Is it cheaper to mass produce, or are colonial homes somehow the collective aesthetic ideal of the middle class? Why don’t we have suburbs full of, say, Southwestern architecture?
I guess it depends where you live. I grew up in a town completely filled with Southwestern-style tract homes. When they weren’t Spanish-style tract homes, anyway. Where I live now, houses with wood siding are popular; I couldn’t tell you what style they are exactly, except possibly Middle-Class American With a Slightly Country Flavor.
Apparently you’re not in the Southwest, or at least not in California. Around here, a whole lot of new homes get stamped out of the same stucco walls and red clay tile roof mold.
It’s regional preferences, for whatever reason. Again, around here, you’ll go for miles in suburbia before finding a house with wood siding, and brick is just not done. (That’s probably for earthquake safety, rather than style.)
I cannot think of any suburb in which most of the homes would qualify as “colonial.” It might help if we knew where you are.
It’s all location , location, location. All the homes in the LA suburbs I grew up in were stucco ranch houses. Of which colonies are they reminescent?
With respect, I think your question may be colored by where you live. (In the midwest or east of the U.S.?) In the western U.S. (not to mention overseas), colonial houses are not prevalent. You’ll see bungalows from the '20s - '40s, split-levels from the '70s - '90s and lots and lots of mid-century ranch houses, but few if any colonial style homes.
But since a basic colonial style–unless I’m misremembering my architectural styles–is just a flat, plain, two-story building, why wouldn’t it be popular?
Ranches are nice–no steps–but the trade off is a larger footprint for the house. Not neccessarily a deal-breaker, but in a suburban development with postage-stamp sized lots, a two-story house gives you (more or less) twice the squarefootage with half the footprint.
I live in the northeastern US, so that undoubtedly colors my perceptions. However, I’ve seen essentially the same style in Canada and the Midwest. So given the regional variation (and uniformity within regions) I assume a McMansion is an McMansion, with the exterior appearance essentially a matter of taste?
What do you mean by a McMansion? I thought we were talking about tract housing? As in, something fairly affordable for a middle-class family, 3 bedrooms?
Well, yes, mass-produced suburban housing.
I think most people think of a McMansion as a large, expensive house meant to show off a family’s wealth–something ostentatious yet bland.
As for ordinary tract housing, I don’t know. How much variation can you get on a simple 3-bedroom house with the usual sorts of rooms? The tile, woodwork, etc. might be quite different, I suppose. And Spanish-style houses generally have arches inside, say between the hall and the living room.
And tile roofs.
The weather is a factor. A house has to be built to sustain the type of weather that it will typically encounter.
Colonial style homes have a pitched roof. That not only resists wind damage to shingles but it doesn’t allow too much snow buildup and will shed rain. In a warm or dry climate those thing are not really a factor.
Same things with clap siding. It sheds rain and snow. Stucco can get cracks and allow moisture to enter. If there is little moisture, no problem.
A house is a shelter. You build according to what shelters you best against the environment. It’s no coincidence that the prevailing type of housing is different according to the weather patterns.
Colonials definitely dominate here in the DC suburbs, especially in Virginia. In Maryland you will see the occasional Contemporary, but Colonials still dominate. Browsing the local real estate reveals a heavy preponderance of Colonials.
The “Colonial” tag is apparently something of an umbrella term, covering a wide variety in housing – some ranch-like, some Federalist, and a lot of what some would colloquially call farm houses.
The true “colonial” (as in, what was most prevalent pre-1783) style in American architecture is probably the Federalist style. Your basic brick house is often a Federalist one, although clapboard exteriors were also used. It’s not my favorite style, but it was probably the simplest and most cost-effective one for the people of that time to build for the square footage you get. The brick exterior found on many offers some resistance to the spreading of fire, which was especially important in towns before the advent of modern fire departments, and also holds up pretty well to floods, termites, and vermin. The biggest safety drawback to brick is, as previously noted, their vulnerability to earthquakes, but that wasn’t a concern on the east coast.
Here’s another of the “regional” styles: the Cape Cod, a regional specialty (and favorite) in the Northeast. Again, note the tremendous variation within the basic type…
This is not accurate. The Federal style was really a postcolonial style, one that didn’t really become widely established until after the Revolution, and which lasted until, give or take, 1820 or 30, when it was replaced by the Greek Revival. True Colonials are from that period when America was still a British colony. Maybe Shagnasty can share a picture of his house.
Just to clarify a point, in the context of contemporary houses, doesn’t Colonial mean simply your basic boxy two-story house, without any “Spanish” or “Southwestern” design features? I think it can even be stuccoed. I don’t think it means a grandiose place with a two-story portico in front that looks like it might be where the Mayor of Boston lived, circa 1700.
Oh. I had assumed that “Colonial” meant something sort of colonial looking, probably with pillars. If it just means “Generic American House” then doesn’t it become sort of meaningless?
Colonial style houses are very practical. The downstairs has the kitchen, living and dining room–all rooms where you can entertain your visitors. The bedrooms are upstairs and private. A fireplace and a cookstove could heat the whole house.
That’s the problem right there. A house is “Colonial” because that’s what the real-estate agent calls it. Around here, a colonial is anything non-contemporary with two stories.
That said, it’s also true that certain (truly) colonial decorative motifs have been widely reused since the late-19th-century Colonial Revival. To a builder, they represent a safe choice, because of their intense familiarity. So even if the shape of the house has nothing “colonial” about it, there may well be bits of tacked-on detail that are derived ultimately from colonial styles.