I love the townhouse trend. (I'll never say "townhome", as that's a fake word invented by the RE industry to sneak the word "home" in.)
The architecture is usually fine, or even pretty good. Not inventive usually, just making use of styles we already know and like...if done right. Of course the quality varies.
The biggest problem is driveways. Apparently it's hugely cheaper to build units with a garage in each (i.e. houses) rather than a single garage with greenery and houses on top (considered multifamily?). The former means the whole site is taken up by driveways, which are also dangerous for kids to play in. The latter apparently has big repercussions in terms of permitting and I think insurance.
Townhouses will keep Seattle's house prices from going stratospheric. Without them, supply would fall behind vs. demand, and we'd get San Francisco type massive price runups (their prices are double ours). They're also cheaper to build than regular houses, because they use less land and through economies of scale.
brian
· 2 years ago
zero lot-line ths can't have a shared garage, then it's a condo bldg. kids have to play in the driveway because by building ths, the green space is minimized and the bldgs are maximized. they are most definitely NOT cheaper to build than sfh. lots of sfh don't have a garage, for example. most sfh don't take up 85% of their lot for bldg and pavement. but you know what they do well? make loads of money for gcs and developers. and i guess allow people to buy that can't afford a sfh. i disagree about housing price runups if we didn't have ths, but that's another conversation.
confusa
· 2 years ago
These things are atrocities! They are ruining Seattle and turning us into anytown USA. There is absolutely nothing "craftsman" about the designs though they are all marketed as such. Looks like every developer is using the exact same plans...so sad.
kh
· 2 years ago
the faux craftsman style is not appealing to me at all. i've worked with a few developers in the past who were doing the cookie-cutter approach. while they did maximize profits in terms of stream-lining materials and reducing construction errors (if they can say to do it like the last building instead of having to follow the new plans/details) it is EXTREMELY boring to both the design team and potential buyers...
i think the dwelling company is doing a great job of thinking about the architecture of their urban townhomes. www.dwellingcompany.com
for people who don't want to deal with a yard they seem to be a good alternative to single family homes. i'm all for a new movement to increase the level of standards during the design review process :)
mhays
· 2 years ago
The nomo12 link doesn't seem to work. Modernon64th is freaking hideous! It's the sort of thing many architects would love but few others would. Even a mid-quality "fake craftsman" looks better. I do like the project in NW Downtown Bellevue and some other projects that mix traditional elements with modern ones.
Brian, you say townhouses don't cost less to build, but they sell for less than SFRs. Sounds inconsistent. A townhouse is just a SFR that's typically more stacked and has parking inside the unit. The living space is generally more per square foot due to the stacking and code issues compared to a basic house. But the economies of scale and (sometimes) smaller square footages keep the prices from reaching SFR level on average.
"Modernon64th is freaking hideous! Its the sort of thing many architects would love but few others would."
haha - i disagree, but i'm an interior designer. :) i would hope that more people have appreciation for a building that incorporated design elements and style rather than what joe builder did down the street. of course style/taste is a personal thing - i like modern design, others likes craftsman, colonial, ranch style, victorian... you get my point. that what makes walking through our neighborhoods interesting. nobody likes cookie cutter anything lined up right next to each other.
mhays
· 2 years ago
Even cookie cutter can be nice if done right. Walk down a London side street full of old houses!
kh
· 2 years ago
mhays, i do agree... and row houses in boston & san fran are very nice and timeless as well.
i guess it's the cookie cutter of less than desirable design styles that i don't appreciate. (ie. faux craftsman!)
JasonC
· 2 years ago
While I agree most of the quickly-built townhouses are cheesy, especially those faux-craftsman ones, I can't blast them because of their lack of yards or "green space". Are Victorian or Georgian row houses ugly because they lack yards? What about NYC brownstones? Yards are kind of suburbany and American to me, and while they have their place and certainly don't expect them in urban construction. They can be great, but I won't fault a place for not having them.
JasonC
· 2 years ago
PS: I like modernon64th
seattle67
· 2 years ago
Don't townhomes make a nice transition between larger 4-story NC-40 type multi-use developments and single family zoned properties?
kh
· 2 years ago
seattle67, i think they do make a nice transition, espcially in the more dense areas like queen anne, capitol hill, eastlake, etc.
quotes from the stranger article: "[Developers] are being allowed to do virtually whatever they want. By the time they began construction, it was too late."
"It's not the density that's a problem for us," Thaler says. "We'd like development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. There are a lot of [developers] out there who will put in any old crap. When they come in to develop... [they don't] allow for meaningful input from the neighbors."
from Alan Justad of DPD, "We're hearing that some [developments] look great, but there are others that... don't fit in as well as they could. We've started to brainstorm about which [designs] work and why."
i think most agree that density is not the issue, but rather what it looks like.
kh
· 2 years ago
here's another architect in seattle that's designing great looking modern townhouses, Pb Elemental:
All Comments
The architecture is usually fine, or even pretty good. Not inventive usually, just making use of styles we already know and like...if done right. Of course the quality varies.
The biggest problem is driveways. Apparently it's hugely cheaper to build units with a garage in each (i.e. houses) rather than a single garage with greenery and houses on top (considered multifamily?). The former means the whole site is taken up by driveways, which are also dangerous for kids to play in. The latter apparently has big repercussions in terms of permitting and I think insurance.
Townhouses will keep Seattle's house prices from going stratospheric. Without them, supply would fall behind vs. demand, and we'd get San Francisco type massive price runups (their prices are double ours). They're also cheaper to build than regular houses, because they use less land and through economies of scale.
i think the dwelling company is doing a great job of thinking about the architecture of their urban townhomes. www.dwellingcompany.com
a few other good ones i've seen lately are nomo12 in west seattle www.nomo12.com, and modern on 64th in ballard www.modernon64th.com.
for people who don't want to deal with a yard they seem to be a good alternative to single family homes. i'm all for a new movement to increase the level of standards during the design review process :)
Brian, you say townhouses don't cost less to build, but they sell for less than SFRs. Sounds inconsistent. A townhouse is just a SFR that's typically more stacked and has parking inside the unit. The living space is generally more per square foot due to the stacking and code issues compared to a basic house. But the economies of scale and (sometimes) smaller square footages keep the prices from reaching SFR level on average.
"Modernon64th is freaking hideous! Its the sort of thing many architects would love but few others would."
haha - i disagree, but i'm an interior designer. :) i would hope that more people have appreciation for a building that incorporated design elements and style rather than what joe builder did down the street. of course style/taste is a personal thing - i like modern design, others likes craftsman, colonial, ranch style, victorian... you get my point. that what makes walking through our neighborhoods interesting. nobody likes cookie cutter anything lined up right next to each other.
i guess it's the cookie cutter of less than desirable design styles that i don't appreciate. (ie. faux craftsman!)
quotes from the stranger article:
"[Developers] are being allowed to do virtually whatever they want. By the time they began construction, it was too late."
"It's not the density that's a problem for us," Thaler says. "We'd like development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. There are a lot of [developers] out there who will put in any old crap. When they come in to develop... [they don't] allow for meaningful input from the neighbors."
from Alan Justad of DPD, "We're hearing that some [developments] look great, but there are others that... don't fit in as well as they could. We've started to brainstorm about which [designs] work and why."
i think most agree that density is not the issue, but rather what it looks like.
http://www.elementalarchitecture.com/projects/m...