Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Saturday, April 26. 2008

Bungalows of the Week

After a long hiatus, they're back.  Here are a couple of brick bungalows, of a style very common in the streetcar neighborhoods of Nashville, built for middle-class families in the 1920s (these two are both from the Edgehill neighborhood, close to Vanderbilt).  They don't try to be flashy, but are solid, well-proportioned homes that are now far more popular among buyers than their much more recently-built ranch style counterparts in the same neighborhood.

 

Posted by The Dylanologist in Our Essays, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 20:36 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

man, i love 20s & 30s architecture -- at its most grandiose you get deco treasures like the chrysler building -- and on the plebian end of the scale, these liveable human-scale workman-honoring bungalows. mcmansion is SO over with. it never did feel right. it's somehow related to the national obesity problem. a spiritual confusion, hopefully re-ordering as we speak.
#1 buddy larsen on 2008-04-26 22:26 (Reply)
Couldn't agree with you more, Buddy, The average one of these homes in this neighborhood is about 1800 square feet, with one bedroom downstairs and two or three on the half-story above, all on a quarter acre lot or smaller. The prices for the 1920s homes have surged way past those of the 1970s, ranch houses, even on the same streets, and even when they are in need of rehab. Gentrification, McMansion backlash, call it what you want, but there is definitely a rediscovery of these modest but dignified houses.

To me residential architecture is really where it is at: we have architecture books full of the "worthies" - the great monuments and cathedrals and skyscrapers - all of which are awe-inspiring in their own right. But the architecture of the home and the residential neighborhood is the architecture that people have to spend the majority of their lives living in and around. It is certainly no less important than other, more heavily documented areas of architecture.
#2 The Dylanologist on 2008-04-26 23:46 (Reply)
indeed, the market is flashing a good cultural sign in up-valuing these architectural messages. your words "modest & dignified" remind that modesty and dignity are as much about respect for neighbors as for oneself; people can be--literally as well as metaphorically--larger and more deliberate in such spaces, rather than slightly dwarfed and illegitimate inside the rootless and oddly seedy mcmansion product.
#2.1 buddy larsen on 2008-04-27 00:30 (Reply)
Nicely said, Buddy.
#2.1.1 Meta on 2008-04-27 11:26 (Reply)
why thank you, dear!
#2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2008-04-27 16:25 (Reply)
I'm noticing a lot of new construction in Atlanta across the value spectrum are starting to echoe these classic designs but with updated feature/functionality - garages to the side or back or even detached, design elements of craftsman, tudor, colonial. The poor suckers who bought the oversized, ugly multi-peaked, poorly constructed mcmansion are going to be hurting when it comes time to sell. Those things already look dated and like the bad fashions of the 70's will hopefully never come back into style.
#3 phil g on 2008-04-27 07:34 (Reply)
Yes, the same thing is going on in Nashville. The 3500 sq. ft. McMansions are going the way of the dinosaurs, assisted by high gas prices and heating costs. And as much as the word bugs me, the emphasis on "sustainable" living has contributed too. Nonetheless the suburbs do continue expanding outwards, only at a slower rate and with more modest houses on smaller lots.
#3.1 The Dylanologist on 2008-04-27 10:46 (Reply)
Yankees sure have an odd definition of the word "bungalow".

Adorable cute house:

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/villapl.jpg


Bungalow:

http://www.rawaimuaythai.com/bungalows/bamboo-bungalow.jpg

Obviously, the realty world has corrupted the word beyond repair. Why, look! According to the ad, here's another "bungalow"!

http://www.prathampune.com/images/bungalow_new.gif

Awesome!
#4 Dr. Merc on 2008-04-27 09:56 (Reply)
I love bungalows too Dyl but having living space in the roof does cause some problems. Notably, ice dams in the winter and really hot bedrooms in the summer. Not enough room in the rafters for the R-40 insulation (about 12" of fiberglass batts that I like to see) and 1 1/2 - 2" of venting (air flow) that is needed for todays standards. One solution for an older bungalow is a cold roof. Changes the look of the house some though because it will require about a 14" fascia board.

From Richard Taylor AIA...

"Hot" and "cold" roof design and construction can get complex and can make it difficult to assign proper terminology to each. Regional variations also muddy the waters - I would expect things to be a little different in Alaska! But let's look at the roofs in their simplest forms:

A "hot" roof simply means that heat (and humidity) from the conditioned space below can get into the attic/air space above the insulation (there must be some degree of attic/air space above the insulation). This warmer air can cause snow/ice to melt on the roof surface above, which then refreezes on the unheated overhang, leading to ice-damming. The air cavities take on heat; that's the origination of the term "hot roof" and the reason why the cold roof method was invented.

A "cold" roof is "sealed tight"; there's no attic/air space for heat to leak in to, so the building materials remain "cold". Hence the term.

That's the basics. A cold roof is further defined (when properly designed and built) by a second layer of plywood, over sleepers, creating an airspace that keeps the slightly-warmer building materials below from making any contact with snow or ice. That may be the source of confusion - there IS an airspace in a proper cold roof, but it's not above the insulation; it's OUTSIDE of the primary roof.
#5 Patina on 2008-04-27 11:39 (Reply)
Interesting, Patina. The ice dam problem is not much of an issue in the southeast, but I am well familiar with how stiflingly hot it can get upstairs in the summertime in these houses. Since the pitch of the roof is already so low (such that it would not be possible to build it under today's building codes), adding a lot of insulation underneath would dramatically reduce the living space. Yet it still seems possible to retrofit them with some insulation:

http://www.bungalowclub.org/icedam.html

In my neighborhood, the upstairs are either blocked off and used as storage, or else benefit from a combination of tree shade and window A/C units. The upstairs spaces, with their angled-in walls, are not very big in terms of cubic feet, and so are not that expensive to heat or cool even with older insulation.
#5.1 The Dylanologist on 2008-04-27 12:24 (Reply)
Can be a tricky problem in what are otherwise pretty great homes. One friend had the bathroom ceiling cave in. I think many bungalows were mostly uninsulated when built so the venting and moisture problems were not an issue. Later on many homeowners stuffed the rafters, eaves and side walls full of insulation with no venting or vapor barrier. Those are the houses to watch out for because moisture soaked insulation will rot the roof and lots more. Also, when retrofitting, can get more R value per inchfrom dense styrofoam but the cost is higher per square foot.
#6 Patina on 2008-04-27 13:20 (Reply)
Who knew that bungalows could generate such an interesting thread of comments.
#7 BD on 2008-04-27 13:56 (Reply)
capricious readers you got -- who can know where they'll alight?
#7.1 buddy larsen on 2008-04-27 16:35 (Reply)
Semi-serious question: Is a bungalow the same as a cottage? I've seen the words used interchangeably but don't know. Both seem to conjure up images of a simpler, more intimate era of living.

I enjoy reading magazines such as "Cottage Living," much more so than reading about McMansions, or even real mansions, in other publications.
#8 Jim on 2008-04-27 20:33 (Reply)
And a semi-serious answer is that there really isn't a clear dividing line between the two. Both are 1 to 1.5 story houses, often with front porches, but I would say a cottage better describes a simpler home, without dormers, and with the roof sloping down along the sides of the house - like this "Katrina cottage:"

http://www.oceanspringsarchives.com/katrina%20cottage-2.jpg

Many bungalows can pass as cottages, but more often are larger, can have a roof which slopes down towards the front and back of the property (like both of the houses posted above), and usually have dormers, whether functional or decorative. Craftsman details are more common too. This is hardly authoritative, though!
#8.1 The Dylanologist on 2008-04-27 21:39 (Reply)
Thanks for the elucidation!
#8.1.1 Jim on 2008-04-28 18:24 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.