Comparing Single Family Homes In Chicago

Posted on: August 31st, 2010 | 21 Comments

This is Day 224 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.

Today is Tuesday. August 30, 2010 and we need everyone to participate in our “Which House Should I Buy?” segment!

Our clients are Ned and Stacy – a soon to be retired couple who want to re-locate from their large, single family house to a more modest tow bedroom home in an adult community. The couple have opposing schedules with Ned being a night owl and Stacy being an early riser, so their new home needs to address this lifestyle. In addition, they would like a second bedroom for when their kids come to visit.

They like the community of Shorewood Glenn, which is about an hour west of Chicago.

The first house they are considering is the “Charleston”, which is a 2,015 sq ft and has 2 bedrooms, 2 baths and a den.

The second house is the “Plymouth”, which is 2,238 sq ft and also has 2 bedrooms, 2 baths an a den.

Which house do you think Ned and Stacy should buy? Leave your comments on the site and let’s have a discussion! When you are ready, click on the player below to see which house John and Matthew think is the better real estate choice.

Join us tomorrow for another Design Project where we will be transforming a badly designed single family house in Chicago into a Slow Home!

  • BradW

    Checking out the twitter feed…kum ba yah baby…from within the mellow I found a slowhome post referencing a CNN Money housing survey…predictably we find the normal all-american homeowner has 23 years remaining on the first mortgage for his/her 3 bedroom less than 2000sq ft home…not so predictable was this quote
    “According to the Census Bureau, about 20% of homeowners live in towns with populations between 2,500 and 20,000. Just 5% reside in very small towns. Big cities claim a miniscule 3.8% of the population.”
    Just 3.8% of Americans live in big cities!? Huh…never would have guessed that but, if true, maybe the SlowHome bias to hardcore urban locations is not so relevant…

    Regarding the housing choice above…Plymouth much better living/dining/kitchen arrangement – most issues are small and can easily be addressed.

  • Mid America Mom

    Moving out today! See last Friday for the floorplan I am moving too :)

    I would take the Plymouth as the living space has better flow and layout. The dark dining room in the other plan really is a bad space.

    Mid America Mom

  • BradW

    MAM – good luck with your move and congrats on the new home!

  • Paul C

    Matthew and John,
    I agree with you purchase recommendation. This may go beyond the SlowHome test or maybe it should fall under the location criteria but there was no comment or reference to how this development is age restricted. I am curious to read/see how other’s feel that attribute relates to SlowHome principles. I think it is contrary for imo it is not representative of a true community.

  • Sean

    The circulation in the Charleston model is terrible. The furniture in the Great Room would have to sit in the middle like an island with effective passage ways on 3 sides. There is no way to fix this house easily.

    The Plymouth model is not as bad in some ways, some issues could be worked around. In the end I, too, think one could do better elsewhere and not buy either.

  • Catherine Taney

    Brad –
    I don’t think that the Slow Home has a ‘hardcore urban’ bias. The location point in my mind is about modes of transit and accessibility beyond the given of the automobile. It wouldn’t be fair to rate a plan’s quality of location based on the vagaries of socio-political history, nostalgic feelings, or peak traffic times. It has to be more universally quantitative. The townhome category for Chicago has proven this – that you don’t have to live in downtown Chicago to have a great walkscore (meaning ability to get around without a car). While apt/lofts tend to be located in the downtowns of the cities we’ve looked at, they are also there because that’s the only place they can go thanks to zoning bylaws. It’s just a fact of the matter that the North American suburb is planned around the automobile. This is the problem, not country living. I think it’s the decision to live in the country and work in the city that is the issue when the only way to get from A to B is with a car. It makes the downtown a parking lot and the inner suburbs subject to a rat’s nest of ever-expanding roads to service the edges. Surely we all already know this, but the situation doesn’t seem to be changing. I say, kudos to John and Matthew for taking a stance against sprawl, against the auto-suburb, and finding real examples of how we can live in cities sustainably and comfortably.

    Whew! As for my assessment of today’s picks, I am a fence leaner! I just can’t decide if Ned and Stacy should be living in a house of this kind being that there is only the 2 of them. There is just an awful lot of things going awry and the missing first 3 points of the Slow Home Test make me somewhat hesitant to make a suggestion. I guess if I had to chose I would go with the Charleston, but if they were open-minded and not stuck on the idea of a bungalow, I would make a strong argument for Ned and Stacy to look into a 3 story townhome with a rear-drive garage and a guest suite on the main floor – naturally with a better location and hopefully some water and energy saving features.

  • BradW

    Catherine – It has been well documented that I think the SlowHome test has some flaws – most notably the location category and its almost exclusive relationship to walk score. Location has the largest effect on affordability and, as a result, is a very personal decision. The SlowHome test heavily rewards urban walkable locations which are simply unaffordable for the vast majority. That is hardcore, it is wrong and, ultimately, it undermines the relevance of the test.

  • BradW

    Slow Home works best when the focus remains on design quality. We have seen over and over examples of poorly designed homes of all types and sizes easily reworked into great spaces by a rag tag group of architect wannabes. A great location, optimal siting and advanced eco features are difference makers but for most of us they remain aspirational. And as for the car, well, I am keeping mine.

  • Catherine Taney

    Brad – I agree that a good walk score should not be the only reason a home gets the Slow points. I also agree that “walkably” located new houses often come with a much higher price tag. I think that this is because a developer has more overhead to cover on a site in an existing neighborhood and needs to charge more to get a good return on investment. This kind of development, often derided due to its association with gentrification, needs to include affordable options when replacing or upgrading the existing housing stock. What we typically see, which I think you are taking as a given reality, is that affordable housing (market, subsidized, etc.) is pushed further and further out.
    That said, what options do you think we have for improving the existing fabric of our cities without leading to gentrification? Does this mean public-private partnerships that enable developers to recoup costs and turn a profit (a necessity to continue to do their work) through public investment? As it stands, the market alone will go where the money is, and lead to gentrification. But is gentrification a wholly unacceptable idea? Taking those top earners out of public taxation puts a heavy burden on middle to low income earners. Do economist-planners at the City cultivate high-end developments as a way to even out their budgets?
    OR are we asking the Slow Home Test to do too much?

  • Catherine Taney

    “Slow Home works best when the focus remains on design quality.”

    Well, that may be true, but the award winners all seem to have the commonality of more and more thinking about the role of their particular designs in the world as a whole (ie. sustainable design, planning, urban design, triple bottom line, etc.). I totally agree that Slow Home works great when it is about floorplans and house quality, but that discussion is all the more enriched by a discussion about daylighting, adaptive reuse, and ‘modesty’ of design, as much as it is about location, environmental performance and siting. IMHO

  • Paul C

    Catherine and Brad W,
    Great discussion. I think you are just on the verge of a discussion that planners et al have been wrestling with for years if not decades. How to entice a suburban homebuyer into considering a re-development alternative? In my neck of the woods, unfortunately, it may be that the majority of homebuyers employ a simple evaluation based on price per sq. ft. The buyer will trade-off some square footage for a better, closer-in, more established location but a “family” buyer will struggle with getting the square footage they believe to be necessary, at a price they can afford and will resort to buying further out. Higher unit density in a comparable suburban low density form, likely with less square footage and/or a smaller outdoor living space seem to be viable solutions thus far.

    On this discussion, I would say that yes maybe we are asking too much of the SH test. Maybe there should be a SlowHome neighbourhood?

  • Terri

    Interesting discussion, Catherine, BradW and Paul C. Seems like every now or then this kind of debate comes up here, as we try to reconcile the single family home with affordability and green thinking. However,
    I’m not wading into the debate today. :)

    What I want to suggest to our buyers today is that they save themselves about $45,000 and go for the Liberty plan from this development. The other two plans have too much space for one couple. The foyer seems more reasonable (used for both garage and main door)which makes sense. There’s a short walk from garage to kitchen and there’s no duplicate dining space. A nice central great room has a bit of a separation from the “owner’s suite.” The den has a side-yard condition, but bedroom 2 could be used as a den and the infrequent guests stay in the den. The bathroom isn’t that far of a walk for them to access it across the way. Anyway, even though it’s 1539 SF, there’s ample enough storage. I can see a couple being quite comfortable in this smaller plan.
    http://www.delwebb.com/templates/av/index.html?plan=../../communities/il/shorewood/shorewood-glen/plans/av/liberty

  • Terri

    M.A.M.,
    Best of luck with your move to Chicagoland, USA!

  • Tara

    I would choose the Plymouth for Ned and Stacy. Though the kitchen work triangle is large and awkward, the placement and flow between the three main living spaces (kitchen living and dining) is much better in this plan. I think that the nook could be a nice space for Stacy to sit and enjoy the morning, while the den is more private for Ned to enjoy his nighttime activities.

  • Anonymous

    MAM good luck on the move…
    John and Matthew the new format sounds good. I like the idea that people will have th e opportunity to select what information they want feedback on.

    I really dislike the dining room (the garage blocks any front light opportunity) and entry in the charleson,

    Plymouth has much better entry and dining spaces but a bad bedroom, bad back entry, hug master bath and odd living room.

    i think neither should win but I would vote Plymouth because it has a better office and that was one things that the clients wanted…..

  • Grace Coulter

    MAM good luck on the move…
    John and Matthew the new format sounds good. I like the idea that people will have th e opportunity to select what information they want feedback on.

    I really dislike the dining room (the garage blocks any front light opportunity) and entry in the charleson,

    Plymouth has much better entry and dining spaces but a bad bedroom, bad back entry, hug master bath and odd living room.

    i think neither should win but I would vote Plymouth because it has a better office and that was one things that the clients wanted…..

  • Tiffany

    I agree with John and Matthew, neither of these plans should be considered for purchase. They both have way too many problems to be redeemable. Also, I have been thinking about this all day, and I strongly believe that both of these houses are way too large for only two people. I would strongly recommend to the couple that they look at something smaller and in a much more walkable area.

  • Dan M

    I too feel that neither of these are ideal for a retiring couple, 2000ft2 is way to much room if you are looking to downsize in my opinion. Just think about how much cleaning either of those plans will have, and as one ages, cleaning becomes more of a chore (no pun intended). Nevertheless, if one must be chosen the Plymouth would be the best as it has the nicest flow. The walk in laundry/mudroom from the garage is nice on both though.

    I would think that for a retiring couple wanting to move to an ‘active adult living community’, what they should really consider is an adult condo unit. You get all your amenities (usually media rooms, pool, games room, possibly library), people to interact with, and spaces that are proportioned generally more to what you really need (unless you are set on a house) all under one roof (except the golf course) and you still have someone to look after the lawn. Think of it this way, living in a condo unit, with everything in short walking distance inside your building, Ned could go to the pool or play some pool while Stacy sleeps (or vice-versa), all without having to get dressed and go drive to the clubhouse or whatever in the middle of an Illinois winter. That is just my thoughts on the ‘single family home’ ‘active living’ adult (55+) living community. Nice idea, but include some higher density, sometimes a 2000+ft2 house is just too much.

  • Steve in Van

    I’d score these plans the same as J&M. The Plymouth scores marginally better than the Charleston, but take a look at that work triangle — I get bruised hips from banging into the island just looking at it!

    Another issue — so far unaddressed — is the poor daylighting of both plans. Neither of these homes have a single room with natural light from more than one direction. We’ve seen better daylighting in condos and townhouses. A detached home should be better than this.

  • nicole

    Good comments today!
    Brad – I think that even though the lesser population numbers are in the city, this is where the trends begin. The country folk usually follow, but it takes a bit longer. (and I can say this because I grew up in a small town.)
    I agree with Dan – if the couple is trying to down size, these are large houses. Quite often you can find a townhouse or even a condo with the same sq footage… with lower maintenance required by the homeowner. I like pieces of each plan, but do not like one better than the other. (even though one scored a lot better than the other!)

    Good call on the voteless vote today…

  • Andrew

    Interesting discussion today. I would have to agree that Ned and Stacey should not purchase either of these houses, but if I were forced to choose 1 of the 2 then my vote would be fore the Charleston. I think the dining space is a serious problem in the Charleston but I think the overall layout of the house is slightly better when compared to the Plymouth. I like how the patio is recessed into the floorplan giving the nook direct access to the outdoors and I prefer the size of the second bedroom in this plan. It feels like too much of the second bedroom in the Plymouth is devoted to walk-in-closet space. But if the second bedroom would be rarely used and the den receives extensive use, then perhaps the Plymouth would be a better choice.