I like how the driveway lanes don’t even line up with the garage, so you would have to turn at the last moment to get into the garage and hop off the concrete. That may be some of the laziest construction I’ve ever seen on here. Well….that’s a lie.
commonsense
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a “lazy” thing, it was a permit thing. Either the city did not allow that tree to be cut down, or the busy body tree hugger neighbors pitched a b*tch. So the builder just passed the buck to the new homeowner which will either cut it down by ‘accident” or wait for it to die of unnatural causes and cut it down anyway. Either way, a homeowner can get away with cutting down a tree a lot easier than a builder.
joel
so this is what an oil boom does to a city
Native Houstonian
Really?!… It’s not like it’s a 100 year old live oak. As most builders are in the business of minimizing costs, (remember, they don’t have to “live” with their decisions), they saved few bucks by (1) not moving the tree, (2) cutting it down and having it hauled off, (3) paying the architect to redesign the garage position, or (4) having to install a full driveway of concrete. Those strips of concrete will surely begin breaking soon because I can’t image they put in one more ounce of rebar than building code called for. Someone should upload this photo to one of those “Look, I fixed It!” websites.
GoogleMaster
Is this house really about 10-12 feet wide at the front door, and full of weird angles, or is that just the horrible photography?
Al
My first impression of this house was, “is that four shipping containers with some lipstick”? As I held on to the edge of my desk, to avoid vertigo induced by the lens selections of the photographer.
I’m all for saving trees but that is one F up job!
J-squared
I agree about the lens used on the photos. This is as bad as when they use those color filters in Photoshop that make the sky look like a New Mexico sunset postcard. As for the driveway/tree situation, why didn’t they just design the house with the garage facing a different direction. Good grief, it’s an 11k square foot lot. Surely there was room for the driveway to go elsewhere. I know it’s probably wrong to judge the builder by name alone, but “Construction by John” just doesn’t inspire confidence.
HouCynic
Nice finishes but good luck getting 665K. I am sure setbacks dictated the footprint but really… too much awkward and unusable living space.
JJ
Looking at the comments, it appears its a crime to make a house unique now days. The same people screaming bloody murder when they see a new set of sterile townhomes doesn’t know how to react when someone does something a little different….
HouCynic
@JJ there is a distinct difference between unique and functionality. I appreciate the uniqueness but highly question the functionality and practicality of the narrow spaces. Who knows maybe some people looking in this price point can make it work.
I like how the driveway lanes don’t even line up with the garage, so you would have to turn at the last moment to get into the garage and hop off the concrete. That may be some of the laziest construction I’ve ever seen on here. Well….that’s a lie.
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a “lazy” thing, it was a permit thing. Either the city did not allow that tree to be cut down, or the busy body tree hugger neighbors pitched a b*tch. So the builder just passed the buck to the new homeowner which will either cut it down by ‘accident” or wait for it to die of unnatural causes and cut it down anyway. Either way, a homeowner can get away with cutting down a tree a lot easier than a builder.
so this is what an oil boom does to a city
Really?!… It’s not like it’s a 100 year old live oak. As most builders are in the business of minimizing costs, (remember, they don’t have to “live” with their decisions), they saved few bucks by (1) not moving the tree, (2) cutting it down and having it hauled off, (3) paying the architect to redesign the garage position, or (4) having to install a full driveway of concrete. Those strips of concrete will surely begin breaking soon because I can’t image they put in one more ounce of rebar than building code called for. Someone should upload this photo to one of those “Look, I fixed It!” websites.
Is this house really about 10-12 feet wide at the front door, and full of weird angles, or is that just the horrible photography?
My first impression of this house was, “is that four shipping containers with some lipstick”? As I held on to the edge of my desk, to avoid vertigo induced by the lens selections of the photographer.
I’m all for saving trees but that is one F up job!
I agree about the lens used on the photos. This is as bad as when they use those color filters in Photoshop that make the sky look like a New Mexico sunset postcard. As for the driveway/tree situation, why didn’t they just design the house with the garage facing a different direction. Good grief, it’s an 11k square foot lot. Surely there was room for the driveway to go elsewhere. I know it’s probably wrong to judge the builder by name alone, but “Construction by John” just doesn’t inspire confidence.
Nice finishes but good luck getting 665K. I am sure setbacks dictated the footprint but really… too much awkward and unusable living space.
Looking at the comments, it appears its a crime to make a house unique now days. The same people screaming bloody murder when they see a new set of sterile townhomes doesn’t know how to react when someone does something a little different….
@JJ there is a distinct difference between unique and functionality. I appreciate the uniqueness but highly question the functionality and practicality of the narrow spaces. Who knows maybe some people looking in this price point can make it work.
bwahahahahaha ha ha ha!