A Seattle megahouse owner responds.
A while ago I took a photo of a megahouse that was under construction and posted it to the blog. I also added my observations that the new house towered over the neighbor and that they had put in a large two-car garage.
Boy, was I suprised when I actually got a response from the owner. I thought their response was interesting because it explains the reasoning why one family decided to demolish an existing home and rebuild it with a newer (and much bigger) one.
Just a couple of things to note - the house is really about 2 and 1/2 stories since the ’basement’ is mostly above ground, and to anonymize their comment I’ve replaced the neighborhood’s name with ‘XXX’.
Our family made a commitment to XXX by investing in the neighborhood which included remodeling an existing house and adding a 2nd story. The original house was 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, the roof leaked, there was extensive dry rot and when it rained water was getting into the house.
The house is now safer (lead and asbestos were removed) along with an underground oil tank. We have 2 children, one who attends XXX School and one who will start attending next fall.
Stay focused on the goal of neighborhood planning, support will wane if XXX is posting photos of a home when a family opted to stay in XXX and be part of the community which included remodeling their home.
If a XXX homeowner has a decision to make remodel (generally includes commitment to neighborhood and community) or move (may decide to rent house) - what would you choose?
5 comments
While I appreciate the response from the homeowner, investment in the community, etc. I think there are a number of other issues. Some old homes have big problems and cannot be ’saved’. But there are infinite choices in determining what replaces that old house. Thinking sustainably, the typical ‘new’ house of 3000+ SF just can’t be defended as ’sustainable’. Uses too much material, creates much waste, more costly to operate for the life of the home, which extends into our grandchildrens life span. Also there is the question of height, bulk, scale in relation to surrounding homes. Bad taste often prevails and these new homes usually do not compliment existing neighborhoods, but denigrate. Was a talented architect employed in the design of the new home taking great consideration to site conditions, surrounding neighborhood, etc. It always surprises me what young families ‘think’ they need to create a happy, positive and sustainable life. Truth is, the original Wedgwood Balch homes raised generations of families that turned out great in 1,000 - 1500 SF. Why is it we believe we ‘need’ so much more? And, that we can continue to defend the impact to the earth? Capital investment in older homes in our existing single family zones is imperative. WHAT we choose to create with that capital investment is another matter for discussion. A number of jurisdictions are now employing floor area restrictions in an effort to restrict the size of ‘new’ homes being built in our existing single family neighborhoods. This is a critical matter for land use conversations.
Was the extra space used to host AA meetings? House the homeless maybe?
How is adding an addition to your house making a commitment or contributing to the community? Its seems the family likes the neighborhood and send their kids to the local school. That is great…for them.
Does the homeowner lead the neighborhood watch, sit on the local neighborhood board? One can conservatively add extra space to their house without creating giant mega-houses that dwarf the neighbors.
If I had to choose, I would ask the family to move to Dayton or Cleveland so they could be in a community with like minded folks to themselves. Megahouses are not sustainable and they are a blight on the neighborhood. I am thrilled that megahouses are going to be banned.
Naturally, it would be easier to make an informed comment here if Greg had, y’know, linked to a photo of the house in question. From what I’ve seen, and I’ve seen quite a bit, about two-thirds of the old houses in Seattle would be improved by almost any kind of modern rebuild.
Suffice it to say that nobody living in Seattle today is in a good position to point fingers and act ‘holier than thou’. The town has lost a lot more sweet houses than are dreamt of in your blogosphre, Horatio.
yes…it would have been easier to comment if I had included the photo, but I wanted to keep the comment anonymous and showing the house wouldn’t have helped that.
I actually wasn’t sweating the house that was previously there - I was just questioning why what replaced it was as large as it was.
Leave a Comment