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
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.
the bottom is inevitably brick while the top is siding.
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
Anonymous wrote:I think there is no right and wrong for this topic, Just purely personal taste.
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.
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.