Consider upgrading your roofing materials to metal, shake, etc. Makes for a very nice look esp. if you can avoid the roof penetrations as JDS mentioned.

Chimney Corners Remodel · More Info

Front elevation · More Info

This is the plan/ home we are considering. There are many touches that should lend to it being incapable of it looking cheap but only wanting to do this once, we want to do it right! Good info so far. Thanks everyone.

If you want a home that doesn't look cheap, you need to start with a different plan. One without the "snout house" look. One without the floating stone fakery. One without so many nods to different conflicting design styles.

In short, you need a home with integral style, designed by a professional to look like it belongs on your site. Not something generically poorly designed with obvious cheap materials used.

It's difficult not to overwhelm a 2300 sq ft house with a three car garage. Do you need a three car garage, or might you have enough storage in a somewhat deeper two car garage? (My DH and I built a 2900 sq ft home with a two car garage at a 120-degree angle at the front of it. It's still *big*. LOL)

I would find a builder who just builds custom homes and see what kind of price he gives you after you specify what you want in the house. I understand wanting to have some idea of price of what you want before you go further -- hire an architect, etc. (I have not found architects to be accurate at estimating building costs.)

From a non-professional standpoint, I think what makes certain homes appear 'cheap' to me are having absolutely no stone, brick, shakes, or other textured material on the exterior of the house. In my specific case, we're currently building and unfortunately have to have vinyl siding in our neighborhood which I always associate with 'cheap' but we at least have shakes, stone accents, and some board & batten siding on our house which makes it look much better.

Vertical siding looks cheap to me, like something you'd put on an inexpensive shed. As far as trim goes, I like white exterior trim (I like some colored trim but generally love white), and I only like white interior trim...wood stained trim can look nice, but it's very rustic/cabin-like to me which I hate...but yes, wood stained trim can make a home look more expensive as long as it's wide trim. Wide trim in any color makes a home look better.

Carpet doesn't need to look cheap...there are some great carpets out there. I agree light fixtures can transform a space but that's something you can do over time.

My better half says the same thing...

'cheap' to me are having absolutely no stone, brick, shakes, or other textured material on the exterior of the house.

Vertical siding looks cheap to me,

Those ribbon course shingles are awesome. I saw something like that on Ask This Old House and it has me thinking about giving up in other areas to get this.

From a layperson's perspective, some things that look cheap to me are:

- Plans that don't fit the lot. Even if the home is on the pricey side, if the plan looks like several others in the neighborhood, or doesn't take into consideration terrain, views, etc., then it looks ill planned and therefore like corners were cut. Even if a home is on the humble side, if it fits nicely into its environment, it doesn't look cheap to me.

- Garages that are a majority of a facade. I like to see a house's entrance and pretty face, not a big garage out front. Ditto large garage doors; personally I would rather see two single doors than one large, and nice ones with some interest.

- Over-building on a lot. I see this sometimes in my area where land is pricey and in-fill homes are built to the zoning limit. Big doesn't always translate into luxury and small doesn't always translate into cheap. I like a nice yard and some elbow room.

- Bad driveways. I'd have cobblestone if I could afford it; I can't so I have concrete. Asphalt is kind of meh, just IMHO. And driveways that take up most of a front yard don't appeal to me; I think a grassy front lawn is gracious, while a mostly paved front reminds me of tract homes.

Another non-professional, but to me gratuitous elements look cheap, like a single gable over the garage. It's actually an added cost so it isn't cheap, but it looks me it's just there because the roof expanse looked to great. It's not thoughtfully designed.

So maybe that's the bigger thing: everything must be thoughtfully designed for use, scale, appropriateness to the site and the house's style.

I agree with the light fixtures. If they are builder grade, I tend to think that everything else is also.

Agree with live-white-oak.

Both inside and outside look.

Good planning matters tremendously; that is, choosing the right house for the area and siting it well. As part of this, a simple house with clean lines looks better than many of today's over-done multi-gabled, fancy-roofed, etc., etc., etc. houses.

If you're talking materials, I think cheap windows "downgrade" a house faster than any other single thing.

I believe I have a good example of this very thing. I bought my house used, but the lady I bought it from had it custom built and still had the plans which she left with the property. Here are the plans as the architect drew them...

and here is the way the house looked when we bought it a year ago.

Night and day difference. Roof line is lower, no stone accents, skimpy dormers, no arches, no column, no shutters, no copula. Little things add up to big things when you put them all together. In price and aesthetics. :) Good luck!!

mydreamhome that's a good example. The artists' drawings always add trees and other landscaping that doesn't exist. And as a non-pro I can't put my finger on exactly why, but the pencil drawings always look nicer than the finished result; somehow there is more depth or interest in the drawings, even when the elements are the same. Maybe there are more shadows or something, but hand drawn bricks, roofs, etc. always look nicer (to me) than the finished result, unless the finished result is something like a shake roof. Maybe one of the pros can tell me why. :)

Here's a comparison of similar, yet quite different houses that came up recently. (Please note that photography for House 1 is much better.) You can see that even gutters and downspouts make a difference.

[House 1[(https://www.houzz.com/magazine/houzz-tour-industrial-glam-style-for-a-california-farmhouse-stsetivw-vs~19865244)

[House 2[(https://www.houzz.com/magazine/my-houzz-couple-build-their-dream-modern-farmhouse-style-home-stsetivw-vs~58443753)

I think you'll really benefit by spending some time with an architect to define a style you want to achieve, then ruthlessly throw out elements that don't support the style and, to the extent your budget can stand it, emphasize the ones that do. Getting correct massing and a front entrance that doesn't look like an oversight with a three car garage is a tremendous challenge. On five acres consider a small two car attached garage and a substantial outbuilding. Using "real" materials contributes a lot to not looking cheap-- no "look of real wood", no stone facades hung up in the air with no visible means of support. Generous moldings and trim help a lot-- wider and deeper with more layers creating pleasing shadow lines and sense of depth. We found that wrapping our house in foam insulation to give walls nearly a foot thick created a great sense of substance while saving a heck of a lot on our heating bill. Lots of small things add up, but the essence is in knowing what you want to do then doing what you do well, without wasting time, energy and money on frippery.

"What makes a house 'look' well built as opposed to kind of cheap?" Well there's houses that are built cheaply, there are house which look better, but are still built cheaply, and then there are houses which are well designed and built and look it. Frankly, despite all the creative cosmetics in the world, there is no substitute for a house which is both well designed and well built.

Being well designed and well built is both visible and not visible. That's because so many of the important elements for a well designed and well built house are not visible--the foundation, the structure, the systems, the siting and orientation, the energy conservation strategies, etc. The only time these items become "visible" is when one has failed prematurely and has to be replaced at great expense.

As far as the visible items, there are exterior and interior items. On the exterior, probably nothing is more indicative of good design and construction that a reasonable and appropriate architectural character and massing. Good character and massing doesn't require being tarted up with a half-dozen different materials clamoring for attention. On the interior, probably nothing is more indicative of good design and construction than a variety of appropriately sized and linked interior spaces which are comfortable, accessible and supportive of one's living needs.

All the cosmetic stuff in the world, even the expensive stuff, won't make a poorly designed and constructed house seem other than poorly designed and constructed.

I apologize if you were looking for a laundry list of materials and equipment which automatically upgrades the quality of a house. Unfortunately, creative design and good construction just doesn't work that way and isn't so easy to achieve by selecting one something from Column A and two somethings from Column B. It's just not that easy.

To achieve your desired goal you really need the expertise and creativity of a very experienced design professional and building professional working together from the very outset to achieve the desired final result.

I dislike houses that are trying to be something, but don't get it right. Compare a real Craftsman home with a 'Craftsman-inspired' home. We have one of those subdivisions near by. The overall shape of the houses is not Craftsman, the roof brackets and porch columns are way too wimpy, the roof overhangs are too small. The result is a tract home that has the 'craftsman' label stuck on it because that's what's hot right now.

I agree with mrspete- Cheap windows can drag down an otherwise nice house. Fake mullions may look OK from inside, but they're not fooling anyone on the street. We use Marvin SDL's (simulated divided light) and you really have to look closely to see that they aren't 'real'.

A house certainly doesn't have to be fancy to look good. I grew up in a 200 y/o cape that was beautiful, but very plain.

True that about the windows, mushcreek. I live in a fairly upscale neighborhood, built largely in the 1950s-60s. Mostly double-hung windows, but back then energy was cheap so they are sooo inefficient. Some have storms added on. The house on one side has new windows, with SDL. They are gorgeous. Most houses with replacements have the mullions-between-the-glass or removable, and it shows. I'm so torn: I want SDL because it looks more authentic and true to my house, but cleaning the panes is such a pain. Each window has 16 panes!

The absolute first criteria is that the home should fit the property. With 5 acres to build on, picking a plan designed for a tiny suburban lot with a front yard taken up by driveway is the very first cheap look.

There is no coming back from that fatal flaw. You need to start over.

But then that flaw it's compounded by design clichés upon design clichés. The house has no authenticity at all. It is all about silicone implants and botoxed foreheads without any substance behind the colored contacts. Someone attempted to ''add visual interest'' by throwing design details onto it's façade, without understanding that the exterior should be a logical outgrowth of the interior. And vice versa. Inside and out need to be designed together, in harmony.

I think this thread is really interesting.

My last two houses were custom builds. I would definitely recommend seeing the other houses the builder has built and walking through some of his "in process" builds and judging by that. Since you mentioned his houses tend to look cookie cutter, then that is probably how yours will feel even if you chose more expensive materials/finishes.

I feel like this thread and all of the comments really get to the point of that invaluable design/quality element that good architects/builders/designers bring to the table. They see things and think of things that most people couldn't plan for if they tried. The key is to find one of the good ones and seeing their work is probably one of the best ways to judge.

The key is to find one of the good ones and seeing their work is probably one of the best ways to judge.

The problem is that too many people have no clue what quality work looks like, both the hidden quality and that we can see. To me hidden quality is probably the most important since it's the hidden systems that will keep your house in working order and standing.

As for finishes, I've found most people don't look too carefully. There is a builder in my neighborhood who builds million dollar plus homes, but I wouldn't trust living in one. I haven't seen his hidden systems but based on the quality of his finishing work, I'd think he cut corners. Things like grout lines being uneven, switchplates at an angle on the wall, windows looking wonky, rough finished base boards, etc.

However most people coming into a new, staged house, see the glitz and glamour and can't see past it to the "bones".

And then most people look at these builder houses with the gee gaws, bling and doodads on them and think they are beautiful. Knowing good design takes some skill in terms of learning what is good and isn't. It can be taught to be able to see good vs bad, but most don't want to take the time to learn it, and it isn't taught in schools anymore.

A good book to read is What Not To Build by Edelman, Gaman and Reid.

For a house built on 5 acres, having the garage front and center looks cheap. Are you looking at stock plans, I'd consider hiring a good architect who will walk the lot, finding the best plan for your terrain and sun exposure.

In my area well regarded builders/general contractors have high quality houses to show. I know many will not take a job using less than high quality products as they do not want their name associated with lower quality even if the owner requests it.. I spent time first interviewing architects, then contractors for high quality custom builds. Over time, the right professional became obvious.

Ifyou are spending the time and money for a custom build, consider what you want your end product to look like. A builder used to doing lower quality for less money may not notice the little things that would not be expected in a budget build. The experienced general contractor is the expert on the job you are hiring to know the details at every step of the build. This starts at the beginning of the build all they way to the end and actually after completion of the build. Does your area have a ten year warranty on new construction?

Going with the assumption that the house is properly designed & suited for its lot....to me, the thing that I think makes a house seem well-built can be summed up in a single word....thick. As in, thick walls, trim (inside & out,) doors (and I totally disagree with the blog post above that stated that hollow core doors didn't make a difference in a house feeling upscale. I totally notice, and think hollow doors scream low budget,) thick, operable exterior shutters that make shadow lines, shadow lines created by either true divided light windows or SDL, etc. And I also think, although very often maligned on here for being inefficient, cost-wise, jogs in the foundation lend an upscale look to a house. I am so glad that my house has wings and setback areas, especially in the back. I think homes that are completely flat and boring across the back look builder grade.

I love the ribbon shingled look on that house that JDS shows us in this thread! (Almost makes me want to re-do my house to have that -- won't work with a log home, however!)

Roman, your idea for a house: for the stone facade not to look cheap, it would have to look like it was supported by the ground, which this doesn't. That facade looks pasted-on.

Could the three car garage be made into a two car garage, and maybe extend length wise so you have the storage space behind the cars? Or as someone suggested, if you do have three cars (or two and a boat), a separate small building for that?

What do you plan for the rest of your five acres? I can see NOT sprawling your house out just to fill the space -- much is to be said for gardens, maybe a pool, and some nice trellises. Or perhaps you want to raise veggies or chickens?

But the style of this house just says, "Meh, found in a stock plan".

(Mind you, I am not one of those who think garages should be tucked out of sight -- I took a "poll" of homes around me and a slight majority of these have garages in the front -- and I purposely wasn't driving down the roads with tract housing. And except for ONE house that did have three garage doors in the front, none were pug ugly and unattractive, except that one -- and that one house had a lot of other bad things going (or not going) for it. I think when it comes to three garage doors in a row... they might be on to something, especially when your house proper is not going to be McMansion sized... it's just unbalanced.)

Re-read JDS's post. As usual, he has great ideas.

One thing that looks cheap is when each home in a neighborhood looks like a variation of each other. A set selection of brick was used and there's an obvious pattern to the exteriors. Another thing that looks cheap is when nonfunctional decorative items are tacked onto a house such as balconies that no one can stand on or shutters that can't actually be used. Not only would a well respected architect not use such cheap tricks but a well designed and well built home wouldn't have them.

Finally, I think the key thing you often only notice subconsciously about a well built home is that everything is in the proper proportion. The house doesn't look too big or two small for the lot. The shutters aren't so small that they won't cover the the windows. The fireplace mantle is at the proper height for the room. The trim doesn't look chintzy or so beefy it overwhelms the walls. Someone who has taken the time to design and build a house properly will take the time to get these big and little things right.

The house Roman posted is not a "ranch" style house. It uses a common developer formula of a tall hipped central roof built of trusses with front facing decorative gables and dormers with no functional purpose which will disrupt drainage from the roof and trap snow causing future maintenance problems.

To design a great house it is necessary leave these overused cliches to the builders and find your own style or at least copy from the work of really talented architects and builders.

I don't know if builder/developer cliches look cheap but they usually look like you didn't get you money's worth.

Automobiles and garages are more important to today's homeowners than they were when many classic styles were developed. For homeowners who want garages I think the results look higher end when architects/designers figure out a way to integrate the garages into the design (rather than wanting them separated). These examples have front-facing garages but even the one that sticks way out doesn't seem cheap because they all seem coordinated with the rest of the home.

High Street front · More Info

NW Modern · More Info

Rockaway Beach Remodel · More Info

but the pencil drawings always look nicer than the finished result;
somehow there is more depth or interest in the drawings, even when the
elements are the same.

I always think the same thing, and I think part of it is perspective. That is, the angle from which the picture is drawn. An artist who draws up a rendering will choose the angle that emphasizes the lovely showcase window in front and downplays the out-front garage. The camera lens isn't so thoughtful; it records faithfully what actually exists!

True that about the windows, mushcreek. I live in a fairly upscale
neighborhood, built largely in the 1950s-60s. Mostly double-hung
windows, but back then energy was cheap so they are sooo inefficient.
Some have storms added on. The house on one side has new windows, with
SDL. They are gorgeous. Most houses with replacements have the
mullions-between-the-glass or removable, and it shows. I'm so torn: I
want SDL because it looks more authentic and true to my house, but
cleaning the panes is such a pain. Each window has 16 panes!

I live in a large neighborhood with houses built from the late 60s - today. As I walk my dog, I often study the houses and ask myself WHY I like this or that feature. I agree that some windows look cheap ... but don't neglect the size. Taller windows seem to make a big difference in the look of the house.

The problem is that too many people have no clue what quality work looks like, both the hidden quality and that we can see.

Yeah, I always laugh at the people on HGTV -- especially young women on House Hunters -- who demand, "I must have granite or marble countertops! ... Yes, yes, this is just what I love! Huh, this is laminate? Really, are you sure? ... Well, at least I know those are hardwood floors! Engineered wood? That's a thing?"

Come on, folks, take a minute and educate yourself, especially if you're going to be on TV.

Finally, I think the key thing you often only notice subconsciously
about a well built home is that everything is in the proper proportion.

Excellent point.

tcufrog - I agree with just about everything you said, but there's a limit in size for a lot -- no, you don't want a house too big for a lot, but you can have a house much smaller than the lot. I am building on 52 acres... Most of it is woodlot, only about 7 acres are cleared -- but I certainly don't want a home that fills 7 acres! (Nor could I afford that!) A lot of it depends on what you plan to use your acreage for. Mine is rural and will be used for farming.

We don't know how much of the lot the original poster has reserved for woodlands, whether there are streams/wetlands, or jagged, unbuildable regions, or any of that. Or his intentions for that land. So saying his footprint is too small for five acres is something we simply don't know. He did mention wooded, and I'd assume that's a value he wants to keep.

(Amusingly, when I was land-hunting back in 1997, I saw a property that was 13 acres -- but 200 feet wide road frontage, and it went back like that. Like..., really??)

Design that carries all the way around the home, not just the front facade.

I moved from an area where the norm was a massive structure with a partial brick or cultured stone front, then 3 sides of nothing. So I agree, all 4 sides should be designed.

Also, good landscaping and nice plants make a huge difference in the way the whole is perceived.

artemis_ma...

I agree. I live in a small town that was started by Eleanor Roosevelt as a place for urban dwellers to go and farm. As a result there are lots of very small houses on huge lots where there used to be farms. A lot of them just have horses now. I've noticed that there's an art to placing small houses on acreage. Some of them look great but some of them just don't look right. I think it has to do with the landscaping, massing of the house, fencing used, and the placement of the house on the property.

And to follow up on tcu and artemis, a site with a hill is usually better handled with the house located a little off of the top of the hill and to the side instead of perched directly atop the summit like the main ornament on a Christmas tree.

Design that carries all the way around the home, not just the front façade.

Definitely. I hate a brick-on-front-only look. I'd rather go with siding all the way around. And the same thing is true of shutters, landscaping, and probably more items.

My take away is that good design is above all.

Cheap is a relative term and usually implies low cost. Everyone has a budget and some things listed throughout this thread aren't achievable once that is taken into consideration.

I also agree landscaping is a critical element. You can have a perfectly designed home but if the natural surrounding isn't integrated to ground the home it looks like a building landed from the sky.

"You can have a perfectly designed home but if the natural surrounding isn't integrated to ground the home it looks like a building landed from the sky."

Agreed. One of my little pet peeves here is folks post these plans for comment as if they're floating in a void. Often without even the barest clue as to orientation. See it so much I made an "ideabook" I can refer them to and hopefully point them in the right direction. So far it's been a mixed success. LOL!

So far it's been a mixed success. LOL!

I followed it. :)

"I followed it. :)"

Well, I knew YOU would!

Where can I find this ideabook? I shall make it my bible!

Click on his screen name.

One thing that looks cheap is a shallow front porch. A porch should be at a minimum 8 feet deep. Preferably more. Anything less looks really cheap to me.

Gee I guess my house is going to look cheap to jo_in_tx since it's only 6' deep.

Of course the difference is my lot is only 6100 square feet so putting a very wide porch on a house on a narrow city lot will look off balanced too. And trust me, my house will not look cheap and it won't be either.

:) That also depends on the size of the house, and how wide the porch is. A shallow porch that goes all across a large house just looks like it's missing something.

I knew there was something I didn't like about the Parthenon.

I betcha the Parthenon would look so much better if it had a couple of non-functional dormers on it too! :-)

Fortunately the Athena Parthenos did not have many functional needs.

Details Details Details and finishes. I think well thought out lighting makes a huge difference. Go into a very swanky expensive bar and look at how well the lighting was designed - with the accents and thought to what is being highlighted. I can tell a cheap house by the lighting. Also flooring makes a big difference. Keep a photo scrapbook of things you like and get them included. When you stay in nice hotels pick out little things that make it nice (wall switched right by the bedside etc.). Make small rooms like guest baths have big impact (small spaces are cheaper to do luxury details to). I would rather live in a 3K sqft home that is finished to a very high level and designed perfectly than live in a 9k sqft home that is a "big box". Speaking of boxes - a box is the least expensive way to construct anything. Homes that break this mold are usually more expensive in general. A great builder is so obsessed with details he drives his people to produce the best product they can (and speaks that he has a great relationship to get those results).