"Urban Style" New Builds: Does This Make Ya Happy?

[Achbek1]

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no opinion on this myself, I'm just asking for others' input on this.

Check this out:

https://login.marrano.com/sales/marketing/img/rolling%20ridge.JPG

Apparently, Marrano Homes has designed a new build home model that they say, "calls to mind a classic, urban design with a full front porch, center entryway with beveled glass door, and gabled roof lines."

See entire story here: http://marrano.com/whatsnew/

Hmm...

Could such a new trend maybe appease those who think that the 80s and 90s "McMansion" style of new builds is too tasteless? I mean, if all that matters is appearances, why not go for something like this?

But... BUT... Don't ya find it a bit interesting how they tout this as an "URBAN" style design? Hmm. I mean, I've seen houses that look like this in the suburbs too... Heck, this house actually looks more "rural" or old "farmer homestead style" to me. But what do I know? However, perhaps Marrano builders have some very shrewd and crafty PR and marketing people and their decision to tout this as "urban style" is aimed at the equally shrewd Western New Yorkers who are anti McMansion... or anti suburban? Or maybe... maybe... even "anti new?"

Imagine! You can live in something that LOOKS like an older home and not have to deal with rewiring outdated electric and replacing outdated plumbing and deal with rotting wood!

I say go for it! (Ooops, sorry... I'll keep my opinion out of this.)

Talk amongst yourselves... I'm gonna go get another cup of coffee. ;)

[300miles]

Considering it's in West Seneca, I don't have much of an opinion to say either. :)

But I don't quite follow how they are calling it "urban". It's a suburban house on a suburban plot in the suburbs.

[Achbek1]

Considering it's in West Seneca, I don't have much of an opinion to say either. :)

But I don't quite follow how they are calling it "urban". It's a suburban house on a suburban plot in the suburbs.

Miles, you could have some more input here. :)

Riddle me this: How would you feel if such NEWLY BUILT houses were erected in URBAN areas? Would that be okay with you? I'm totally serious. How would the pro true urban, pro preservation minded for the sake of appearances people feel about this? I'm not making a dig, it's just legitimate to say that often preservation minded people are concerned about how new buildings LOOK. But if you take into account that older buildings sometimes have structural problems, etc., newer builds may be more practical. So maybe here a new build, that is more structurally sound and has technical updates, paired with the LOOKS of an old building might be a GOOD thing.

Do you think the true urbanist, preservation types would go for it?

Or would the idea be shot down because the buildings are not "genuinely" old?

[300miles]

I was holding back.... :)

I am totally supportive of new builds in the city. And these would be nice, if build in an appropriate area.

For example, the undeveloped swath of land in North Buffalo (where the old rail lines were) would be perfect for this. Houses nearby have comparable land plots and the (arguably) pseudo urban look would fit in well.

I also would be supportive of "restarting" some problem neighborhoods with new housing like this if it were financially feasible.

On the other hand, I would be dead-against someone tearing down 20 beautiful amazing old homes on Linwood or Richmond just to be replaced with these. Where land is available, these should be built... but not where demolition of otherwise valuable existing houses are.

I would also be against building single homes like this too close to downtown, as it would be an innappropriate site for that type of housing. Downtown is better suited for denser housing like apartments, condos, and townhouses.

[Achbek1]

...beautiful amazing old homes on Linwood or Richmond just to be replaced with these. Where land is available, these should be built... but not where demolition of otherwise valuable existing houses are.


Okay. Cool. So your response included the lines that older homes are often "beautiful" and "amazing." Riddle me this too, is it at all possible for NEWER built structures, whether commercial or residential, to be considered "beautiful" or "amazing?" What would it take for new builds to be beautiful? Again, it's not a dig, I'm totally serious. Because, the clock is not turning back 100 years and anything that is created from this day forward will be new.

So what would you suggest could be done to make newly built structures more visually appealing? Do you think the Marrano people are at least on to the right idea? And for commerical structures too, what should be done? Could newly built commercial structures maybe start incorporating stonework again? Could newly built commerical structures maybe also aim for softer lines and more decorative architectural details? It could be done.

[300miles]

IMO, for new houses to fit in better with the city would be

- mask the garage
- use smaller lots

The Murrano houses merely threw some facade gimmicks to made a totally suburban house look nicer. The front garage kills it for me. But I have seen nicer designs in the suburbs that place the garage in the back.

Again though, location is very important. There are some areas of buffalo where suburban style housing would not be too far out of place. Others would be just wrong.

[Achbek1]

IMO, for new houses to fit in better with the city would be

- mask the garage
- use smaller lots

The Murrano houses merely threw some facade gimmicks to made a totally suburban house look nicer. The front garage kills it for me. But I have seen nicer designs in the suburbs that place the garage in the back.

Again though, location is very important. There are some areas of buffalo where suburban style housing would not be too far out of place. Others would be just wrong.

But can't ya just give 'em the garage? I mean, come on. People drive. People need garages. It's a modern thing. Isn't that okay? :o

But again, the whole LOOKS element seems to be important here-- as your comments reiterate. Form over function it seems. But again, this is not a dig, but can't form over function be just a little bit reconsidered? If it's gonna bring an area up to date or make things more comfortable or livable for the home's inhabitants? Is that so bad? When I lived in the city it sucked not having a driveway or a garage. Forgive me for saying that, but it did.

But again, if little adjustments could be accepted by those who favor "urban design" then maybe things could be happy on both ends. Give 'em the garage.

And what do you feel then about those newer, "suburban style" homes downtown in that area east of Oak Street? (You see them from the 33.) Those were built a while back I believe to try to revitalize that area. When you drive through there it almost "looks suburban." People live in those houses. They are downtown. Is that so bad? :confused:

[mesue]

I dunno. I don't particularly care what someone choses to build on their property in or out of the city. If I bought a house knowing full well that it was to be preserved, no matter what city or town, then I am obligated to preserve it. If I bought land in the city free and clear, then it is up to me what I build. So what if it doesn't look like the rest?
As far as the marrano house ... it's okay. It doesn't look particularly "urban" to me. It looks like an attempt to give the people what they want; porches. Everything old is new again.

[300miles]

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no opinion on this myself, I'm just asking for others' input on this.

:rolleyes:

[WNYresident]

Would be nice it people from Buffalo Rising were putting thier two cents in.

[mesue]

Would be nice it people from Buffalo Rising were putting thier two cents in. I'm not familiar with Buffal Rising. Why is their opinion more important?

[WNYresident]

I'm not familiar with Buffal Rising. Why is their opinion more important?

Most live in Buffalo don't they?

[300miles]

It's not even worth debating here anymore anyway. The people that keep asking the question (a.k.a. Achbek) don't listen or care about other people's opinions anyway.

How many times has she asked the same question ? Plenty of debate has resulted and she just starts all over again. It's not worth my time anymore.

[Achbek1]

It's not even worth debating here anymore anyway. The people that keep asking the question (a.k.a. Achbek) don't listen or care about other people's opinions anyway.

How many times has she asked the same question ? Plenty of debate has resulted and she just starts all over again. It's not worth my time anymore.

Touche'.

But actually I ASKED for your opinions and I was listening and caring. I'm sorry if you felt like I wasn't listening. And as I said, I wanted your legitimate input.

I actually went back and rethought the garage comment and I can agree that, yeah, the huge garages that take up too much of the front of the house can be aesthetically icky. Kinda like those "patio homes" that you see where it looks like the actual house itself is "hiding" behind the garage.

But in my own defense miles, the debates are ongoing-- on both sides. Consider me a villian if you will for presenting the other side of the argument, but each time I open the newspapers or watch the news there are CONTINUOUSLY other people giving this side of the argument. There are CONSTANTLY articles with people vilifying "new" styles of architecture and equating anything new with "big box mall culture." Like this recent article:

"In my present capacity as a senior citizen, I recently accompanied my wife on a trip to a local suburban shopping mall. The architecture seemed new, the site was attractively landscaped, the shops projected an aura of affluence and the total effect was, admittedly, very impressive. Actually, for a commercial project, it was probably as good as it gets. That is, for a shopping center.

But as I waited outside, my eye became a little more critical. I noticed that many of the architectural materials — although beautifully installed — were imitations. Architectural embellishments, though interesting at first glance, had all of the artistic integrity of a theme park; and the architectural style, whatever it was, was generic.

In other words: despite standards that exceeded many shopping centers, it had an element of falseness and artificiality that should not be acceptable in an urban center.



http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/309559.html

So you see, there are other people who are REPEATING THE SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN far more than I repeat any of my arguments.

Peace miles, and I did honestly ask your opinon and I was and AM still listening. I'm not some oracle who has all the answers to everything, and I DO like to hear other's opinions. That's why I asked. :)

[OneEmerald]

It's not even worth debating here anymore anyway. The people that keep asking the question (a.k.a. Achbek) don't listen or care about other people's opinions anyway.

How many times has she asked the same question ? Plenty of debate has resulted and she just starts all over again. It's not worth my time anymore.
You made some valid points on where these types of homes should be built. This house reminds me of my aunt's house that is very old. And like you, I agree the garage should be in the back.

This style can replace homes that have burned down or whatever, instead of the fancy homes being put there that look totally out of place.

I watched a show on HGTV where they were looking at homes in Chicago. They showed a new build that fit perfectly in the neighborhood. I didn't realize it was a new build untill they mentioned it while showing the interior.

[Achbek1]

This style can replace homes that have burned down or whatever, instead of the fancy homes being put there that look totally out of place.

I watched a show on HGTV where they were looking at homes in Chicago. They showed a new build that fit perfectly in the neighborhood. I didn't realize it was a new build untill they mentioned it while showing the interior.

Exactly, if they started gradually rebuilding these newer homes that are styled to look like older buildings where appropriate, they could eventually restock the housing in older neighborhoods while doing so in an "aesthetically appropriate" way. Because the houses that are aging and in disrepair now are going to be even worse another 80 years from now.

Incidentally, I had a student tell me how he once had to do a delivery to an older part of the city where a lot of the houses are older and in disrepair. As he started going up the steps to one of these buildings, the steps collapsed beneath him and he fell through the old rotted wood!

[300miles]

So you see, there are other people who are REPEATING THE SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN far more than I repeat any of my arguments.

Peace miles, and I did honestly ask your opinon and I was and AM still listening. I'm not some oracle who has all the answers to everything, and I DO like to hear other's opinions. That's why I asked. :)
My apologies then. I don't mean to suggest that I do know everything either. I get the impression that you ask questions purposely leading to an answer you already know. And will argue with whomever doesn't provide that same answer. But maybe I read you wrong.

:)

BTW I don't suggest that houses necessarily be built WITHOUT garages... I just meant they should not be front and center like they are in the burbs. Most city styles had Carriage Houses or detached garages in the back that were very hidden. There are some suburban houses I like a lot that have garages shifted to the side... or even in the back with an alley entrance.

[Achbek1]

Would be nice it people from Buffalo Rising were putting thier two cents in.

Buffalo Rising's staff are absolute geniuses at promoting the other side of my argument. And Miles, believe me, they bitch the same arguments over and over WAAAAAY more than I do. ;)

Here's an excerpt from one of last year's articles:

http://www.buffalorising.com/story/where_is_the_plan

Once demolished these unique buildings will be gone forever. The potential they hold will also be gone, likely to be replaced by new houses of banal design and cheap materials...

Buffalo can not compete with the suburbs on suburban terms. Buffalos [sic] salvation does not depend on its ultimate suburbanization. Buffalo needs to build and compete by using the tremendous and unfortunately neglected assets it already has in abundance, its historic urban fabric.

But here is where I see a giant hole in such arguments:

ARE THEY IMPLYING THEN THAT BUILDINGS CAN ONLY HAVE TRUE HISTORIC INTEGRITY IF THEY ARE BUILT FROM OLDER MATERIALS? Seriously. If we do it correctly then the only way to do it would be to build something using 300 year old scraps of wood?

But again, to be fair, I'm curious to know what they consider the antithesis to "banal design and cheap materials." Too often is seems as if they equate "cheap building materials" with just NEW building materials. What kind of building materials then are not cheap?

But the subtext of the following statement is obvious: That again new=suburban and new=The Opposed or the bad. "[Buffalo's] salvation does not depend on its ultimate suburbanization. Buffalo needs to build and compete by using the tremendous and unfortunately neglected assets it already has in abundance, its historic urban fabric." Translation: We must ONLY keep the OLD and we CAN'T HAVE THE NEW.

But back to the original argument: What about new that at least looks like old? Is that a nice compromise?

[300miles]

What people in buffalo fail to realize is that our city was uniquely blessed with grand architecture compared to many American cities... largely because our economy was at its prime during a time of incredible architural design.

Achbek... Think about which American architecture people swoon most about. It's not the 1960's or 1980's... but not simply because it's "New" it's because it's bland, cheap, and uninspiring.

Although extremely old buildings are saved for historical value... they are also usually uninspiring (1790... 1820... etc) The few that are left are saved ... but there really aren't many left to begin with. They've already been torn down.

However look at Buffalo's PEAK development years: 1890 - 1930 and if you look at american architecture as a big picture you'll see those year coincide with some of the best times in American architecture. We lucked out! Other cities peaked in the 1970's and their cities look like rusted metal egg crates.

People from other cities Oooh and Ahhh at what we naively consider "mundane" old buildings in buffalo.

Have we foolishly saved all our buildings (AS YOU CLAIM) to the demise of our economy?? NO! WE'VE DESTROYED HUGE SWATHS OF GRAND ARCHITECTURE ALREADY!. Look at every empty parking lot and dirt pit in the city and realize that there used to be amazing architure there.

[Achbek1]

What people in buffalo fail to realize is that our city was uniquely blessed with grand architecture compared to many American cities... largely because our economy was at its prime during a time of incredible architural design.

Achbek... Think about which American architecture people swoon most about. It's not the 1960's or 1980's... but not simply because it's "New" it's because it's bland, cheap, and uninspiring.

Although extremely old buildings are saved for historical value... they are also usually uninspiring (1790... 1820... etc) The few that are left are saved ... but there really aren't many left to begin with. They've already been torn down.

However look at Buffalo's PEAK development years: 1890 - 1930 and if you look at american architecture as a big picture you'll see those year coincide with some of the best times in American architecture. We lucked out! Other cities peaked in the 1970's and their cities look like rusted metal egg crates.

People from other cities Oooh and Ahhh at what we naively consider "mundane" old buildings in buffalo.

Have we foolishly saved all our buildings (AS YOU CLAIM) to the demise of our economy?? NO! WE'VE DESTROYED HUGE SWATHS OF GRAND ARCHITECTURE ALREADY!. Look at every empty parking lot and dirt pit in the city and realize that there used to be amazing architure there.


I'm shaking your hand Miles and I'm taking all of your points to heart. I undestand the area's passion for architecture and that we do have a great amount of outstanding architecture. In fact, my mother always told me about how my grandfather's family owned a building company years ago and he and his brothers "built half the houses in North Buffalo." Architecture IS a valid form of artwork and, yes, is part of our city's prized possessions.

I agree with you on a lot of points and, you'll be happy to know, you HAVE made me stop and reconsider some things. And at times I feel as if you and I may be on the verge of an "adversaries become allies" kind of gig as you do in fact make me reconsider things... and maybe I you?

But I still hold my ideas close to my heart just as you hold your ideas close to yours... I still think that we need some form of modernization in WNY and we need businesses and also buildings that allow form over function-- especially if those buildings will house angencies that will EMPLOY people. At my job, and at each of the jobs I've held over the past few years, I deal with people who are-- among other things-- seeking to improve themselves to find better EMPLOYMENT. So obviously my point of view is going to be shaped by that.

(By the way, for a glimpse into what I see, go to www.buffalorising.com and type the word "suburban" into their search box. You will see many posts from both the writers as well as the posters wherein they equate anything new with suburban.)

[mesue]

Most live in Buffalo don't they?
Most here live in Buffalo, don't they?