Slow Home Project Winners for Dallas/ Fort Worth

Posted on: April 16th, 2010 | 21 Comments

This is Day 87 of the Slow Home Project and we need you to join us in our quest to evaluate the design quality of houses in nine North American cities in nine months. This week we are reviewing the results of our work in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex, and today we are very pleased to announce the Slow Home Award Winners.

First of all, a big thank you to all the Slow Home viewers who have been putting in their comments about the new site. It is going to take us a bit of time to work out all the kinks so we appreciate your patience! The overall opinion seems to be that everyone likes the new look of Slow Home and we hope that as more of the new features become activated next week that you continue to send your comments to us about what you like or what you would like to see us change about the site.

Now, onto the winners in Dallas/ Fort Worth for the best designed new house projects in the categories of apartment/ lofts, town houses and single family houses as voted by the viewers.

Best Design – Apartment/ Loft – Dallas/ Fort Worth

Lots of discussion here amongst the group, but the vote tally awards the prize to the Buzz Loft project built by Change Chamber Development and designed by T. Howard & Associates, Architects, Inc. This 1,252 sq ft unit sits within a “sustainable community of 49 condominiums geared to those seeking socioeconomic balance” as described on the project website.

Best Design – Town Houses – Dallas/ Fort Worth

The other two categories were tight in the voting, but not this one. The clear winner here was the Trinity Townhomes project. Many Slow Homers will remember this as the project we had analyzed for the “Which House Should I Buy” episode two weeks ago. Surprisingly close to downtown Dallas – just an 8 minute walk as it is right next to the river – this project has amazing views of the skyline and very livable floor plans.

Best Design – Single Family Houses – Dallas/ Fort Worth

Another tight race and the source of a lot of debate amongst the viewers, but the project 8427 Lakemont edged out the “Cube House” by the narrowest of margins. The winner was developed by Classic Urban Homes and should be commended for creating a very elegant design that is simple, well suited to its neighborhood context and offers a breath of fresh air in a city where most new single family homes are poorly designed.

So, our bags are packed and we are off to Colorado next week to get going on analyzing houses in Denver – our fourth stop in our nine city quest to evaluate the design quality of houses in 9 North American Cities in 9 months. We are looking forward to seeing everyone on Monday!

  • MollyK

    Good morning everyone,
    I’m disappointed that we nixed the award for single-family home over 2500 square feet. I realize these homes may not be the “norm” and, therefore, harder to find. But they offer more rooms and various layouts that are challenging to score. They force you to think more about functionality and organization because of the additional spaces.
    *****
    I’m also disappointed that the award for loft/condos <1000 square feet was nixed. I think it is important to look at the smaller units because they are so abundant and because their layouts are so restricted. They really are a different animal since so many lack traditional walls that define each space.

  • William (from Classic Urban Homes)

    Love it! Just a quick note – we are Classic URBAN Homes, not Classic MODERN Homes! If you don’t mind – could you change it in the body above? Thanks guys!

  • James Murray Scott

    I tend to agree somewhat with MollyK about the ranges.

    Now one of the reasons I didn’t vote for the Buzz Loft was that my 3 bedroom home with 2 full baths, family room, guest bedroom and all the other norms comes out at about 1400 square feet if you include the finished basement. Sure there are hurdles to overcome but a one bedroom open concept space such as this could be laid out a lot smarter. Two bathrooms and over 1200 sq.ft. for one bedroom, let’s get real, this is not sustainable architecture.

  • Mid America Mom

    Hi John and Matthew!
    I love your comments under the video.
    *
    Analysis was only Toronto and Dallas and you said the first report is on Toronto. Are we going to do anything with LA data?

    Thanks,
    Mid America Mom

  • Matthew North

    Molly K and James – thanks for the feedback about the voting categories. John and I will discuss this – we have been trying to come up with a balanced and sensible approach to the housing “types” that we have been analyzing in each city. We really wanted to keep the categories consistent between all the cities – this is difficult as you can imagine because some cities – like Vancouver for example – have a huge number of very small apartment/ loft projects – whereas in a city like Dallas or Atlanta – the apartment/ loft projects tend to be larger – we thought that we should vote by type as opposed to square footage. Generally we have found that the over 2500 square foot house category is a real dog show across the board, with very few projects meeting even basic slow home design guidelines. I would like to hear what other Slow Homers think about the voting categories as we continue to refine our site and processes.

  • Matthew North

    M.A.M. – to answer your question, yes, we will be compiling the data from L.A. – it seems like we there years ago, doesn’t it?! have patience, it will be coming soon!

  • Sean

    I did not vote on the various designs but am amazed that one of the winners has an ensuite where you have to walk through part of the bathroom to get to the walk-in closet.
    To me this has always been a no-brainer – it can be acceptable to go through the closet area to get to the bathroom but the other way around seems to be very poor design.

  • Mid America Mom

    I personally do not miss over 2500. Few reasons. Larger the home more of : an environmental impact, cost (we need to live more within our means), design suffers with too big spaces- wasted space- replication of space- or too many spaces, and “Houses started in 2009 but not yet finished by the end of the year were even smaller, according to the research. The median size of these homes fell further, to 2,094 square feet – http://earthandindustry.com/2010/01/us-home-sizes-shrink-as-buyers-opt-for-efficient-over-extravagant/ ” .

    I like to look first at the lower sq foot plans. Why buy bigger if a smaller home does fit the bill? Do the kids need their own room when as a married couple 99% time they are in the same one?
    *
    I personally would like to look at 3 or 4 bedroom homes at 2000 or less.
    Mid America Mom

  • BradW

    Sean – all the winning designs access the master closet from the bathroom – only Trinity does not force you to walk thru the bathroom – personally I do not like this either but it was very common in Dallas – in the Lakemont project master closet access is easily changed

  • BradW

    For all of you who want to get a head start on Denver the following web site might be useful – http://www.denver-cityscape.com/ – this provides a brief history of Denver and lists projects under development in the various neighborhoods…

  • BradW

    Finally, I like the simplicity of the three voting categories.

  • orangeopolis

    I’d just like to echo Mid America Mom’s comments. It’s hard to justify handing out a Slow Home Award to a house that sprawls out with 5+ bedrooms, duplicated dining rooms and living rooms. These kind of developments have spatial requirements that can only be found on the edge of cities or in the rare case of the redevelopment of a large use that’s moved on – ie. that one project I recall that was taking over a vacant airstrip. In this day and age, I think its arrogance that leads people to choose a house that costs more to heat, uses up more materials, has more deep spaces requiring more electric lighting, consumes more natural landscape (especially the kind that used to be used to grow FOOD), requires all new amenities to service it built with public funds, creates cultural wastelands, as so on and so on. I could go on and on about the issues with buying bigger…

  • Mid America Mom

    I am pleased with the winners! I am pleased to hear for the future owner of the lakemont property that being near that airport is not an issue.
    *
    Speaking of airports there is an airport, they use turbo props, basically on the waterfront of downtown Toronto with all these condos there. Never read or heard anyone say it was noisy (If I recall correctly the flight is North or South parallel to the waterfront). I bet the view must be wonderful- the water, airplanes, and the close-by islands.

    Mid America Mom

  • MollyK

    So let me get this straight…we shouldn’t attempt a SlowHome Award for homes over 2500 square feet because these homes are indicative of arrogant people. I thought we were scoring homes, not people. Large homes exist and they will continue to exist and to disregard them as legitimate contenders for a Slow Home award is like eliminating the Great Dane from competition at Wesminster because it takes up more space, consumes more food and water, and contributes more waste than a Scottish Terrior. The Slow Home philosophy champions the pursuit of livable homes, based on scoring floorplans of all sizes.
    This website is available to untold numbers of people so we need to be careful to temper our responses so they aren’t taken as insults or judgements of others. We are about analyzing homes…homeowners.
    ****
    As for the article from Earth and Industry submitted by MAM, the fall in the “median” size of homes in 2009 is directly correlated to the “tanking” of the economy. That doesn’t mean that large homes are on their way out. If Slow Home is about identifying well-designed homes and, hopefully, reducing poorly-designed homes don’t we have an obligation to find and award large homes, as well as small homes?
    ****
    If we simply don’t have any homes that score in the Slow range we certainly don’t have to give out an award. But, at this time, no one has given a legitimate reason to abolish the category.

  • MollyK

    The last sentence in the second paragraph should read…We are about analyzing homes…not homeowners.

  • James Murray Scott

    The Toronto waterfront is a great place and has been for years. But with transformation comes opportunity for some and not others. The residents on the island have been fighting the expansion of the airport, the replacement of the ferry with a fixed link and now a proposed tunnel. They have also been fighting to keep their homes, valuable real estate brings out the vultures, more money and an increased tax base. So needless to say the City of Toronto and other city, provincial, federal and business interests would like to see things look differently.

    Here is an article on one debate regarding the Island Airport (Billy Bishop)in Toronto. Please follow this link:

    http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?ctid=1000136&cnid=1002445

    As far as airplanes go the annual international airshow scared as many people away as it attracted.

  • James Murray Scott

    I must clarify that for The Canadian Internatioanl Airshow (CIAS) planes take off from both the downtown airport and Pearson International Airport northwest of the city.

  • orangeopolis

    MollyK,

    You made a good point about our obligation to find and award large homes, and I agree that there is a place for the large home. However, I don’t necessarily agree that the home and the homeowner are two separate, independent things. After all, the large-home market exists to service the desires of future homeowners, whose desires are in part defined by the homes they live in and the homes made available to them. I think that the common solution to the problems in the typical home is to just buy a bigger house. If this is the future of the market, if this is the expectation that developers cater to, then the size of the home balloons (as it seems to in Dallas) and is subject to a whole gamut of issues economically, politically, socially and environmentally. I’m not suggesting that we should ignore the large home, but be conscious of the issues. For example, when scoring the environmental performance point for a single family home, I’ve been taking into consideration the number of bedrooms (how many people are going to be living there), the proportions, the square footage, and the orientation since they all factor into the footprint of the home even before the inclusion of efficient appliances, solar panels, or greywater recylcing.

  • Mid America Mom

    Thank you James for sending that TO information.

    Mid America Mom

  • MollyK

    Orangeopolis,
    I don’t disagree with your observations. I do think we should be careful how we present our opinions on the website. We want people to embrace the philosophy not wonder if they fit into the “arrogant” category. If we can’t get people to build smaller we can encourage through education that they build smarter.

  • orangeopolis

    Well said MollyK