jayp

I prefer aethetics in the long run. Things can be built correctly and still look good. Cheaper materials sometimes win over on the price tag but crappy track housing is totally unappealing.

Tscarborough

The track housing I have been in was very nice.

(Texas Motor Speedway)

Tract housing, now that is a different kettle of fish....

__________________
It ain't Rocket science unless you are building rockets

CNM Design

Hay! No hard feelings. You didn’t no my story. My parents just sold there trailer in Bradenton Beach on Anna-Maria Island. They lived on the water at the end of the pier on bridge street if you know where that is. My sister lives in Ormond beach. I would like to move down one day soon. If you have a min. PM me,I would like to talk to you about the possibilities of starting a business building “Century” homes.

Craig

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifesty...ll-homes_N.htm

Knucklez

lots of great posts by everyone, even the 75 page dissertation by Michael Thomas. lol.

i think we are stumbling around the issue of what a good designer brings to the table (be it architect, craftsmen, interior decorator etc.) it is tough to put value on something that is "in the eye of the beholder". this is why it takes real skill to be good at this.

Knucklez

Joe F

I think there are a LOT more moving parts to this than just cost vs. practicality. The original post asks "How much could you save by building based on practicality?" You could probably save quite a bit in material costs, but you might wind up with a house you can't sell. So how much did you really save?

I'll also add that many (not all) of the asthetically pleasing materials used to build are much higher quality and last far longer than their "practical" counterparts (slate roof was mentioned as an example). Granted, I won't see all of the 100 year benefit of a slate roof, but it will add value to the house. So again, how much did you save by being "practical". If you're talking about construction cost, practical is clearly much less expensive. If you're talking life cycle or even 10 year costs, I'm not so sure.

__________________
If you don't stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

Scuba_Dave

Well practical might have R30 walls, R70 ceilings etc
Taking into account the long term heating & cooling costs this would be practical

A brick exterior is maintenace free, but I think that costs more?
A lot of new houses have unfininished/uninsulated basements
But to be practical they should be finished & insulated to save on heating. Except in flood/wet areas where it is not practical to have a basement.

Same thing with attic space - most are uninsulated & get hot
But to be practical they should be insulated to help keep the house coolor/warmer - more added cost

Electric costs do not go down long term
So to be practical the house should have solar or wind power
Now more added cost

So what is practical?

Willie T

To begin right with the elemental basics, money quickly begins to assume a major role in this “practical” house building we’re talking about.

First and foremost is the location.
· You have flood and wind exposure to consider.
· Correct geographic orientation for sun protection.
· Trees are a big player. You need them, and yet you can have too many... and the wrong kind... in the wrong locations. Mold from excessive shade (no chance to dry out) has ruined many a home.
· Drainage is important. If there isn’t sufficient natural run-off, you shell out bucks to make it right.
· The land, itself, is not to be overlooked. You may have to invest in proper soil establishment procedures.
· Then you have utilities to think about. Poles or underground? Proper sewage disposal.
· Roads, curbs, sidewalks, storm drainage (beyond just the lot drainage)

This is only a partial list. And all of this is important to being able to create an environment for constructing an attractive, substantial, and lasting home that will hold its value in the years to come.

And don’t you think for a moment that realtors aren’t fully aware of all these desirable factors. You aren’t going to wrestle a prime piece of property from them for a song. No siree! A choice lot can sometimes be half the price of the entire project.

Then there is the landscaping. You live a lot of your life outside the confines of those practical walls. Irrigation, alone, is expensive to not only install, but to also operate and maintain. And who really wants a home ensconced in xeriscaping? Not me I like nice, lush green grass. All this ups the ante.

The driveway. Concrete cracks, especially up north. Asphalt looks like crap. And pavers, although nice at first, tend to develop sunken areas over time, even with 12” of proper preparation beneath them. Are you going to go with gravel to have the ultimate in practicality?

We haven’t even gotten to the house, itself, and I imagine we are well into heavy six figures.

My point in all this is that we aren’t necessarily building just for our own use. We gotta sell the albatross around our necks, or possibly lose the house we’re now living in to satisfy the creditors. And speaking of creditors.....

All this, and the construction of the house to the specifications of which we are speculating, takes considerably more time than just throwing up a tract home on a dirt track lot. The banks love that. Time marches on, and the points go up as the percentage limitations roll over. Now we’re getting higher into the six figures. And we need to sell it for even more than perhaps first anticipated.

This is great fodder for dreaming. But the “practical” world has a way of stepping in to bring reality to the forefront. If you’re rich, have good architectural taste, and are building your own private residence, that’s one thing. If you’re weaving these baskets to sell in today’s market, it’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

__________________
"True eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and only that which is."
François Duc de La Rochefoucauld
Willie T

Scuba_Dave

Practical??

Willie T

Hey, Dave, it ain't fair, you bringing my house into this!

__________________
"True eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and only that which is."
François Duc de La Rochefoucauld
Willie T

Tscarborough

As an example of aesthetics over practicality, use that last photo. There are very good, practical reasons to build arches like that. However, in this instance there is no reason other than aesthetics to build them like that, since the brick is not structural, and is, in fact an expensive way to fake a real vaulted ceiling. Those are thin brick over stucco, whereas back in the day, they would use real brick with a decorative coating of stucco.

__________________
It ain't Rocket science unless you are building rockets

harleysilo

You should try a $1000 washing machine. Uses less soap, cloths last longer, uses less water, quieter......and of course the cloths are cleaner....

Scuba_Dave

I don tink so

Actually I know it ain't so
It's a friend's house, something over 12,000 sq ft

Willie T

That's only about ten times the size of my house....

Does "K" let you use it for parties?

__________________
"True eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and only that which is."
François Duc de La Rochefoucauld
Willie T

Scuba_Dave

They are in Ohio
A liitle far for a party
They now have a condo in Miami......looking in Arizona
who knows where else

Willie T

Years ago, I occasionally got myself invited to Matt Geiger's (basketball) house for poker nights. 34,000 square feet, as I recall. I never saw all of it. The bar was larger than my house.

(CORRECTION: I just checked. It's only 28,000. The 34,000 includes the guest house.)

And some financial adviser built an even bigger one a mile or so down the road from his. I got to see that one under construction because I knew the guy who built both houses, but I doubt I'll ever see the inside of the finished home.

__________________
"True eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and only that which is."
François Duc de La Rochefoucauld
Willie T