Things I hate on homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alot of people don't want a full brick house because siding is low maintenance and can last ss long. They just want some brick to add some aesthetics. My wife hates brick homes and thinks they look drab, ugly and old unlike the west coast style homes she is used to. I grew up here and am used to the all brick giant square boxes in our area. When we built we compromised on all siding with and brick lining the foundation a few feet up.

If you are going to do a semi, it looks better for the brick to be at the base all around rather than on a face.

That is your opinion. To me the half brick all around looks very dated and 1960's/1970's. Not a very good look to me. I had that on my last house that was built in 1967 and always thought that it was just very period. Kind of like shag carpet. I happen to prefer the brick front.

ITA, All bricks house for some reasons looks boring and appear to looks smaller than siding. Semi is a good combination between the two, but siding color is also very important role.

I think semi should looks good for the brick to be at the base all around plus brick on the front face as well.

[Anonymous]

I actually think siding can look great and I much prefer a house that's all siding to one that's half brick. And that's coming from someone who has an all brick house.

[Anonymous]

When you all say "siding" do you mean clapboard? or actually vinyl siding? Vinyl siding NEVER looks good. Its tacky and cheap and nasty. Clapboard houses are gorgeous. You can always tell which is which.

As for an all brick house looking ugly or smaller, that is just hilarious folks. Your taste gauge is wayyyyy off. I do not live in a brick house but that is like saying polyester looks and is as good as silk. It says a lot more about YOU and your background than it does about brick houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you all say "siding" do you mean clapboard? or actually vinyl siding? Vinyl siding NEVER looks good. Its tacky and cheap and nasty. Clapboard houses are gorgeous. You can always tell which is which.

As for an all brick house looking ugly or smaller, that is just hilarious folks. Your taste gauge is wayyyyy off. I do not live in a brick house but that is like saying polyester looks and is as good as silk. It says a lot more about YOU and your background than it does about brick houses.

agree, but you have to understand that some comments on DCUM are reactionary, just to argue. Also, some people live in homes as we have described with poor taste and it is hard to look at your 1 mil investment that way.
There is no way that it is architecturally correct to have a brick facade from a structural standpoint. I am well aware that the exterior no longer carries any load, rather it is just stuck on, but at least they could make it look real. I see that w/ stone walls that no true mason would ever build. The stone is placed like a kid would have done it with super glue. You really see the cheapness in hoes when a tornado or hurricane does damage. The brick peels off like old nail polish, the "stucco" just blows away, the "siding" is twisted like spaghetti. Then you see the cardboard below.

[Anonymous]

I think there is no right and wrong for this topic, Just purely personal taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is no right and wrong for this topic, Just purely personal taste.

+1

As a logical person I understand brick vs siding, colors etc... is all taste but when it comes down to square footage and living space EVERYONE can agree a larger newer home is better then living in an 1300 SQRFT bunglo from 1940

[Anonymous]

No, everyone cannot agree that larger is better. I live in a 1950's 1200 sq ft cape and like it very much, and chose it over a larger house. However, it was built as track housing and the quality is crap. That I mind. Living in a newer, larger house, however, is not inherently "better."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is no right and wrong for this topic, Just purely personal taste.

+1

As a logical person I understand brick vs siding, colors etc... is all taste but when it comes down to square footage and living space EVERYONE can agree a larger newer home is better then living in an 1300 SQRFT bunglo from 1940

Not true. If you can't afford to heat such a home like my sis, at this time of year it is not fun.
I would like a larger home BUT it MUST be well built with natural (wood) siding, stone, or brick, true divided light windows, and so on. I can not afford that, so the next best thing is a smaller home with quality materials. If you build with quality, you are looking at $250-300 a square foot. For a 3500 sq foot house it is way out of my range after buying the land. Yes, I would like my house to look good after 200 years like the ones I see in Europe. To get that look, it requires commitment to quality. I will not live to see it, but I can tell while living in it. My BIL lives in a 1971 modern house in NY, built by an architect for his family. The doors and windows are amazing, the flooring is solid, nothing done cheaply.

[Anonymous]

This string has been useful for at least one thing: I learned the term "mullet house" (brick in front, vinyl in back). Excellent!

[Anonymous]

I once looked at a house with the fake muntins and considered asking the contractor to remove the windows and give me a discount, so that I could get someone else to place nicer ones. We did not do it.

[Anonymous]

the bottom is inevitably brick while the top is siding.

I've always called these "Lego houses," because they remind me of building a house out of Lego when I was little and running out of whatever color I made the first floor, so the second floor is another color.

I don't understand why people don't paint the brick to match the siding.

[Anonymous]

IMO, whether it is siding or brick, when come to the decision, this will not be deal breaker for me, because there are so many factors other than this can affect your decision. school, community, location, interior, Sqft, and "PRICE"

unless you buy a custom home, otherwise either it is siding or brick, it is always nice to have it, but it is not a must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is no right and wrong for this topic, Just purely personal taste.

+1

As a logical person I understand brick vs siding, colors etc... is all taste but when it comes down to square footage and living space EVERYONE can agree a larger newer home is better then living in an 1300 SQRFT bunglo from 1940

Not true. If you can't afford to heat such a home like my sis, at this time of year it is not fun.
I would like a larger home BUT it MUST be well built with natural (wood) siding, stone, or brick, true divided light windows, and so on. I can not afford that, so the next best thing is a smaller home with quality materials. If you build with quality, you are looking at $250-300 a square foot. For a 3500 sq foot house it is way out of my range after buying the land. Yes, I would like my house to look good after 200 years like the ones I see in Europe. To get that look, it requires commitment to quality. I will not live to see it, but I can tell while living in it. My BIL lives in a 1971 modern house in NY, built by an architect for his family. The doors and windows are amazing, the flooring is solid, nothing done cheaply.

I think unless someone has the opportunity to live in or be a guest in a house that is truly well-built, it's hard to explain why it should be appreciated. So many people, like the pp you quoted, value quantity over quality and builders are only too happy to oblige.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is no right and wrong for this topic, Just purely personal taste.

+1

As a logical person I understand brick vs siding, colors etc... is all taste but when it comes down to square footage and living space EVERYONE can agree a larger newer home is better then living in an 1300 SQRFT bunglo from 1940

On the contrary, we like smaller spaces. Easier to clean, heat, live in - we purposely chose a 1928 bungalow and not a new, large home for this reason.