Musings on those House-Plan books...

[ArtMulder]

Over Christmas I was visiting a book-remainder seller (http://www.bookcloseouts.com/default.asp?N=0) during their annual sale, and just for fun I picked up one of those "350 house plans!" books for a few bucks.

Since then I've flipped through it every now and then. I like looking at plans, and thinking of things that I'd put in a house should I ever get the chance to build.

Now, I realize that many(all?) of these plans are from places in the US which have a warmer climate. So I'm kind of used to the plans where the front door dumps you right into a room, rather than having a foyer. (though, I still think it is foolish.)

But what really puzzles me is the huge number of plans I'm seeing in this book that have enormous monstrous roofs -- and the vast majority have two or three dormer windows in them -- but no second floor. What are they putting up these dormers for!? Why on earth are they not designing in a 2nd floor!? What makes it particularly laughable is when the plans "offer" a bonus room over the garage, but the roof over the garage is smaller (lower) than the roof over the main house, which doesn't have a 2nd floor.

I've pretty much accepted the fact that I could never use a stock plan anyway, for several very good reasons.
1) My wife wants a sewing room.
2) we have four kids.
3) I want a decent shop - probably in the basement, with nice easy access. (either stairs directly up to the garage, or a walkout.) NOT in the garage.

So what are your criticisms of the stock plans / stock houses that you see going up these days?

- I think the "big hair" houses (huge roof) look goofy.
- I have no use for a formal dining room (though sometimes they would make a decent sewing room)
- Often, master bedrooms have enourmous ensuite bathrooms. I'd lose the huge corner tub that seems to pop up everywhere.
- The internet is here to stay -- you need a computer corner/office. Most plans have no allowance for this. And with kids I'd prefer it close to the main areas of the house, perhaps an alcove off the kitchen or family room.
- The mudroom should have access to the backyard also, for kids and muddy boots.

[Barry in London]

What cracks me up the most is the number of large two story houses that are being built. My wife and I have been looking to buy a new home for a while now and have visited several developments in and around London. Some builders don't even have a one story plan. I talked to one builder and asked him if he's concerned about the demographics for Canada. Most boomers are very, very close to retirement and probably won't want a big two storey house when there's probably only Mr and Mrs. He said as long as people keep buying them he'll keep building them and has no plans to build any small one floor houses. My B-I-L is in construction and he said they make more profit on the bigger homes than with the smaller one floor ones. And take a look at the quality. With most builders I've looked at their model homes already have cracks everywhere in the drywall and the floors squeak so bad you can't sneak in at night after being out with the boys. Another thing I don't understand is a main floor family room next door to the living room. Who would use a living room if they have a main floor family room?? I also don't like how in new subdivisions all the houses look almost identical. My wife and I were driving down a street in a new subdivision in north west London. All the houses were identical except for the trim paint. How boring. And what about lot sizes. Most new lots you step out your back door, take two steps and shake hands with the neighbour behind you. That's a little too close for my comfort. It's too much like living in a apartment. And where are the kids supposed to play after you put on a decent size deck?? No thanks, I'll take a resale that was built in the late 60's to early 70's.

[Kerry in Fort Sask, AB]

Over Christmas I was visiting a book-remainder seller (http://www.bookcloseouts.com/default.asp?N=0) during their annual sale, and just for fun I picked up one of those "350 house plans!" books for a few bucks.

Since then I've flipped through it every now and then. I like looking at plans, and thinking of things that I'd put in a house should I ever get the chance to build.

Now, I realize that many(all?) of these plans are from places in the US which have a warmer climate. So I'm kind of used to the plans where the front door dumps you right into a room, rather than having a foyer. (though, I still think it is foolish.)

But what really puzzles me is the huge number of plans I'm seeing in this book that have enormous monstrous roofs -- and the vast majority have two or three dormer windows in them -- but no second floor. What are they putting up these dormers for!? Why on earth are they not designing in a 2nd floor!? What makes it particularly laughable is when the plans "offer" a bonus room over the garage, but the roof over the garage is smaller (lower) than the roof over the main house, which doesn't have a 2nd floor.

I've pretty much accepted the fact that I could never use a stock plan anyway, for several very good reasons.
1) My wife wants a sewing room.
2) we have four kids.
3) I want a decent shop - probably in the basement, with nice easy access. (either stairs directly up to the garage, or a walkout.) NOT in the garage.

So what are your criticisms of the stock plans / stock houses that you see going up these days?

- I think the "big hair" houses (huge roof) look goofy.
- I have no use for a formal dining room (though sometimes they would make a decent sewing room)
- Often, master bedrooms have enourmous ensuite bathrooms. I'd lose the huge corner tub that seems to pop up everywhere.
- The internet is here to stay -- you need a computer corner/office. Most plans have no allowance for this. And with kids I'd prefer it close to the main areas of the house, perhaps an alcove off the kitchen or family room.
- The mudroom should have access to the backyard also, for kids and muddy boots.


Art - do you just mean that these houses have high vaulted cielings? If so, I can tell you a bit about our house which isn't from plans in a book like that, although I can't really say where it originated - it's just a plan that a builder here offered. We have a very high steeply vaulted cieling in our bi-level, and, if I remember correctly the ceiling in our bedroom over the garage is indeed slightly lower than the cieling of the main part of the house. The builder also offered a nearly identical house, but with a much less-steeply vaulted cieling. The 'feeling' in that house was VERY different than ours. We made the decision to go with the higher peaked roof (only one dormer though). Most people that come in comment on the 'feeling' (I'm sure a designer would have a better word) they get being on our main floor. There is definitely some 'wasted space', but unless one lives in a travel trailer, there is always going to be wasted space. On the down side, since it's a bi-level it's really amazing how the sound carries from the lower level to the main level. Makes watching TV a challenge sometimes :-) All in all, we still like the house, still wish we could have more room even though we went from a 1000sqft bungalow to this 2000sqft bilevel, so I suspect it wouldn't matter if we had 3000sqft :-)

Maybe this isn't even what you're talking about though, in which case just forget I said anything...

Cheers,
Kerry

[MilesInEnfield]

Right on Art!!!

My father's argument on large bathrooms was "Why waste space on something you use 15 minutes per day?" He also tended to favour bedrooms just large enough for the intended bed, dresser(s) and closets. After all, why waste space on spot you only occupy while you're asleep.

Why is the bathroom always laid out so that when you are soaking in the tub, you view the toilet? If it's a true, high end house, have a separate room, or partioned area for the tub. These designers must have a porcelain fetish.

This is Canada, it's cold -- why do they have LARGE windows next to the tub?

Whether it's a hot or cold climate - why an exterior door with no hallway / foyer / vestibule / airlock space? Good point about the mud room - and maybe a well thought out, built-in boot tray.

Why is the closet for outdoor wear always put immediately beside the door? To purposely create a crush?

Why do they have two-storey / storey and a half vaultings over the entryway with a window no one can reach to clean? Why not use that second-floor space for a little reading or sewing nook? It a house, fer chrissakes, not a department store or hotel.

Is there a space on these plans to stow janitorial things: mop, bucket, broom and dustpan, cleaning supplies - maybe a big utility sink for dirty bulky things - like dogs that need washing. (No, we use our new Jacuzzi for that!)

I could continue - but I'll end with this. Every year the VG Hospital Foundation and the United Way build "dream" homes to raffle off. The designs must be chosen for "wow" appeal, because they are universally the most unliveable places I have ever seen. Huge open-plan rooms, no privacy, no corners to hide away in.

Buy or borrow a copy of "The Not so Small House" - the houses therein are not cheap, but the book is full of good ideas.

Of course to make the houses appealing they are furnished. If you stop and listen, you hear people commenting on or critiquing the furniture. It's the house they'll win!! (Unless they purchase the furniture included option <g>)

If one is building a two-story / storey and a half house, Halifax and other Canadian cities are full of really nice houses that would be excellent models - front halls large enough for people to put coats on, children to play in, rooms that can be closed off, kitchens separated enough from the dining room so that you don't sit at the table and look at the wreckage of pots, pans, bowls and other implements used to get a meal to the table.

At one time my wife and I had a dream of a two storey house, now it would be all on a single floor with wide doors, easily made wheelchair accessible, preferable without a ramp up to the entry door.

Which raises another question - we all walk in and out of stores with on-grade entrances. Why is there always a set of steps up to the main entry doors of a house? Careful grading can handle any water issues - is this a psychological thing? Or mindless following of convention.

Cheers to all - Miles

[Flame]

Barry I think the biggest reason Builders build 2 story houses is the smaller footprint = smaller lot = more lots per subdivision = more $$$

I live in a bungalow & my lot is 120' x 250', that would be 6 lots in the city :)

Eamon

[ArtMulder]

Buy or borrow a copy of "The Not so Small House" - the houses therein are not cheap, but the book is full of good ideas.


I have two or three of Sarah Susanka's books (http://www.notsobighouse.com/). And you're right, she is brilliant. ("The Not So Big House", and others). But if you can handle a denser read, try to find a copy of "A Pattern Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language)" by Christopher Alexander. It's from '77 so you'll need to try a library or a used bookselller (check abebooks.com (http://www.abebooks.com/)). Much of the same stuff that Susanka wrote about had it's beginnings in that book, I believe, but more in depth, and lacking the colour photos. :(

Which raises another question - we all walk in and out of stores with on-grade entrances. Why is there always a set of steps up to the main entry doors of a house? Careful grading can handle any water issues - is this a psychological thing? Or mindless following of convention.


Well thought that strikes me is that most of us want useable and liveable space in our basements, which (IMHO) requires windows. I think a raised bungalo is the most likely to give you that, with nice large windows. Or, if your lot slopes down in the back, you can have a level entrance at the front, with exposed windows at the back.

But again, I think this is regional. In some areas, slab on grade construction is the norm. The Southern US is like that. Actually, in Courtenay BC (on Vancouver island) where my brother used to live, many of the houses in his subdivision were built like that also.

...art

[Dave W in Calgary]

But again, I think this is regional. In some areas, slab on grade construction is the norm. The Southern US is like that. Actually, in Courtenay BC (on Vancouver island) where my brother used to live, many of the houses in his subdivision were built like that also.

...art

There are two reasons for slab on grade in Courtney and the rest of the island and lower mainland. The first is that the frost line is basically at the surface of the ground so you don't have to did down for the footings. The second reason is that if you did dig out a basement the hole would quickly fill with water.

By the way I grew up in Comox, about 4 km away from Courtney.

[Lee Brubaker in Edmonton]

This old fart has lived in various style houses in the following sequence: 1030 sf.bungalow, 1550 sf.split entry(bi-level),1550 sf.bungalow with walk out basement, 1630 sf.bungalow with walk-out basement, & lastly four level split 1746 sf. snout design(front attached double garage). Absolutely, the four level split wins hands down for lousy design. We have been in the split 15 years & entering the last half of our 7th decade I can advise you that stairs of any sort are an abomination...you have to go either up or down to simply get to a crapper. New house design....no thanks. Those stupid "great rooms" with a kitchen tucked into a corner like an after thought complete with Home Depot quality for cabinets camoflaged with granite tops. Squeaky floors(so much for silent joists) & fireplaces placed in the room where no sane person would select. No front windows on the main floor other than glass in the front door because of that stupid garage. And even if you could see out, all you will be looking at across the street is a wall of 2 story buildings with garbage cans stacked along one side of that stupid garage(no back lanes)....really nice eh. Builders are slow to discover that it is good planning to have the laundry on the main floor instead of in the basement. At least they are putting a pantry in the kitchen eliminating use of stairs simply to get a can of beans.
The bane of decent housing came about with municipalities adopting small residential lots. The thinking of course is less infrastructure costs for utilities & roads. In Edmonton the fools have been hooking these dense new districts to abutting older districts. Get a pretty good rain & the new districts gathering system fills up the storm sewers flooding the once dry basements in the older districts, then lie to the public that it was a 100 year storm. They forgot that dense districts the area is 80% covered by buildings, driveways, sidewalks, garages, roadways, etc ., and only 20% left for absorption....all the rest into the storm sewers. Last estimate for correcting Edmonton's west end flooding, $300 million. Really saved on the infrastructure...eh ? Even that is not so bad except the silly asses are still doing it.
We get snow...always have. Except with small lots where are you gonna shovel it to ? Every winter the city fathers are surprised that we get snow judging by their planning.
However the residents themselves have responsibility as well. We have an abundance of "collector's in Edmonton.
Across the street a couple with no children have 2 vans, a sedan, a convertible, & a motorcycle. Next to them another couple with no driving children have 1 van, 2 sedans & a motorcycle. That's 4 people who think they need 9 vehicles & of course what they can't get into the garage is parked on the public roadway. Actually, as I speak, they are no longer parked because they have been snowplowed in hence, they are now stored on the roadway.
These districts are planned in such a manner that they are not really livable in the same sense as districts developed in the 50s to 80s. It's a shame. Canada is a beautiful country & developers & builders are building what will shortly be slums while civic governments are shirking their responsibilities.

Lee

[Ken in Regina]

Lee,

Amen.

...ken...

[MilesInEnfield]

... But if you can handle a denser read, try to find a copy of "A Pattern Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language)" by Christopher Alexander. It's from '77 so you'll need to try a library or a used bookselller (check abebooks.com (http://www.abebooks.com/)). Much of the same stuff that Susanka wrote about had it's beginnings in that book, I believe, but more in depth, and lacking the colour photos. :(

...art

My brother has a copy which I periodically borrow. Yes, very dense, small type, peculiar diagrams - but brilliant.

The ironic thing is that every development officer worth his or her salt has probably read and admired it; guess they also talk about the concepts, but still they keep on in the same old way.

If energy prices continue to rise, which they will barring some miraculous breakthrough in nuclear fusion, the entire area where I live will become obsolete. There's nothing special about it, just another subdivision, 55 km from Halifax, and you pretty much have to drive for any and everything you do.

But the high price of land closer to or in Halifax makes property out here very attractive. Of all "rural" municipalities in Nova Scotia, we're just about the only one enjoying any growth. The problem is that it is mostly residential, we are not getting enough new businesses. Are we building a bubble?

To revert to your musings on the house plans book. Back in 1970-71 I lived in Edmonton and my then-wife and I were looking at houses. (Sherwood park was "out of town"!!!) Yes, we saw a bunch, then one which caught my heart and imagination.

It sat on a lot in Sherwood park with all the other houses, but was completely different. A hip roof, no picture windows but lots of light and useful wall space, and thoughtful layout.

I do not like hip roofs, but this house said "I'm not a rancher, out in the prairie, I'm here in a community."

There were lots of fairly tall windows, from about 18" off the floor to the ceiling, roughly 30" wide - you could see out if you wanted, but had lots of wall space for art and wall hangings, and book cases, and freedom to arrange your furniture. But chairs by windows had lots of natural light and you were not on display to the neighbours.

There was a useful powder room for guests and visitors, a pocket door closed off the bedroom area so children would not be disturbed by party noise, etc.

The interior walls were "laminated" - two layers of 3/* gyproc if I remember. The first nailed to the studs and the second glued on top so there were no nail pops or dimples.

It cost more than the other houses on display, but not that much more. A very liveable little house.

Regards - Miles

[MilesInEnfield]

Lee,

I'll echo and endorse Ken's response. Our dream house concept now has only one level. <g>

Why did Edmonton abandon the "Street and alley" approach? Coming from the true East - the Maritimes - where everything came in from the street I thought that was brilliant.

All the necessary mess for day to day living was kept out back, and you had nice, uncluttered residential streets. Guess greed got in the way.

In our subdivision the Municipality allows people to fill in their ditches, with predictable results. Lot runoff drains across the road to the far ditch, finds the micro-cracks in the pavement and through our 70-odd freeze-thaw cycles per winter starts destroying it. There's no place to push snow. And of course no place for kids to splash, build dams, float sticks, etc.

Cheers - Miles