Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 14:03     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

VS



#1 clearly.

BTW, what is wrong with detached garages? I prefer them. Did not realize I am in the minority.


The majority of america wants an attached forward facing garage

1) Can go directly in the home
2) Easier to park
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 14:02     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?

Mis-match! That's a Mini-Mickey with barely 2000 sqr ft- match vs the original listing.




SURPRISE contender



VS
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 14:00     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:

VS



#1 clearly.

BTW, what is wrong with detached garages? I prefer them. Did not realize I am in the minority.
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 14:00     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:

VS



Mis-match! That's a Mini-Mickey with barely 2000 sqr ft- match vs the original listing.
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:57     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?


VS

Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:54     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:

VS



I would happily live in either of these.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!?!
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:52     Subject: Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.



this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.


Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:



Here is what I look for in a new home







Really? These just look like they are trying to be "classic" and covering parts of them with faux stone facades. Talk about looking fake...


At least they aren't trying to look like a bungalow for the poors



hahahaha - at least you have a sense of humor!

Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:51     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:

VS



Neither are really my style, but #1 was better designed/executed.

I really dislike those fake partial walls of stone.
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:48     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?


VS

Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:44     Subject: Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.



this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.


Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:



Here is what I look for in a new home







Really? These just look like they are trying to be "classic" and covering parts of them with faux stone facades. Talk about looking fake...


At least they aren't trying to look like a bungalow for the poors
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:42     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:Looks like we have Mickey Simpson facing off against Sekas Homes here.


Round 1 FIGHT!
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:41     Subject: Re:Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Looks like we have Mickey Simpson facing off against Sekas Homes here.
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:25     Subject: Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.



this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.


Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:



Here is what I look for in a new home







Really? These just look like they are trying to be "classic" and covering parts of them with faux stone facades. Talk about looking fake...


ugh!! those are three of the most ugly houses I've seen. I hate this style and I imagine a subdivision hell with 2-3 models of these same ugly houses.
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:12     Subject: Is this a $2.2 mil house?
fake shutters....there is so much fake about it I really don't get why you prefer this over the "fake" new old-looking homes.
Anonymous
Post 08/05/2013 13:04     Subject: Is this a $2.2 mil house?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.



this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.


Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:



Here is what I look for in a new home







Really? These just look like they are trying to be "classic" and covering parts of them with faux stone facades. Talk about looking fake...


Plus cheap-looking fake cedar shake - really?