One reason people don't update their homes around here is because of the taxes. They keep the outside in good maintenance , but do very little changes to the outside of the house itself. In our county the assessors are not permitted to enter anyone's homes unless invited in. Most people don't invite them in. They don't know that you have a new kitchen, etc. If you start improving on the outside of your home the taxes go up. Our last neighborhood all the home were of different styles and built in different eras. Our neighbor down the street whos home was much smaller, and older than ours tax bill was over $1000 higher than ours. She let them in. She had just updated the whole interior.

Nope...I'm not playing the "define architecture" game. It's pointless and serves little purpose in this thread or any other. One may Google "architecture" and find all sorts of definitions with all sorts of ranges.

You folks who want to play in this sandbox go right ahead.

I've said my piece on this subject.

Plain is not the same thing as run-down. As a buyer, plain (boring, uninspired - whatever you want to call it) wouldn't turn me off because I'm one of those who can see possibility, but run-down/neglected is a totally different ballgame. Siding, roof, masonry, windows, doors in need of repair or replacement = $$$ and must be done or sooner or later; interior problems will likely result due to lack of upkeep/maintenance (esp roof).

There are plenty of ways to deter criminals besides letting one's home exterior looking like crap.

I assumed that the door was opened by saying

" What you describe isn't architecture. It's simply builder economics and McMansion aesthetics. "

I apologize if my post came across as an attempt at "playing games". My intent was to understand what you mean by architecture. There was a lot said about what it is not and I wanted to know what it is and for that I provided definition that makes sense to me.

I grew up in a house like this. My parents pulled construction permits on the house when they bought it. The house needed gutting inside and out. The city we lived in wouldn't reassess the property until the construction was complete and the building permit closed. They came by every few years and knocked on the door. We had instructions to not let them in. We left the front looking like hell for almost two decades. The interior was lovely. We did mow the grass and cut the bushes. The roof was new, the siding was peeling paint. We did the work, just not in the order the neighborhood would have preferred. They finally completed it in the year they sold it. It saved a fortune on taxes.

Discussions here get nasty/iffy very quickly.

When I lived in California I saw our outside front and back as two more "rooms". The actual house was a very ordinary tract home, 1800sf + a converted garage and housed nine people plus add ons over the years. I LOVE to entertain, we often had 100+ people enjoying my Irish coffees (and I make excellent Irish coffees) and dancing. We NEEDED those extra rooms. I have always thought that homes ARE the community. Both inside and outside. To not have the outside welcoming seems very antisocial. I am very glad that the entire neighborhood knew who the McCarthys were and that everybody was welcome at our home. In thirty years we never even locked the front door, the house was never empty. For the years I lived there it was a very pleasantly decorated place. Both inside and outside. Many happy memories.

Strategery, that was uncalled for.

It's not by "it's" cover , but you are right, I should not have used the apostrophe after the s, either.

However, I don't ever take your posts seriously, because you never actually say anything constructive. So go ahead and nitpick all you want. Perhaps if you ever started a thread worth reading, I might pay more attention to your opinion.

I don't think the trend is necessarily about keeping the outside run down or ugly necessarily, just not upgrading it or renovating it to the exent corresponding to the exterior.

I can't imagine living in a house I could make more attractive on the outside, but consciously chose not to do so. I also wouldn't buy a truly ugly house - one that would take $100,000 plus to make it attractive.

Not keeping ones house looking nice on the outside is very rude to ones neighbors. I would resent this - I DO resent that my next door neighbor can't manage to get her yard full of weeks mowed regularly. And no, it's not because she can't afford it. She's a "life planner" and drives a huge Lexus SUV - she just couldn't care less about her yard, plus she's clueless. I do not appreciate her dandelions each spring floating into my yard, causing my yard man much work.

As far as assessment goes - I can't speak for any state other than KY, but here, ones property tax is based on what other houses in the neighborhood are selling for. The problem for me is that I bought the cheapest and smallest house on the block, so my house will never be worth what others are getting, yet my taxes do get raised. Yes, I could contest the assessment but then they have the right to enter the house - do NOT want that! Who knows what they might do?

To me, being a good neighbor means keeping up ones property if at all possible financially.

@palimpsest - "It's not by "it's" cover."

This is wrong, as well as your title which is its'. Won't someone think of the children?

No, that is not incorrect. It's is a contraction of It is. So it is not by "it's" cover either.

I did that intentionally.

I think of your children, if you have any, and I feel sorry for them.

I think the way they tax homes is unfair and detrimental to a community. The person who takes care of their home should pay the same taxes as the person who's home is a pig sty. I think a home should be taxed on livable sq footage and yard size. Even if the livable area is not finished.

This thread has really been derailed for various reasons some more ridiculous than others. And Virgil is no longer in the sandbox, but if he were, I would have a question for him:

Would these houses be architecture simply because they are designed by a licensed, successful architect?

Because to me, these houses have many of the earmarks of a McMansion, and many of the earmarks of a house that looks like it was designed by a draftsperson .

I suppose it's a matter of taste. I don't happen to like the massing of any of these houses even though this is very popular.

The big assumption that I don't agree with is that architects, by dint of having a license, all design tasteful houses and draftspersons or designers, by dint of not having an architectural license cannot design a simple, tasteful house.

I was never accused of being eight years old even when I was eight years old.

I wonder if any architect is going to admit that a licensed architect can design something just as ugly and McMansionish as a non-architect.

That was never my point, I dont think the odds are the same, and I didn't head the thread in that direction. But since "architecture" vs. all that "non architecture" that people live in out there was brought up...I'd be interested in getting an answer to this.

I think there has been a bit of hair splitting on this discussion about architecture. As I see it, all parties are right, just focused on a different aspect of architecture.

to me, architecture can be a time stamp of a particular era, ie McMansions, will say something about a certain period in time, whether you like McMansions or not. So will the tiny homes, and so will these hideous buildings, which today are recognized as Nazi architecture.

i find the discussion interesting, derailment notwithstanding.

Meh. It used to be if a topic wasn't all that interesting to someone they would just ignore it and it would die after a few responses. There probably was not much substance to the original subject here, and I wish I had not posted it.

The typical GW post is now:

Original subject or topic.

One part people who actually respond to the original post or participate as it sometimes evolves into something else.

One part people who don't like something about the post and derail it by talking about something else.

One part people who are offended by the post or offended in the stead of other people, who post just so everyone is aware of this.

One part troll who never actually contributes constructively but just picks on some minor point or says something stupid but says it often.

One part someone who makes non-contributing but "funny" snappy combacks that are about on the same level of the snappy comebacks in Mad Magazine.

Back when we lived in an older working mans neighborhood I was in several houses that from the outside were just blah. Inside they were wonderful. An interesting thing with most was if the front door was opened all you saw was well lived in stuff. Beyond that room in several of the houses were wonderful stuff. Owners knew that advertising was an invitation for a robbery. It makes a difference where you live if you want to advertise that you have lots of money or want to keep it.

Palimpsest, I tested that theory by posting examples of houses designed by local architects and those not and they would be ripped apart eitherway. At that point I said f it I'm just going to build something that I like

the favorite part of my build two years later is proper placment so that I can enjoy driving up to my house after a rough day. The exterior is more important for that reason as we take the inside for granted as you're exposed to it so many hours in a given week...as long as the space is functional and useful

Has anyone ever been on the blog McManson hell? I don't think it is updated much anymore, but the author is an architecture student and has some pretty funny entries. Yes, a bit snarky but she has a point about good design.

But I think there is a big difference between curb appeal (e.g. better landscaping) and improving an exterior facade through structural/architectural changes. I have spent more money landscaping my home than anything else. And so far we have only completed the front yard. It saddens me that we had to choose the landscaping over the kitchen. But for me the landscaping transformed the house and is setting the tone for the bigger changes that will come eventually.

Anybody remember the 80s notion of "cocooning?" The concept back then was that people were beginning to retreat from the ugly and frightening larger world into the safety and peace of their own homes. I'm not sure there isn't an element of that in the idea of ignoring the outer shell of the home in favor of the inner sanctum it provides.

If that's so, then it seems to me this trend says more about modern society and psychology than it does about either architecture or interior design.

For myself, we recently built a smallish, non-architect-designed house in the center of a smallish town. The area we live in is the latter stages of redevelopment: what were once worker's cottages on big lots have mostly been torn down, and replaced by units or by three, double story houses on a single lot. We're talking almost wall to wall houses: our own is built right to the property line on two sides, and has postage stamp front and rear gardens. We had zero choice of orientation and not much wiggle room for the shape of the outer shell either. Very much not what an architect wants to deal with, and around here, they don't. It's all builders buying up the tear-downs, and using local design and drafting firms to produce plans that fit the space available. So, the innovation and the attractiveness mostly has to go on the interior, because landscaping is necessarily minimal, and the garage takes up half the frontage. That's the reality for everyone buying into our area. But we all want to live here because we're walking distance to the main street of town, restaurants, cafes, medical clinics and two private hospitals. Oh, and the beach....

Is my house an example of architecture? Certainly not by Virgil's definition, and probably not by my own either, which doesn't limit architecture to architects (or we'd have to forget about half the great buildings of Europe) but which does demand some level of aesthetic appeal. Ours is a contemporary, flat roofed, single story box with a brick and stucco facade (in our defence, the brickwork/stucco combination is on all sides of our house ;) The thing is, whether it is architecture or not, it provides what we need - a very comfortable, practical house exactly where we want to live. And that's not to be sneezed at. It is, after all, what good houses, architect-designed or not, should be. And what too many houses, some of them architect-designed, are not.

palimpsest, I like the 3rd house in your post, but my budget won’t go that far. I am wondering which part you don’t like.

Do huge decks ( 20x bigger than normal )increase the property tax? Anyone knows?

I do not know about the property tax but here because they are considered semipermeable they increase the sewer part of our water bill. The sewer part is currently the largest portion of most peoples water bill. They would have an effect if the increased the value.

Many interior improvements are done on the promise of better resale value because 'That is What the Homeowner HAS to do!' There are massive amount of articles recommending which upgrade gets the most value. And manufacturers/designers/contractors need changes to stay in business,

Remodeling the exterior of a home is basically paint and landscaping or siding and landscaping. Or changing the roofing. To actually change the footprint or add onto the building is often horrifically expensive and makes little sense.

I live within a block and a half of two different homes. One is a four room with a basement on an odd shaped 2 acre lot. It has sold three times in 10 years, upgraded inside each time. The other has a pond and a huge home(partial earth contact) with three stories, on several acres. It has been for sale for 7 years(still listed, but no yard sign. First listing was for $1.2 million. Last listing I saw was for $759,00.

Three blocks away is a completely renovated home(all new interior and new roof (framing/sheathing/shingles) with several acres and a carriage house (2car deep and 2 wide)and an apartment over the garage. It is listed at $202,000. Severalm otheras scattered around with similar values.

My home is about $135,000, comparable to many of the others in the entire neighborhood(many full basement ranches and split entries). Next to a community of 1950 era slab houses, several town home streets, and several streets of two story duplexes.

Not really much point in bringing an exterior 'up to date', since the dates range from 1890(the 4 room) to 1965(mine) through 1975. With the exceptions of the split entries/duplexes/town homes, none of the houses look similar. Mine has insulated steel and insulated hard plastic siding. Be silly to remove that for updating.

When we did our remodel, the landscaping and building pathways and a courtyard were where most of our money went. And it really was gorgeous. Not so much after I left, sadly. I went and looked on line and it seems the new owners have kept the courtyard and cleaned up at least the front yard. I do miss that house.

I know not enough to comment as to the tangent points. However, as to the orginal theme of the thread, it is very English to focus heavily inside and only garden the exterior. Generally paint for Windows, rest is brick usually, and roofs are updated when they fail not to change the structure. Windows are not added or enlarged stemming back to the old window tax ideology. Your property historically was taxed by the number of full windows it had. This is why English cottages and Tudors have so many half windows. The interiors of most English homes lost their orginal interior features decades ago but the historic exteriors survived unscathed.

The North End in Boston - historically a little Italy area - certainly reflects pal's original comment. Rest assured that there are some very luxe interiors behind the front door held open with a folding chair, and the laundry on lines strung across the alley.

To me this speaks of pride of ownership. When I pull up to my home, I want to see a well-kept, well-groomed space that "I" can be proud of. Not to mention some things need to be kept up for your home to even function properly, such as roofs, gutters, downspouts, etc.

I know it has been part of the discussion, but I don't think the article is talking about neglect so much as not changing things. The example being keeping the exterior elements exactly the same as when the house was built in the 1960s including the wide siding style and obvious sixties style fake shutters (which on some styles of house are a decorative element obviously outside function and sort of appropriate historically).

My house is getting new windows which will change the appearance, but it has a new conventional roof, a new membrane roof, copper gutters and copper flashing and copings none of which can be seen from the street. So the antithesis of "neglect" but nothing so far which makes the house appear much different from when I bought it.

Given so many of the crazy rooflines, superfluous dormers and houses with 5 varieties of siding I think this is a welcome development

I hope you don't mind me commenting on this thread. I came over from another forum, am not building a house but was interested in this thread.

We gutted the interior of our house 8 years ago down to studs and plywood and then put it back together. Redid insulation, plumbing, some wiring and then made it more functional and definitely prettier. The only thing we did on the exterior was repaint and a new front door.

That doesn't mean it's rundown, in disrepair or ugly. Our house is a post-and-beam and there is no disguising that type of construction/architecture or trying to make it something else. You either like it or you hate it. When we sell you will come in for the open house if you like it and you won't if you don't. We bought it because we admire that type of architecture/construction.

And with post-and-beam it is a type of construction but is it an architectural form or not. I don't know.

Interesting conversation.

When we bought our 1948 house 34 years ago, it was a "plain Jane". It had a really tacky aluminum storm door over the front door, and while it had shutters, there were none on the small window on the front porch. The landscaping varied from ordinary to ugly (decorative rock under a tree - not my style and not typically used in KY).

We had barely moved in when the storm door was removed. We put an all glass one on but removed it several years later as we really didn't need it and liked seeing just the door. Since it's under a narrow porch, we don't need it for weather protection. We added shutters on the porch window.

Then, we worked on the landscaping, adding and subtracting over the years. Our front brick sidewalk is really too narrow but replacing it has always been out of the question and still is, so we made a wide bed on either side, and a landscape company from whom we bought some large trees, allowed us to dig vinca minor in the woods - we dug 20 flats - would have cost us a fortune to buy that much. Over the years, the borders in front have gotten wider and now are on 3 sides of the yard.

A few years later, we added dentil molding under the board under the gutters - made a huge difference at a low price. We also painted the attached porch that had a common roof with the rest of the house, to the same color of the house - makes the house look wider and more cohesive.

The biggest change we made was replacing the old 8-over-8 windows with 8-over-12 on the front, both the LR and the library. They made an enormous difference in the presence of the house from the outside, and allowed more light inside (east facing) and made those two rooms feel two feet wider. What a difference!

To me, curb appeal is appeal to ME when I pull up to my own house. I like a house that has some charm. This is my house in spring, two years ago. When I criticize gables, I do it from the experience of leaves and other tree trash that gets in the gutters on this roof and which only a deluge of rain and high wind, will get off.

^^ Your house is lovely! It looks so inviting, and peaceful.

I agree with mxk3. You have a beautiful home Anglophilia!

I love to look at houses, the exterior of the house attracts me more than the interior. So I can say I like the cover. Lol There is a small castle on an island near me, the exterior of the castle is so beautiful even though it has cracked walls, the interior is small and dark (2,000 sq ft)’ for a castle. it sits on 5 acres, I don’t mind to live there with cracked walls, it also has a 3 car carriage house, a small tower house. There is a stone bridge to lead you over a creek into the property. I think that’s the best place in town, others think it’s rundown. What can I say......It looks really beautiful to me.

I have been to many houses like that where people just don't want to stand out from the rest or draw attention. so they keep the outside simple like the rest homes on the block, but when you walk inside your jaw will drop from what they did inside.

I lived in the South for many, many years. Houses there tended to get interior and exterior facelifts with some regularity. Not wholesale changes on the exterior, but perhaps a new copper-roofed porch cover, or new hardscaping, or newer, larger windows, or a mortar wash on the brick. Landscaping is well kept, lush. If someone buys a house with old, overgrown, leggy landscaping, chances are it gets torn out and new installed. There’s very much a pride in presentation in the South.

Four+ years ago I moved to the Southwest. It’s entirely different here. Some of it is cultural, with old-school walled yards. Some of it is a desire to be cognizant of water scarcity. But some of it is just a different, live-and-let-live attitude. There’s just not so much keeping up with the Joneses here.

I went on a local garden tour last spring. There were two small houses with lush, owner-maintained landscaping. Just wonderful. But they likely wouldn’t have made the list back in Birmingham - not awe-inspiring enough. The larger homes on larger lots really didn’t have extensive landscaping or attention paid to the exteriors. A few didn’t even seem like they belonged on a garden tour. They were nice ca 1980s/1990s homes, but hadn’t been updated at all on the exterior. But I’ll bet the kitchens and baths inside were sparkling and new.

At one time I worked with someone who was selling her house and her father's house (on the same block) in a part of the city that traditionally shows what real estate listings call "pride of ownership".

These were very modest houses of under 1000 square feet that looked nothing other than tidy on the outside but when you walked inside everything was highly decorated and both houses had older but fully custom kitchens. There were houses on her block with SubZero refrigerators.

Her house was listed at $39,000 and her father's house at $29,000. At the time, the smallest SubZero refrigerator, a 27" wide model, listed for between $5K and 6K.

Thank you, mask and summer! I hope people see it as inviting- it absolutely is peaceful.

I’m not into “show-stopper” design, either interior or exterior. I’m into pretty, inviting, comfortable, gracious, peaceful. “Glam”is just not part of my vocabulary.

pal, I had to go back and reread your original post to fully remember what this conversation was about. And I think I'm still confused. Was there a specific reference to the article that I missed? Did the article imply that when interior renovations are made that there should be commiserate exterior upgrades as well?

No there was no link to an article. I had just read several short, similar pieces that one approach that the authors felt was perhaps increasing a bit was to leave the exterior unrenovated (not neglected) despite significant renovations or upgrades in quality to the interior.

One of the articles stated that from a Real Estate point of view that yes, the exterior should have corresponding upgrades to the exterior. From a Realtor's point of view, it might be difficult to get a buyer inside a house if the outside still looked exactly like it did in 1965.

I don't particularly agree, partly because I live in an urban area with a lot of disconnect between the interior and exterior and two, because most people currently look at the listing on the internet and have the opportunity to see the inside vs the outside. Of course this still may have something to do with where I live because the first picture in a lot of listings here are either the primary living area or a new kitchen. I also think its because in my opinion architecture should be left alone unless you are going to completely turn one house into another sort of house. I am not big on 1960s ramblers with tall neo Craftsman portico tacked on the front as an "upgrade" for example.

"I am not big on 1960s ramblers with tall neo Craftsman portico tacked on the front as an "upgrade" for example."

Yes; this^^ is what I was wondering.

I live in a house that was built in 1980 in the PNW. It was new when we bought it, but we did not build it. It was mostly done when we found it and we just had some rooms finished in the daylight basement that weren't. The house is not a McMansion, but it was huge to us. We were moving from a house in the bay area in CA so we could afford to buy something much bigger than our little tract home there.

Since then we have done significant remodeling to the interior. We have also done exterior upgrades-new roof (hey, having a wood shingle roof in the woods in fire prone country was not our idea of a good time,) painting, refinishing solid wood garage doors, etc. We consider these things necessary maintenance, as well as bringing the house a little more into this century. But it honestly never occurred to me that with the interior renovations we did-downstairs family room, entryway, kitchen, master bath-there maybe "should be?" exterior changes as well. With all our interior work we never changed the footprint of any room, so the exterior would be unchanged.

I'm just rambling (as usual) but this is why posts like this are so interesting to me.

Ok, I'm going to admit I'm just confused here. What exactly do you mean by "renovations"? Do you mean changing the look/feel of the exterior or doing necessary upgrades?

Necessary upgrades (e.g. roof, siding, windows, etc) are just that - necessary. In terms of cosmetic renovations, if the exterior of the house is congruous with the building style of the house, why would they be necessary, barring damage or an addition? (presuming the necessary upgrades/maintenance are being done as warranted). If exterior renovations done without congruity, it can make things look worse - disjointed and out of place.

Along those lines, upgrades to the interior can look just as bad. Say, a historic farmhouse that has a kitchen renovation that is unquestionably contemporary -- looks terrible IMO and kills the overall "feel" of the house.

Great discussion! I'm of the mindset, be it the exterior, area or architecture.. whatever... shouldn't dictate how you personally live. Be your own individual! If you live in a cottage and want to make it 3020 technology haven inside... so be it!

I'm currently facing this "dilemma".

I'm a little late to the party and notoriously a thread killer, but I have enjoyed this one!

I agree with mxk3, some things are necessary to the life of the home.

I also, am somewhere between mx & HU

I personally don't like the ultra contemporary, but I've seen a few "farmhouses" that had amazing interior much too contemp for my tastes, however they were beautiful and well done.

I think interior renovation has so many more facets than exterior renovation that the exterior does get left for last, or not at all.

I also agree with pal that there is commonly an online realtor portal where you can look at the interior at the same time as the exterior before you even decide to drive by. If you love the interior and can live with the exterior you've got it made!

I kind of makes me think about what my dad says about horse colts & kids, "they can only grow one way at a time." Meaning, colts & kids grow UP, then they grow OUT. Not both at the same time. They get long & lanky, then beef up.

Seems to be the way the reno happens. You work on the INside, then the OUTside. Sometimes the outside gets more sometimes the inside gets more.

I've noticed the opposite in California, especially San Francisco, where people go to great expense on the facades of the houses. In Los Angeles, people pay a lot of attention to their front yards, and in certain neighborhoods, you cannot even see the house because the front yard is so massive and beautiful.

From what I can tell in my neighborhood ( built between 1947-1953), people keep the front of their houses very nice and their front yards very nicely manicured, but a lot of them do not take advantage of their back yards. I noticed this when I went on my roof one day. Considering what is possible in the climate where I live, I wonder why people are not doing more with their back yards. In San Francisco it was too cold to spend much time in the back yard, but in coastal L.A. it is quite pleasant all year.