Comparing Single Family Houses In Denver

Posted on: May 4th, 2010 | 23 Comments

This is Day 105 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 analyzing single family houses in Denver and today we are asking everyone to continue posting housing projects to the site. The more data points we have the better.

Today, we are happy to announce that the first “Slow Home Report” for Toronto is now complete and ready for you to download and read! This report is a statistical analysis of the design quality for all the apartment/lofts, town houses and single family houses that the Slow Homers have collectively reviewed using the “Slow Home Test”. Please take a moment to review the document and let us know what you think of the Report and the data that has been collected. This really is the result of everyone’s hard work on the “Slow Home Project”. We will be releasing more “Slow Home Reports” for Dallas, Denver and Los Angeles in the coming weeks as we compile the data for these cities.

For today’s “Which House Should I Buy” episode, John and Matthew are comparing two single family homes from a development in Lowry Eastpark in Denver, Colorado. These homes are called the “Cottages” and are by “Standard Pacific Homes”.

Lowry is a unique, master planned and sustainable community that is located on a former Air Force base.

This development scored well with location and siting on the “Slow Home Test”.

The first unit to be reviewed is called the “Torino” and is a 3 bedroom and 2.5 bathroom home with a total of 2054 sq ft. Overall, not a bad plan. With the garage located at the back of the home, this frees up a lot of daylight and space along the front of the house. The biggest design issues with this house are that the back entry from the garage is poorly designed and opens right into a main circulation area, and the kitchen has a strange layout with an island as well as an additional back counter. This makes the kitchen feel like it is in a circulation zone.

The second house is the “Milan” and it is 2062 sq ft and also has 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. This has a really interesting courtyard design which adds lots of daylight to both levels. The biggest problems in this home are the front entry, which opens right into the principal rooms as well as the master bathroom which has very little storage and an opulently placed bath tub.

So, the question to answer is “Which House Should I Buy”? If you had to choose between these two homes, which do you think is the better real estate choice? Study the plans carefully and then post your opinion onto our site. We look forward to hearing from you!

Join us tomorrow for another “Design Project” where we will be re-working the main floor plan of a three bedroom house in the Denver area!

  • Matt B

    This choice is a tough one for me. I like the front entry of the Torino much better than the Milan, but I think the kitchen is the deal breaker. The narrow hall tacked on the back of the kitchen seems very awkward and would create a situation of what my mother-in-law calls “too many bums in the kitchen” when conflicting uses create conflict. On the other hand, the Milan has really awkward master bathroom and I don’t like the loft space because it seems to impede circulation and provide little in the way of use options.

    All in all I think I would go for the Milan though, as the kitchen is so much better. I do think I would swap the dining and living areas though.

  • BradW

    I cannot believe these gawd awful homes scored 14 and 15. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to redeem these misfits. John and Matthew, you guys are getting soft in your evaluations.

  • Matthew North

    Brad W – I thought I was more militant on Monday than usual but I will have to watch today’s segment again and look at the Slow Home Test and see if it is too soft. I am definitely feeling some more outrage brewing these days so if there is a soft patch today, be reassured that it is only fleeting! I am curious as to what the other Slow Homers think – is the Test score too high or do you think it is correct. Thoughts?

  • Matthew North

    Also all Slow Homers – I am really looking forward to your feedback about the “Slow Home Report”. Let me know what you think!

  • Mid America Mom

    Got to make this quick.

    Milan I like the front door being in the middle of the space providing a cue to separating furniture groupings. The upstairs is where I have issues- this is a 2 bed home. This size should be three. The studio has no closet, no bath, and you have to go outside to access the space. The loft is not big enough? to be a bedroom so they left it. At least give a door and call it a study.

    The Torino has wasted space near the front entry, that master bedroom is supersized, odd shape, and full of windows- I would so NO to that point. I dislike the kitchen counter hanging out from the entryway and the refrigerator is away from dining and I would say NO there. It also has a loft a little too small for tv viewing what would we do there- study with no privacy? No to study. This home would be moderately fast for me.

    Hard choice.

    In this size and I assume price point – I would be looking for a 3 bed and the Torino is not slow enough. The Milan, if they had three real bedrooms, would be the winner for me but it does not. I would pass on both.

    Mid America Mom

  • Terri

    Matthew,
    You asked if anyone else thought you were too soft with the test today. I’d say no. I did the test for Milan (my pick) and came up with 15. Even though it has some issues (cramped kitchen entry, no front entry, bad loft space, bad bathroom), there’s nowhere on the test that actually addresses the issues except entry and bathroom. The kitchen does have a compact work area, etc. as noted on the test. Perhaps the Organization points aren’t warranted because of the problem spaces? But reading Organization, I’m led to believe that the house basically fits the bill. However, I might find some of these issues real problems to live with on a day-to-day basis.

  • Matthew North

    Terri – thanks for your response – you and I are both from Victoria, so I think that is why we came up with the same Slow Home Test scores! I’m redoing the test now to see if I come up with the same score again.

  • MollyK

    Slow Home scores:
    Torino: 10
    Milan: 12

    The site plan shows 16 narrow lots with long narrow houses packed closely together (very much like developments in Toronto). The ‘Siting’ criteria on the Slow Home test specifically addresses the impact of neighboring houses, and, in this situation, the cramped lots would indicate negative impact such as privacy issues between homes, blocking of natural light by homes during certain times of the day, and poor views from side windows. Therefore, Siting on both floorplans should receive a NO.

    Torino has particularly bad circulation issues on the main floor and so Organization scored NO. Also, did anyone notice that the garage/kitchen area has no natural light. (The tiny window in the powder room doesn’t count.) Entries are bad. The kitchen is very poorly designed and the dining area looks onto a side yard. (I thought that was usually viewed as Fast and resulted in a NO score.) With narrow lots the side yards are notoriously poor so Dining scored NO.

    The Milan had similar problems. Poor entry and dining facing a side yard…both scored NO. The masterbath configuration was odd with the shower actually smaller than the toilet room, resulting in a NO score. I didn’t know how to score the studio but let’s think about its location…the only entry is from the outside. In Denver, this is not an ideal setting, especially with no bathroom either. Having to go outside in inclement weather either to or from the studio is not slow.

    Neither plan had a room labeled “Study” but perhaps the “loft” would suffice for a desk and bookshelves. Also, the site plan doesn’t offer much hope for good outdoor living, except perhaps the patio in the Milan. I was generous and gave each plan the Outdoor Living point…now I’m not so sure that was correct.

    Overall, both plans were uninspiring, especially the main living areas which I consider the essence of a home. If someone was literally twisting my arm I would pick the Milan. The patio is the saving grace of that plan.

  • MollyK

    MAM,
    I went to the website and found both plans. Each has a basement with different options so the Milan could have a 3rd bedroom or recreation area depending on your whim.

    Hello to everyone else.:)

  • Scott

    I reviewed these on my own as well, and after posted them on the map, I noticed that they are today’s discussion! I should have looked before posting. Anyways, I actually gave the Milan a 16 and the Torino a 15. I think that both are very good projects in most ways, but I prefer the Milan. I personally do not agree with Brad and Molly K, since I think that this kind of house, with a long and narrow shape, internal courtyard, and the garage at the back, can be a very livable form. Particularly if the house adjacent has no windows overlooking the courtyard, I actually think that this is a good precedent for denser single family communities. Unfortunately there are no environmental features to talk about, and I think that that’s a real shame. The Milan could have been a 19/20 for me.

  • BradW

    Scott – Are you kidding me?

    The Milan is a complete horror show.

    Let’s start on the second floor. The studio is too long and narrow, is not accessible from the inside, has no bathroom – brutal. The second bedroom is marginal in size, has a side yard view, the walkin closet door is in the wrong place – marginal. The loft space – why? – brutal. The master bathroom layout is completely wrong – brutal. The master closet – nice view of the courtyard – really brutal. The master bedroom balcony is too small to be usable and the coffered ceiling is not required – marginal. Laundry room is acceptable and the courtyard provided nice light in the hall.

    Now the main floor. The front entry has a nice porch but otherwise does not exist. The back entry is better but narrow with a very small closet. Nice light from the courtyard – big deal – brutal. The kitchen is a jail cell with only one smallish window. It does have a nice view of the back entry mess. No thanks – brutal. The dining room has a nice view of the neighbor’s house, the front entry and the back entry – brutal. The living room does get some light from the courtyard but that would be mitigated by the two storey garage/studio space at the back – marginal. The courtyard is great for a table, a bbq and a chat with the neighbor’s. It is surrounded on all sides by 18 foot high walls – marginal.

    The Milan has very little light from the front and back and narrow side yard conditions. It is a typical production quality home with few redeeming qualities.

  • BradW

    John and Matthew,

    Rather than looking at this production quality junk why don’t you change it up and show us a building in Denver the you like and explain why? It could be any type, new or old, just a thought.

  • BradW

    John and Matthew,

    The Slow Home Report is fantastic. Lots of good information. Very useful for a home buyer in Toronto. I was expecting just stats not the good and bad examples discussed in each category.

  • nicole

    If I was to buy one of these houses, I would probably be broke just for having to pay the builder for ‘modifications’ to ‘the plan’.
    Here is a list of the good and the bad.
    Milan (score 15):
    _like that the powder room, back door, stairs, and closet are grouped together at the back of the house
    _would like to see what the yard layout looks like
    _patio could be nicely designed and organized. The view from the 2nd floor corridor could be quite nice.
    _the studio above the garage could make a nice office space
    _not too sure about the large walk in closet + separate washroom for the 2nd bedroom.
    _master bedroom, ensuite and walk in closet are too large
    _pull the front entry out further to enlarge the entry and continue the exterior wall without a jog. This would allow for a large walk in closet that would house lots of closet storage, almost like a small mud room. The porch can be pulled out to align with the kitchen wall.

    Torino (score 12):
    _would look at possibly relocating the kitchen to the living area, the living area to the dining area and the dining area to the space in between the two. (may need to push the garage back a bit to accommodate circulation between dining + living and dining + kitchen)
    _the rear corridor would be eliminated and powder room relocated to create a ‘back entry’ or ‘mud room’. (allow for a side yard?)
    _master bedroom, ensuite and walk in closet are way too big! Not needed.
    _the ‘circle thing’ at the entry to the master bath and walk in closet is a bit much.
    _there are weird, walls / corner connections that do not align with each other.

    Even though there are good points and bad points about each, my vote would be for the Milan.

  • Murray

    Re: Milano/Torino I have to pass on either house – too many compromises for each. I’d rather live in a tent in Tuscany (in an olive grove, facing south).

    The Slow Home Report – what a lot of effort! Congrats! It is as complex as anything you were preparing for your book (in its first incarnation). You are also very generous sharing this information with the masses – I hope that people active in the field see it and make use of it all. The line graphs are interesting in that they show the masses of variance shifting from slow to fast based on the type of dwelling in relation to the average score. What accounts for regional differences? An influential individual? A local school of architecture? National identity? Gender? Age? ???

    Generally I believe that your analysis is correct, and the specific examples and illustrations are really valuable learning tools, however, am afraid I must question the quantifiable validity of the data with regards to the scores. It would be more statistically valuable if multiple people assessed each dwelling so that there was some mean score attainable for each case rather than one person’s interpretation (valuable as it is, the more collaboration/agreement the more accurate and useful). This point has been raised by others previously. We are seeing this in action today with the analysis of the two houses and the difference in scoring by a variety of people, some subtle differences, some less so when the dwelling shifts from moderately slow to moderately fast,

    The teaser for the book is intriguing – following the link today whets my appetite, and makes me realize how the book has morphed into something quite different than that whih you had originally conceived.

    You gave us a lot to process today! Continually, I admire your energy and dedication.

  • MollyK

    Murray,
    I’m glad you brought up the issue of the mean score and validity. Its all about getting a large sample that is truly representative of the test scores. When we started in Los Angeles I thought I was supposed to score each house presented by other Slow Homers to get an average score. When I didn’t see anyone else doing this I just dropped the idea. I feel much better now.
    BTW, do you think you could find another tent in Tuscany for me…I prefer a vineyard myself. :)

    I would like to say I found the examples in the Slow Home Report to be of great value. They provide the common thread that pulls the stats together with real world applications. I was very impressed with the amount of detail given in the report.

  • Mid America Mom

    Hi Nicole- thanks for posting on the plans… are you a newcomer?

    MollyK thank you for looking into the bedroom situation. Alas I would still not go for it – I have a dislike for basement bedrooms.

    BradW I am getting the impression that you view any window/ view to a side yard as bad. If this was a busy street I would prefer looking at a wall of a neighbor or my patio filled with plants versus traffic.

    Not yet looked at the report but I look forward to it.

    Mid America Mom

  • Tara

    There are definately some issues with both houses. Because of this, I’ve decided to base my my opinions more on the broad concepts of the houses than focus on little details which may be problematic.
    Though I’m not a fan of the kitchen layout in the Torino, I prefer its location within the house compared to the Milan. Considering the garage has been placed at the back to free up frontage, I think placiing the kitchen at the front of the house is a wasted opportunity. There’s only one real window on the front of the house because of this which I think is a shame.
    I enjoy the inner courtyard idea in the Milan. However, I also think this space is under utalized within the plan. Though there are some windows towards the courtyard from the living room, circulation spaces and closets are the only spaces making use of this asset. I would redesign so that the courtyard becomes a more integral area for the interior house as well. I think a courtyard view from the second bedroom would be more desirable than the sideyard one it has currently.
    I’m also not a fan of the rear, seperate entrance studio space. I feel as if this space would be underused and turn into a storage area more than an enjoyable space.
    I think a combination of these two plans would be more ideal. I would keep the front living room, include a longer, rectangular courtyard which was able to face the living, dining and kitchen areas as well as the majority of bedrooms. I also think the entries could use drastic improvements, and the circulation could be streamlined as well.
    If I had to pick one of the existing plans as is

  • Tara

    Sorry, continued from last post:
    it would probably be the Milan because of the courtyard, better circulation and more modest master which I think is much more practical.

  • Tiffany

    This is a very difficult decision, but if I had to choose it would be the Milan. I have to agree with many of the comments that both MollyK and nicole posted, and though I know that many of these comments have already been covered, here is my rational:
    -I like both plans in that you do not often see rear entry garages in new homes and I think that this really helps open up the plan and highlight the living spaces and not the garage (great choice John).
    -I hands down prefer the location and layout of the kitchen and I feel that it is one of the most important rooms in any house. I also really like the face that the sink faces the living area and is not centered on the window; so much more practical if you have guests over.
    -I am torn on the location of the dining room and living room. At first I thought that these 2 just needed to be switched, but the more I think about it the more I think that the kitchen and the entry need to switch. The reason is that I think the dining room needs to be closer to the kitchen, but I like that the living room looks onto the interior courtyard.
    -The interior courtyard is one of the nicest elements of both plans. I think it is a very nice space that is highly usable as it is outdoors, but protected from wind and noise. I feel that it is also a very important space as it provides a private area for outdoor living, something that needs to be addressed when you lose your back yard to the garage.
    -The back entry/powder room is much better laid out; a real deal breaker for me on the Torino.
    -Generally I think the upper floor would need to be completely reworked to be to my liking and if done correctly could allow for some more interesting and usable spaces. Mainly by shrinking the size of the closets and the master bath and making the loft into a proper 3rd bedroom.
    -I am of 2 minds on the studio. I like the privacy of the space, but don’t like the fact that it has no access to the rest of the house. With a little reworking I think that a 2nd floor connection would really help the space.

  • John Brown

    Murray,
    Thanks for your comments on the Slow Home Report.

    The survey doesn’t pretend to be statistically accurate and from my point of view I don’t think it needs to be. Instead it is a collection of opinions by members of the general public of what they think about the design quality of new home projects. The opinions will vary because they are based on different assumptions, different levels of knowledge, and different points of view. But this is okay and does not invalidate the results. Think of it as being more like a focus group. What we are collecting is a small snapshot of what typical people actually think of the design of these houses.

    When we looked at these results they indicated certain trends and common issues. My research team and I worked with these indications to sift through all of the collected floor plans and project websites and identify what the clustering of opinions may be indicating. The result is a report that is a kind of blend between public opinion and expert judgment.

  • John Brown

    Murray,

    I am glad you enjoyed the introduction “teaser”.

    You are right that the book changed considerably. This was a result of the mass collaboration edit that we completed on the site in the winter. When we reviewed all of the comments, suggestions, and criticisms from the group it became obvious to Matthew and I that we needed to make a broader adjustment to the manuscript.

    We believe that the current version of the book is still true to the original goal of helping people incorporate a consideration of design quality into their decisions about where and how they live. However, we hope that it is now both simpler and more focused.

    We are planning on repurposing the common pitfall discussions and other elements from the first draft of the book into some other instructional resources. When we will be able to get to that, however, is another matter.

  • John Brown

    A lively discussion today. Thanks to all for the conclusive dissection of the plans.