the ugliest houses in the neighborhood
of those that are currently on the market, this one on old dominion (8100 sq feet, finished – thumbnail at left) takes the cake. this one (6000 sq feet), built next door, is a close second. (the links are to the homes’ respective PDF brochures.) they’re being shown unfinished (mostly exterior work remains to be done, although there are still interior wiring and lighting issues) – possibly in the hopes of a sale before they’re foreclosed? (they’re also described as craftsman style, which is complete bs.) for nearly $2M, you too can own a monstrosity overlooking the scenic intersection of old dominion and lorcom lane.
(update: it seems these things (i hesitate to call them “homes”) are the misbegotten product of a company called roman design/build. another house they have on the market right now shows many of the same architectural offenses features as the two on old dominion.)
what is is about the neighborhood that leads builders to the worst kinds of offenses against architecture?
(for good measure i’m throwing in this photo of an actual craftstman-style home. good looking, isn’t it?)
on the other hand, i have to say i love this house, profiled in the city paper, on barton street (more interior photos here; listing agent here). although i do think it’s overpriced for the lot size, location (next door to a commercial property and right behind a bus shelter) and the neighborhood – not to mention the current market.
just to show you that bigger isn’t necessarily more liveable (and my house could be exhibit #1 in how stuff expands to fill the space you live in), there’s an article in the NYT about a very cool 344 sq foot apartment in hong kong, and a quick blurb from another dc-area blog about downsizing to 450 sq feet. that addition i’ve been thinking about is looking less appealing by the minute.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am
you forgot to mention how the designers of the big ugly houses on old dominion HATE toilets.
absolutely hate them.
nearly every toilet in those houses was in its own little room, inside the bathroom. because, heaven forfend that you should see a toilet when you go to take a shower.
(also, they hate tall people, because those toilet rooms were WAY too small for anyone over 5′6″ to use comfortably. especially if that person need a bit of a sit-down.)
March 1st, 2009 at 10:29 pm
You mean all the construction and nonsense that went on next door and now the thing won’t sell?!
Love the overpriced skinny house. Most shotguns are 10-12 feet wide… and thus, our house is divided similarly from when it was two homes. We like saying we live in a double-wide.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
holly – no, the nonsense that went on next door was, unfortunately, an owner-build (meaning that the *ahem* who built the horror is now my neighbor). the other houses, though, have all been built on spec – something that probably seemed like a better idea before the market softened.
our zip code hasn’t seen the drop in prices that much of the country has, though, so they may yet sell (if anyone is rich enough and blind enough to put money down), and the builders may yet turn a profit. to be honest, the best use i can think of for the 8100 square foot monstrosity is a group house – there are enough rooms and bathrooms to turn it into a b&b or a swanky share for twentysomethings. minimum yard also means minimum exterior upkeep for the landlord. i’d hate to think of the utility bills, though.
the skinny house is pretty neat. and i’m going to have to visit your place the next time i’m in n’awlins – the work paul has put into it is inspiring and beautiful.