You are completely right about these homes, because I live in one currently. Think its the lack of innovation in architecture for homes. When we think of signature design we usually think of vast skyscrapers or big mansions. It's sad that it hasn't trickled down to single family homes.
I, too, am pissed off, but to be completely fair, these are nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to the horrible ticky tack new build houses in the UK. 😞
the "flippers" have been taking " before 1950s" Portland Oregonian home, built with types of wood that can no longer be found( 2nd growth wood is inferior quality) and "HomeDepot cheap made in China ". them. then they paint everything white, ruining 100 year old wood moldings to make it look like an all white cheap generic apartment.
I just hate when architecture like things stars being established in older neighborhoods with architectural charm. These buildings leave neighborhoods and cities unrecognizable and aesthetically unpleasing! The people who make these buildings don’t have respect for a city or areas character!
The new homes you showed are certainly a welcome trend compared to the typical new home style for the last two decades or more when huge attached garage doors became the main feature of the front of the home. What is another major "ugly" feature that totally ruins the sense of neighborhood and community? Super-wide curbed streets dictated by zoning regulations which require that fire trucks can make u-turns on the streets in a subdivision.
My neighborhood went through this. It was a mid 1950's starter home. The land value went through the roof so this got replaced with McMansions. The original houses weren't great looking. The replacements are often very ugly and don't fit even with each other. New neighborhoods have really always been the same. Only the fashion changes. 1970's split levels or 1980's colonials. They all looked the same when built. If you like the style that's great. If you don't...
The other comment I have is that replacement home and fixer uppers raise the value of the home and the property which raises the price of the home but also of the neighboring homes. If you are a homeowner next door, this is a good thing. A rising tide lifts all boats. As a person who has built up a lot of equity in my homes by buying and holding, I don’t see these trends as “destabilizing” which is a very negative implication. We got in to housing mkt in 2001 with a VA loan 0% down, put money in to our mortgage with no home upgrades and have made significant equity increases on two homes.
Orange County, California homeowner here so what I have to say is based on the housing market in California. A lot of what you said will have to be challenged as the general conclusion you came to in the video made it appear only capitalism is the cause. I would like to give a different much broader viewpoint to your case. This is an argument that is very common I have seen from those who have never owned a home with no general understanding of how supply and demand economics works, and how both the private sector and public sector have parallel processes that contribute to our current housing crisis. Several factors in California contribute to the housing market pricing and the increase of these ugly modern house designs. 1. California CEQA Act. The CEQA Act was established with good intentions on various environmental rules and standards in structural design mainly housing in California. In reality, the Act contained several measures that gave power to anyone if they felt the development of a housing project impacted the environment they could file a complaint that places the project in court delays. This has introduced a new market of lawyers working on these cases that places developments in legal delays for months to years. Most are settled out of court but due to court costs and the most important resource in a project being time, it drives costs up. 2. Green housing. California has several housing laws in place that all new housing must be eco-green meaning less carbon footprint during construction, Solar, No gas appliances just all-electric only, and an architectural design to keep all the hot air in for the winter. This is bad as not only has the homes look ugly but California never really has cold winters so it increases AC usage during the summer months as California has dry summers. Since many of these designs and technology is new it comes with a higher price tag on new homes. 3. Foreign buyers. It is a known loophole many foreign buyers can purchase property to have ownership listed to a relative as part of an investment or process to speed up a visa. The problem is most of these homes sit vacant not available for the market thus creating a low supply with higher demand that increases the cost of the existing supply. Due to CEQA and other regulations, this has forced developers to use either cheaper materials to keep cost down and/or force them to use expensive new eco-friendly technologies that are still too new or too expensive in the market. This is a large part of why housing development is so high cost in California. Also while many claims and contracted developers to build affordable housing this is all political points. This only means the cost of the house was subsidized by the taxpayer so the cost while lower for those that qualify to purchase them the taxpayer is the one hit with the bill on taxes. It is not really affordable housing as it is not addressing the root causes to the problem.
OK how can you say all this and not mention chip and Joanna Gains and their show Fixer Upper? Didn’t they put this style on the map? I among many was a huge fan of the show and her style but now I see a bit of the error of their ways. To be fair they went in to this to redeem homes rather than replace them and they do country homes and not just suburban homes. I give them credit for turning salt box home into something fun. And their focus is on interiors not exteriors. All that being said I agree with what you are saying, but I think some of it is a style phase which will evolve. And the big boxy homes are definitely replacements. And the market drives this ppl don’t want to buy small two bedroom tight homes with little living space, galley kitchens, small closets and bathrooms. It’s not desirable to live in and there are so many apartments that offer better. My conclusion is that the design of the interiors has improved for livability in most homes, while the exterior style has suffered. Also housing prices are insanely high now, new homes built are going to go back to simplistic cookie cutter design just to be affordable to speaker’s generation. When ppl make design choices for home they build, they choose interior details - flooring and such.
No.. its not a style most people want or ask for, rather its a style that has been imposed by developers and policies in the name of “affordability” or being “eco friendly”.. basically its a post modernist “Woke” trend thats gentrifying historic neighbourhoods and new developments.. being simple and affordable doesn’t mean it has to be a soulless monstrosity..
Beauty is in the eye beholder. What you might find unappealing, some buyers might think is perfect. Developers tear down older buildings and build new one because there is a market for new homes and a much, much smaller market for century old homes. If developers thought they could make a buck by slapping a coat of paint on old buildings they for sure would do this. I do think spec buyers renovating older homes might be bigger than tear down / build new homes.
![America's Gentrification Problem [Documentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n11rdWqc444/mqdefault.jpg)
You are completely right about these homes, because I live in one currently. Think its the lack of innovation in architecture for homes. When we think of signature design we usually think of vast skyscrapers or big mansions. It's sad that it hasn't trickled down to single family homes.
I use to build homes and they are becoming more hideous by the day.. Cheap, Cheap, and too damn expensive
I, too, am pissed off, but to be completely fair, these are nothing, and I mean nothing, compared to the horrible ticky tack new build houses in the UK. 😞
Homes now are generic. Ugly. Buy an older home in an established neighborhood.
the "flippers" have been taking " before 1950s" Portland Oregonian home, built with types of wood that can no longer be found( 2nd growth wood is inferior quality) and "HomeDepot cheap made in China ". them. then they paint everything white, ruining 100 year old wood moldings to make it look like an all white cheap generic apartment.
I just hate when architecture like things stars being established in older neighborhoods with architectural charm. These buildings leave neighborhoods and cities unrecognizable and aesthetically unpleasing! The people who make these buildings don’t have respect for a city or areas character!
The new homes you showed are certainly a welcome trend compared to the typical new home style for the last two decades or more when huge attached garage doors became the main feature of the front of the home. What is another major "ugly" feature that totally ruins the sense of neighborhood and community? Super-wide curbed streets dictated by zoning regulations which require that fire trucks can make u-turns on the streets in a subdivision.
My neighborhood went through this. It was a mid 1950's starter home. The land value went through the roof so this got replaced with McMansions.
The original houses weren't great looking. The replacements are often very ugly and don't fit even with each other.
New neighborhoods have really always been the same. Only the fashion changes. 1970's split levels or 1980's colonials. They all looked the same when built. If you like the style that's great. If you don't...
The other comment I have is that replacement home and fixer uppers raise the value of the home and the property which raises the price of the home but also of the neighboring homes. If you are a homeowner next door, this is a good thing. A rising tide lifts all boats. As a person who has built up a lot of equity in my homes by buying and holding, I don’t see these trends as “destabilizing” which is a very negative implication. We got in to housing mkt in 2001 with a VA loan 0% down, put money in to our mortgage with no home upgrades and have made significant equity increases on two homes.
Orange County, California homeowner here so what I have to say is based on the housing market in California. A lot of what you said will have to be challenged as the general conclusion you came to in the video made it appear only capitalism is the cause. I would like to give a different much broader viewpoint to your case.
This is an argument that is very common I have seen from those who have never owned a home with no general understanding of how supply and demand economics works, and how both the private sector and public sector have parallel processes that contribute to our current housing crisis.
Several factors in California contribute to the housing market pricing and the increase of these ugly modern house designs.
1. California CEQA Act. The CEQA Act was established with good intentions on various environmental rules and standards in structural design mainly housing in California. In reality, the Act contained several measures that gave power to anyone if they felt the development of a housing project impacted the environment they could file a complaint that places the project in court delays. This has introduced a new market of lawyers working on these cases that places developments in legal delays for months to years. Most are settled out of court but due to court costs and the most important resource in a project being time, it drives costs up.
2. Green housing. California has several housing laws in place that all new housing must be eco-green meaning less carbon footprint during construction, Solar, No gas appliances just all-electric only, and an architectural design to keep all the hot air in for the winter. This is bad as not only has the homes look ugly but California never really has cold winters so it increases AC usage during the summer months as California has dry summers. Since many of these designs and technology is new it comes with a higher price tag on new homes.
3. Foreign buyers. It is a known loophole many foreign buyers can purchase property to have ownership listed to a relative as part of an investment or process to speed up a visa. The problem is most of these homes sit vacant not available for the market thus creating a low supply with higher demand that increases the cost of the existing supply.
Due to CEQA and other regulations, this has forced developers to use either cheaper materials to keep cost down and/or force them to use expensive new eco-friendly technologies that are still too new or too expensive in the market. This is a large part of why housing development is so high cost in California.
Also while many claims and contracted developers to build affordable housing this is all political points. This only means the cost of the house was subsidized by the taxpayer so the cost while lower for those that qualify to purchase them the taxpayer is the one hit with the bill on taxes. It is not really affordable housing as it is not addressing the root causes to the problem.
OK how can you say all this and not mention chip and Joanna Gains and their show Fixer Upper? Didn’t they put this style on the map? I among many was a huge fan of the show and her style but now I see a bit of the error of their ways. To be fair they went in to this to redeem homes rather than replace them and they do country homes and not just suburban homes. I give them credit for turning salt box home into something fun. And their focus is on interiors not exteriors.
All that being said I agree with what you are saying, but I think some of it is a style phase which will evolve. And the big boxy homes are definitely replacements. And the market drives this ppl don’t want to buy small two bedroom tight homes with little living space, galley kitchens, small closets and bathrooms. It’s not desirable to live in and there are so many apartments that offer better.
My conclusion is that the design of the interiors has improved for livability in most homes, while the exterior style has suffered. Also housing prices are insanely high now, new homes built are going to go back to simplistic cookie cutter design just to be affordable to speaker’s generation. When ppl make design choices for home they build, they choose interior details - flooring and such.
people build what people buy.
if people bought and wanted more "pretty" houses they would build them. not to mention pay more for those homes.
That is a very naive view
@@lilithowl it's the truth . Sucks but that's how the world works .
The problem is the cost of labor go up so people want more simple homes
The people who think these homes are acceptable are the same ones who think jacked up pickup trucks look cool.
No.. its not a style most people want or ask for, rather its a style that has been imposed by developers and policies in the name of “affordability” or being “eco friendly”.. basically its a post modernist “Woke” trend thats gentrifying historic neighbourhoods and new developments.. being simple and affordable doesn’t mean it has to be a soulless monstrosity..
Criticizes beige houses sitting in a beige house.
On a beige sofa
Beauty is in the eye beholder. What you might find unappealing, some buyers might think is perfect. Developers tear down older buildings and build new one because there is a market for new homes and a much, much smaller market for century old homes. If developers thought they could make a buck by slapping a coat of paint on old buildings they for sure would do this. I do think spec buyers renovating older homes might be bigger than tear down / build new homes.
Doesn't mean they need to build UGLY new homes
@@lilithowlRIGHT