Style vs. elevation

[MN Mark]

I read somewhere that the GSE's have said that 2 story isn't a style, it's an elevation. Ok, cool, I get that. But does anyone here believe that Colonial vs. Craftsman has more influence on value than 2 story vs. 1.25 story? Judging by the comments I've read on other threads regarding architectural style, it looks like style isn't a primary consideration for most buyers in most markets.

In my market, most styles that are otherwise generally similar (age, GLA, condition, etc.) will sell at reasonably comparable prices in reasonably comparable timeframes. The only exception I can come up with off the top of my head are A-frames, which don't seem to fare as well as more traditional styles. I do find in my market that dwellings with one story above grade will usually sell for more than otherwise similar dwellings with more than one story above grade, but that isn't style, it's elevation.

In my time as an agent (admittedly many years ago) I cannot recall a single instance where a buyer told me that they were looking for a Dutch Colonial, Georgian, Craftsman, etc. Maybe some buyers were insistent on a ranch/rambler, but then they usually just meant that they wanted a dwelling with 1 story above grade, which brings us back to elevation. So is it just some architecture snob at the GSE's who decided that 'style' is more important than 'elevation,' or is there some real world application somewhere, where this change actually makes sense? Anyone have any good examples of a market where 'style' is more important than 'elevation'?

One other question, in the various MLS's around the country, do any actually have a field for architectural style? And is it placed more prominently than the 'elevation'? Over the years, I've belonged to four different MLS's, and as I recall, not one had an option for architectural style, other than the usual 2 story, 1.5 story, 4-level split, etc. Or if I've somehow missed it, at the least I can say that not one had such a field that was routinely completed by the agents.

 

[Carol Ames]

Our market does not recognize a difference for style. Like yours it is GLA, condition etc.

We do have the field for elevation which is typically filled out. Actually Albuquerque MLS has a field for style. It is not a manditory field and from what I have seen if they do fill it out the majority of the agents put in custom. :-(

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

I think a minority of buyers want a specific style. Mostly in high end homes.

I did one recently in the Hollywood Hills that was a boxy architectural thing with lots of glass and sliding glass doors. Kind of an open to outdoors kind of thing. Very clean lines and simple, not overly ornamented. I tried to find similar style comps or at least 1, on that deal.

I'm just glad I didn't get the house I saw up there with a corrugated steel exterior. What style is that? Industrial Warehouse? House of Blues Nightclub? :laugh:

Other areas contain a zillion stucco homes built in the 1950's. Realist public records frequently shows style as "conventional". Since that's no longer acceptable, I guess they're Ranch style. Whatever that means.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I do find in my market that dwellings with one story above grade will usually sell for more than otherwise similar dwellings with more than one story above grade, but that isn't style, it's elevation.

Anywhere you have a population of chronologically challenged folk...like myself, you can bet that multiple floors are no dang fun. I crab up and down stairs, in fact, going down is worse than up when you have both arthritis and Patellar subluxation (the sublaxator muscle can't keep your kneecap in place under pressure). Further a 1½ or 2 sty is less expensive to build and typically would sell for slightly less per SF accordingly. Finally, a safety issue if you don't have good escape routes out of upper floors.

We've had MLS's that denoted style but the Realtors rarely know a bungalow from a Colonial...so I wouldn't make an adjustment too often. But the issue you bring up is part of a larger issue.

First is "viewscape" - the view (which does not necessarily mean expansive vista but perhaps more closely a lack of industry, noise, etc.) and the second is as you point out the "curb appeal" of a property. A rancher, a contemporary, etc. can "work" for many people. But as I preach and teach, context is everything.

A multicolored house may appeal to a hispanic family. Certain ethnic backgrounds have their own preferences. An adobe home in New Mexico is great....one in Branson, MO....well, it looks out of place. Plantation homes in the South look a lot better than they would on a Colorado Mountainside...context is curb appeal. Style itself...means nothing.

Frankly, I think Log homes and berm homes get a bad rap from fannie rules and banks that is out of proportion to their real market appeal but financing has become so difficult for these it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy...they will sell for less.

PS - Henry Harrisons "Houses" book has a list of styles , thus what a lot of us have called "conventional" "traditional" or "ranch" might better be described as "California Bungalow"....go figure.

 

[NC Appraising]

I read somewhere that the GSE's have said that 2 story isn't a style, it's an elevation. OK, cool, I get that. But does anyone here believe that Colonial vs. Craftsman has more influence on value than 2 story vs. 1.25 story? Judging by the comments I've read on other threads regarding architectural style, it looks like style isn't a primary consideration for most buyers in most markets.

In my market, most styles that are otherwise generally similar (age, GLA, condition, etc.) will sell at reasonably comparable prices in reasonably comparable timeframes. The only exception I can come up with off the top of my head are A-frames, which don't seem to fare as well as more traditional styles. I do find in my market that dwellings with one story above grade will usually sell for more than otherwise similar dwellings with more than one story above grade, but that isn't style, it's elevation.

In my time as an agent (admittedly many years ago) I cannot recall a single instance where a buyer told me that they were looking for a Dutch Colonial, Georgian, Craftsman, etc. Maybe some buyers were insistent on a ranch/rambler, but then they usually just meant that they wanted a dwelling with 1 story above grade, which brings us back to elevation. So is it just some architecture snob at the GSE's who decided that 'style' is more important than 'elevation,' or is there some real world application somewhere, where this change actually makes sense? Anyone have any good examples of a market where 'style' is more important than 'elevation'?

One other question, in the various MLS's around the country, do any actually have a field for architectural style? And is it placed more prominently than the 'elevation'? Over the years, I've belonged to four different MLS's, and as I recall, not one had an option for architectural style, other than the usual 2 story, 1.5 story, 4-level split, etc. Or if I've somehow missed it, at the least I can say that not one had such a field that was routinely completed by the agents.

I understand where you are coming from and agree on some points.

In neighborhoods that are going through gentrification or revitalization, or historic in nature, and the year built of the homes are 1920's-1950's, the design has a major impact on the value of the home.

For example, a two story craftsman tend to bring the most demand, whereas a cape COD sales at a lower price point. The cape cods tend to have sloping roofs, and offers less functionality. Then you may have some "shot-gun" or simple colonial style homes that also tend to sell for less. (Character and charm adds value).

On the other hand, craftsman style homes usually have more exterior appointments and usually cost more to build. So is it a quality or design adjustment. It really depends on the market and the age of the home.


In newer PUDs, I think the exterior design usually does not require a design adjustment. In my opinion it has to do with the quality of construction (square home as compared to a home with more corners, roof design, and exterior appointments.

 

[NC Appraising]

One other question, in the various MLS's around the country, do any actually have a field for architectural style? And is it placed more prominently than the 'elevation'? Over the years, I've belonged to four different MLS's, and as I recall, not one had an option for architectural style, other than the usual 2 story, 1.5 story, 4-level split, etc. Or if I've somehow missed it, at the least I can say that not one had such a field that was routinely completed by the agents.

In my MLS:

type: 2-story, ranch, 1.5-story/basement
Style: Traditional, contemporary, craftsman, etc.

 

[incognito]

Henry's book (which I have owned for 25 years) is dated. I did something silly and bought EVERY book I could find on residential property designs, over the last few months. NONE have much to offer for post 1980 homes. It seems that to have style, you must have age. However, after literally buying and reading 5 books in the past months, this remains the best reference I have found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_house_types

 

[Surf Cat]

Henry's book (which I have owned for 25 years) is dated. I did something silly and bought EVERY book I could find on residential property designs, over the last few months. NONE have much to offer for post 1980 homes. It seems that to have style, you must have age. However, after literally buying and reading 5 books in the past months, this remains the best reference I have found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_house_types

Great resource site Incognito, Thanks!

 

[Doug DeMars]

Considering the "Design (Style)" field in the URAR does not have a required UAD response/checklist and the appraiser can exercise their own judgement (imagine that) regarding this factor...Fannie can kiss my fannie.

IMO, the appraiser can put whatever they want in that field as long it helps direct the intended user toward a logical conclusion. For most of my reports I'll be stating:

1 level detached
2 level detached
1 level attached
2 level attached

Most sub-markets I work support a reasonable adjustment for the superior market appeal of a 1 level dwelling vs. 2 level and further support a significant adjustment for the variance between attached vs. detached (when such juxtaposition is necessary).

However, there does arise an occasion where the "historic" appeal can play a modest role in overall valuation. I've yet to muster a credible adjustment for the variance between a Victorian (or Edwardian for that matter) and a Brown Shingle or Craftsman if both are found to be in similar overall condition/quality and GLA. I've made minor adjustments for Eichler's that still have their original design intact when placed against "regular" ranch homes.

Over the years...instead of trying to untangle the nuances between all the different types of historic homes...I'd simply put "Historic" on the report and include some narration regarding my selection process. Most often, I'm able to find plenty of other similar historic properties (and usually at least one of the same character). When necessary, I'll plug in a "less historic" dwelling as a Comp and make an appropriate adjustment to reflect the market reaction. What do I call that Comp? You guessed it..."Less Historic".

Besides what is noted above...I may note Design/Style as...

Townhouse
Stacked
Duet
Flat roof
Pitched roof

 

[Mike Kennedy]

http://architecture.about.com/od/housestyles/tp/housestylesindex.htm