There is a battle in many communities across the country. On the one hand, the overwhelming force of progress is homeowners and developers, and home buyers are in a hurry to move to brand new homes. On the other hand, the immovable property of the communal government and citizens have already settled in growing areas. Combatants are fighting for the right to determine which neighborhoods look like — in particular, how to manage cookie-cutter houses and ensure a variety of architectural designs.
Families that occupy the first few houses in a new neighborhood are often surprised when they find that an almost identical version of the house, which they call themselves, is built two doors down. how what to happen? In the end, when they met their builder, they chose brick color, siding color and roof tiles; they canceled the plan and chose an updated landscaping package. But suddenly their vision of home ownership, their biggest investment, their pride, is diluted with similar visions sprouting up their entire street.
On the other hand, home builders and developers are under strong financial and competitive pressure. Development begins many years before construction, when land developers buy and “stock up” land for future use. This is a speculative game, and developers are crossing their fingers that home buyers will want the land they bought today ten years ago. The trick is to appeal to a wide audience and buy land in areas that will now be in demand. Part of this broader appeal is expressed in the design of houses that are offered for sale or construction in these areas. The safest route is always a small number of easily modified structures that can be accurately evaluated and satisfy the desires of the largest number of people.
When a home buyer sits down to “set up” one of these plans, he usually chooses from a pre-defined vocabulary of options designed to work together and create an attractive home. This is a workable system, until you think that in this area, where home buyers are similar in age, income, education, values, etc., it is very likely that their tastes in home design are also similar. And before you know it, two different customers, starting with the same basic plan, selected similar materials and colors. Sorry what?
Everyone, of course, has the right to decide what his own house looks like. Some of the best homes in America are unique, distinctive designs that truly reflect the identity of their owners. But these houses are rarely built in “typical” suburban quarters. Most likely, they are located on properties isolated from any meaningful architectural context and need only trees and land.
Most homes in this country are built next to other houses. A group of houses together form a neighborhood, and the neighborhood often looks best (and they think it's best) when the houses in it have a common design. But here the battle begins. Houses may be too similar, and the neighborhood may be monotonous. The attractiveness of attractive homes is weakened. Soon homeowners and city officials criticize the repetition of comparable homes, and builders and developers are forced to defend their right to build what their buyers demand.
This is a complex and complex problem, but there are solutions. The most common design analysis process is the system for determining whether a particular design is compatible with the houses around it. Although by nature a subjective analysis of design can have a high degree of objectivity, if clear guidelines are drawn up. Historic neighborhoods across the country have successfully used the project review for years to preserve their character and property values. New communities use design principles to simultaneously ensure design compatibility and ensure architectural diversity. The project review process requires that attention be paid to the design of each house as a separate project, and not just as a rearrangement of the standard plan. It also requires that each proposed design be evaluated in terms of the houses around it.
But because of the inherent difficulty of introducing rules to something as subjective and personal as home design, the design review process can be cumbersome and painful.
The best solution is to add more “custom” to the user design process. A “real” ordinary home is one that is designed from the very beginning, taking into account the needs, dreams, desires and desires of a particular owner. When a house reflects the characteristics of a family, it displays a unique character that cannot be transferred to another house. This, by definition, is different from everyone else. Creating more authentic custom cookie-cutter homes in the vicinity adds much of the desired diversity, which increases the level of architectural integrity for the entire community.
For a homeowner, there are several rewards for participating in an individual design process. The most obvious is a home that is better suited for a particular family than a speculative home designed for a wide market. This may mean that there is more joy and satisfaction in life. This may mean that the constructed spaces are actually used - unlike many new houses, where the outdated formal spaces are a bit more room for displaying furniture.
But the biggest reward may be financial. A private house is often a small house, and small houses give you the opportunity to pay less for the entire project or to spend money on better parts (and these are the details that make really beautiful houses). A private home can also use materials more efficiently, saving money on the basic structure of the building. Even the additional costs of the designers can be covered by savings in the house itself.
Recently, my construction client called to discuss what can be done for a potential buyer who is “struggling” to afford to build a house in a nearby area where design rules encourage the use of expensive exterior materials. The budget of the buyer is limited, but he does not want to give up in the house; He thinks about the abolition of exterior design. If he does, he will surely take on the rage of the project board. His buyer may not know this, but he is going to become a foot soldier in the ongoing battle for the right to control the appearance of our communities.
