-
cklogic 04/14/2008 10:43:00 AM
www.searsarchives.com/homes/1933-1940.htm
Remember Sears Kit Homes? Try to click that into your shopping cart! haha
-
Anita 04/10/2008 6:15:00 PM
What about the houses that are surrounded by 20-foot tall unkempt laurel hedges, behind which is grass that's at least a foot tall, and vines that cover the house so you can't see it? I guess that's more of a property issue than an ugly house problem, but it's worth mentioning, too. And pictures--I want to see pictures!!
-
cassarooni 04/09/2008 5:02:00 PM
It has long been my opinion that a home built or remodeled/enlarged next to an existing home should not exceed 150% of the existing home's size. This keeps McMansions from drowning the cute bungalows in moss as a result of the shadows. A 1000sf home could have 1500sf homes next door. The 1500sf homes could have 2250sf next door. Next 3375sf, etc. until we get to the larger homes. Does this makes sense to anyone besides me?
-
blah blah blah 04/08/2008 8:46:00 AM
A four-bedroom house may or may not have six people living in it, but a two-bedroom will never have more than four. If you want a work of art, go to an art show. A building is a machine that performs a function. Hummers are offensive because they're pretentious and wasteful, not because they're big. School buses are bigger. Conventional cookie-cutter sprawl housing is pretentious and wasteful. Building the maximum building allowed on a lot is not pretentious or wasteful, it's just efficient.
-
Jeannie 04/07/2008 11:29:00 PM
"Large houses house more people"??? What the #$% indeed. That is the dumbest thing I've read all day.
-
what the #$% 04/07/2008 11:20:00 PM
Larger houses house more people. Larger houses are a more efficient use of land. Larger numbers of larger houses closer to the middle of town reduce sprawl and pointless long-distance commuting. A city is not a museum, and neighborhoods built 100 years ago can't accommodate 10 times as many people without building more housing.
-
Jeannie 04/07/2008 9:42:00 AM
I call them Hummer Houses: Big, ugly, tasteless monstrosities that show no consideration for others (and are environmental obscenities). Someone is building a Hummer House just down the block in our West Seattle neighborhool. It's humongous, and it has destroyed the view from our deck. What's worse, it's wrecking the character of our little community. As JoeM says above, there is no consideration for the community. "Neighbors" like this, with more money than class, are NOT welcome here.
-
joeM 04/03/2008 3:36:00 AM
The guide is so right on.
Seattle is REALLY lax when it comes to enforcing community standards on housing. A lot of it comes back to the 'it's my property, I'll do what I want with it' and the 'it's your property I can't complain' attitude prevalent out here.
People need to try to do what's best for the community not what's best only for them.
-
Paul Pival 04/03/2008 12:06:00 AM
I'm a real estate professional in Bainbridge Island so I'm not familiar with the Seattle market. If Mr. Miller's descriptions are even close to the truth (they are in any case delightful to read), I'm even happier where I am than I was this morning. Bainbridge Island's building codes are exactly what Seattle needs. I'm pleased to report that houses like those described here are in the tiny, tiny minority.
blog.kitsapluxuryhomes.com
-
Frederick R 04/02/2008 10:09:00 PM
Ridiculous. If people like Brian Miller had their way, this city would be *nothing* but bungalows in the "Seattle box" style.
-
Debbie Porter 04/02/2008 7:31:00 PM
Being from Appalachia, I would like to take offense to the Appalachian. But while I didn't grow up in such a place, I sure did see such places! However, two things are missing from the list: a trampoline and a satellite dish. I don't care how run down a house is, how poor the family is, there's a trampoline and satellite dish in every yard of rural Appalachia. (Oh, and Appalachia is pronounced with a hard CH.)
