Over the past many years I have had the pleasure of working with some of the truly great residential architects from around the country, many of whom would be considered the legends of the industry. And these exceptionally talented men and women provided my clients and myself with some amazing single family homes, townhomes, condominiums and rental apartments. I am proud to have worked with these designers and to have participated in the process that created housing units that are as livable today as they were when they were designed up to 40 years ago.
In the past, it was typically understood and agreed that the “client”, the builder or the builder’s marketing director, would have done the market and competitive research and combined that with the builder’s capabilities and vision to create the strategy on which the new home designs would be based. The architect would then take that strategy and utilizing experience and talent, plus ongoing input and critique from the client, translate that into livable, exciting, salable home designs.
Most recently, I have been working with a client on a single family community and the client selected an architect with whom he and I have worked before with more than acceptable results. This time, however, it seems that the architect is willing to be satisfied with what I consider to be “82% houses”.
– the elevations are 82% of what they should be (the rooflines are neither impressive nor cost-optimized, the home entries create no exciting sense of arrival, the total feel is rather bland and unbalanced, etc.);
– the room sizes and orientation are 82% of great (some rooms are needlessly oversized, others are too small, there are three distinct dining areas directly adjoining each other, etc.);
– the features are 82% of what we want (the master bath lacks excitement, the kitchens are dated, dull designs with imperfect work areas, secondary bedrooms have undersized closets and lack direct access to bathrooms, etc.);
– the basic designs are 82% of fully usable (the homes lack the ability for optional variations within the basic structure – den into bedroom, game room into master study, bedroom into second master suite, etc.).
Now it may not appear that a new home that is only 82% of optimal would be a problem to sell for 82% was a solid “B” when I was in school but the elements are each, individually, 82% so that the total home is actually only 45% of optimal (.82 x .82 x .82 x .82) and that, by any scoring method, is a “D”. How many of my readers would wish to have to sell a home when the design is universally considered to have received a failing grade? Continue reading