I may make a film analogy, look at The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The set designs are exaggerated and not realistic. But the designs were chosen to evoke specific feelings in the audience. ‘Storybook’, or ‘Provincial Revivalism’ houses, if you prefer, were designed to be evocative rather than being a certain historical architectural style.

You’re certainly not wrong to be passionate in your dislike for the style. If everyone liked the same thing, the world would be a boring place. You hate it, I like it. But I still think that it’s an identifiable style.

19

a painted lady with lime green and violet trim. porch on three sides.

20

I lived in an Eichler as a child. Loved the radiant heat, I’d lie on the floor to read in winter… but my folks complained bitterly about the cost of heating a place with such large expanses of glass!