"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
27 July 2007Cottage cheeseBridgeport Development operates three different home-building companies, each aimed at a different price point. In today's Oklahoman classifieds, Bridgeport has a full-page ad supporting all three: Newhaven Homes, the middle child, has eleven units for sale in the Williamson Farms area, near SW 119th and Meridian. Seven of those units are denoted "villas" in the ad; the other four are listed as "estates." The line of demarcation isn't quite as obvious, though, as I might have anticipated: the largest "villa" (1764 square feet) is bigger than the smallest "estate" (1702). Then again, I'm still trying to figure out "cottage," which, perhaps due to too many fairy tales, I tend to think of as a smallish sort of place, although houses sold as "cottages" around here tend to look about the size of Costco stores. (Disclosure: We don't actually have any Costco stores in these parts.) The only thing I'm sure of these days is that four houses equal one hotel. And keep in mind that there are smartasses out there who have the temerity to refer to a house barely over 1000 square feet, on a lot just over a quarter of an acre, as an "estate," and "palatial" at that.
Bonus: This is the sort of house I dreamed about when I was much younger. The drawing is cropped from a 1948 Packard brochure found at The Old Car Manual Project. By coincidence, the palatial Surlywood estate was constructed in 1948, to, shall we say, a smaller scale. Posted at 4:59 PM to Almost YogurtI like the rendering of your 'dream house' I wouldn't mind a place like that myself - and a Packard to go with it. Where I live, they have a new trend of building the McMansions. Usually 2500 square feet, two story homes that are built about 16 feet apart. The yard is barely large enough for a welcome mat. All house, no landscaping. I hate them - they block the view and they are ugly to boot. Ironically, the '48 Packards, unlike '48 ranch houses, weren't long and lean: they were paunchy around the edges and had a short, squat grille. Still, they were true Packards, with all the luxury the name implies. In my neighborhood, you can't legally build beyond the original setback of the original house, which would make it difficult (though not impossible) to construct a McMansion in the usual sense. Posted by: CGHill at 6:38 PM on 27 July 20071948 ? A good year ! :-) Posted by: Paul at 7:17 AM on 28 July 2007Same thing here. I was told that if possible your original slab is reused. If not then another is poured but it has to be in exactly the same place. The new structure can be arranged differently if you wish. I didn't ask about additional stories! I suppose you could replace a single story ranch with a two or three story to make it bigger. Posted by: ms7168 at 7:30 AM on 28 July 2007Well, you can't go much higher: there is an overall limit of 2½ stories and/or 35 feet. Posted by: CGHill at 9:11 AM on 28 July 2007The line of demarcation isn't quite as obvious, though, as I might have anticipated: the largest "villa" (1764 square feet) is bigger than the smallest "estate" (1702). Well, in my mind "estate" in this context implies a house on a fairly sizeable piece of land. Is there any correlation between the terminology and the size of the yard? Posted by: McGehee at 11:06 AM on 28 July 2007I have addressed this in the current Spottings post. Posted by: CGHill at 7:31 PM on 28 July 2007I still dream about that sort of house. Although I'm no longer quite so enamored of the large expanse of lawn. My own Weedhaven is of 1946 vintage, and just under 1100 square feet. A bit smaller than I'd prefer, but it is just me here. Posted by: wheels at 7:36 PM on 30 July 2007 |
