Affordable Mid-Century Modern?

As a builder and designer of "modern homes" I am looking for clarification of the term "affordable" and/or "reasonably" priced modern homes. 

When speak of affordable/reasonably priced modern home are you referring to:
a.) the  cost per foot of a new home?
or
b.) the overall cost to acquire the home?

And a follow up question:

What is a reasonable price per foot to pay for a new modern home, and does that number include the property?

Tom the builder

Hmm, good questions. I guess the big issue is the customers themselves. For me, a young person, just starting their career "affordable" to me is probably different from some of the others on this site. I know for my wife and I, we are not so blinded by cost per foot; for us it is the overall value of the home as we perceive it. So for us, total cost is much more critical than cost per foot. Unfortunately, the bank/lenders do not care how we perceive things and they care only about the almighty cost per foot as it compares to other surrounding properties. Therefore, unless your customers can pay cash I think this is a critical part of the equation. The other issue is land cost, for us it is a total out the door price, we can afford it or not, so yes the cost of the land has to play a major role. As do the location and safety of the neighborhood. For us, right now, $150-$200 a foot including land would be our upper limit, I hope that as our careers progress we can up that number to build our "dream" type home. For us, size is not an issue; we both believe that smaller efficient design is much more desirable than sprawling thoughtless design. A thoughtfully designed and constructed home in the $300k (including land) range would be our current limit. Because a modern home in this range is quite scarce (new construction anyway) we chose to go with the 1950's ranch and update both the exterior and interior with a modernist touch, so far it has been fairly successful (well in my opinion anyway, I am sure some of our neighbors hate it) At the architectural firms I have worked for, usually over lunch, we young architects like to sit around and hypothesize about the state of design and what “affordable modern” means to us. I know that Generation-Y will probably be more in-tune with the idea that less is more and craft supersedes cavernous space. As young designers, we feel that carefully crafted design is attainable at an affordable price point, which for must of us is in the $200-$300k range. Does this mean we can live down on Oak lawn, nope, but there are areas where land is still less expensive and a modest 1500 sqft home could easily reside. Well I have rambled enough for now. I am sure Jeff will also chime in soon and I will not be able to resist throwing out more ideas in long-winded fashion. Tom, any additional photos of your current project? What is the word on a Live Modern Tour?

Hmmm . . . interesting topic.

I like to back into questions like this. Consider a decent lot "in the loop" is going to cost $200,000. If you throw this into the cost of a 3,000 square foot house, you are starting at $66 per foot.

Construction costs (and Tom would provide some additional insight here) will run at least $125 - $140 per foot for a simple, modern house with respectable finishes. Throw on demo costs (because the lot for $200,000 is likely a tear down), architects fees, other soft costs, and interest carry and you can add another $15 to $25 a foot. Now you are are a simple 3,000 square foot house for $650,000-ish.

I was at an AIA event a couple months ago when the topic was "modern spec houses" and affordibility certainly came up. Cliff Welch, Max Levy, Russell Buchannon, Lionel Morrison, and Diane Cheatum where all there. I challenged these "experts" about affordability. Max Levy complained about how bad houses where designed in Dallas. Diane Cheatum (Urban Edge) says she can't build a house for less than $175 a foot and said a "decent" budget is $225 a foot. Lionel Morrison snubbed at the idea of modular, prefab housing as a way to bring affordability to the masses. "Dwell magzine? I don't read Dwell Magazine". While I respect some of these people's work (I love Cliff Welch's work, but if you have been in one Lionel Morrison house, you have been in them all), I think they are full of it. You can't complain about the state of modern day housing and how poorly designed every house is if the only thing you can design is $1 million plus house. Most of these architects at this event design one-off, high concept houses for vanity sake and to get published. Whoopty do.

 

There is a lot of exciting work being done in pre-fab. Michelle Kauffman is doing very cool stuff. While pre-fab is cost prohibitive in Texas, the concept is spot on. Design should be brought to the masses not the masses coming to design.

 

 

I tend to agree with Jason. Architects like the words "affordable modern" but when push comes to shove the idea is dirty and not the high brow magazine quality work they are accustom to so it gets passed off as below them. It costs money to make things look simple and clean, no doubt. But, it can be done affordably. Land is a huge factor as well as the size of the house. Where I am happy with 2000 sqft others want 3 or 4. Inside the loop in a decent neighborhood will set you back close to 200k for land thus pushing it out of my budget from the onset. It saddens me that people with the design skill of Max Levy choose not to put some of that skill to use for those of us of more meager means. Budget should never be the reasoning for poor architecture, a small budget merely forces greater creativity. I think that the only way to do true affordable modern is out in the burbs where land is cheap. The problem with this is typically those who prefer modern architecture also prefer the urban or semi-urban lifestyle and do not want to live 45 minutes from downtown. The truth of the matter is that Prefab would be extremely affordable if the companies were based in Texas, the cost of living and the lower wage required by semi-skilled labor (found on construction sites all over the state) make it a no brainer. The current roadblock it that the fabrication occurs in other parts of the country and to have it shipped here and assembled you loose the cost saving. As much as I love Modernist principals and design as well as MCM housing, I have to wonder that if an entire neighborhood was constructed in this style if it would still holds its appeal. (Especially if spec housing where every third house was the same) I enjoy my house because it does not look like the others on my block. I also enjoy the stares it gets as people drive by. I think most fans of modern/contemporary architecture feel a certain pride knowing that they are being different. In a sea of McMansions, you stand out if you have a clean contemporary home. If all homes were clean and modern the environment may become once again stale and over done. Modernism always looks its best when out on a hilltop, alone, surrounded by nature. Diane Cheatum started her Urban Reserve with affordable modern in mind. Originally lots were to cost from $50-200K with completed housing starting in the $250 range (this is what she presented a few years ago at her DWR kick-off) But hey, if someone is willing to drop $600k on your $250k designs then why stop them. It is supply and demand and she is making a killing because the shortage of this type of housing exceeded ever her expectations of its value.

Nice points Jonathan. Land prices in the Dallas loop are the major stumbling block to afforable housing. Unfortunately, it will never go down in price. Not when DFW is adding 1 million new residents every 5 years and now with gas prices through the roof with no end in site, people want to be closer to the city.

 

I not aware of Diane's original vision for UR, but I can say it is impossible to deliver a new modern house for $250k and the houses they are building in UR are expensive not because they are building them for $250k and selling them for $600k, but because really good one-off construction is $175 a foot. That is what they are doing at UR and Kessler Woods for that matter.

Going from 3,000 square feet to a 2,500 square foot house is not as simple as taking 500 x $175 per foot off the price. A smaller house means your price per square foot go up because you have less square footage to spread your big expenses across - CM fees, HVAC, plumbing, eletrical, kitchen, etc. There is no magic bullet to reduce the costs other than using cheaper materials which one might as well go buy a spec home.

I think manufactured homes are the way around this. If they had a manufacturing facility in Dallas, it would work.

 

Jason, Have you seen the roughly 1500sqft house designed by Buchannan Architects in Urban Reserve? They list this steel box for $600K+. I agree that finishes and the normal necessities (Kitchen, Bath, etc) set a certain price point that cannot be drastically reduced by lopping off 500 sqft. Nevertheless, this "box" in UR drives me nuts. It is a simple plan, few windows, and small lot, wrapped in corrugated cor-ten steel. Cor-ten is about 1.5 times the cost of mild steel, but this would not excessivley drive up the cost of the home. Some of the houses in UR warrant the price, but some are pure cash cows that she is looking to offload based on the neighboring houses. $300k for the steel box on the 1/8 acre lot, maybe, $600K+ don't think so! Hey, if someone built modern spec homes I am sure they would sell just a well as any "traditional" spec home (example Aguave in Austin). I think that is the point of "affordable Modern" no one off custom, modern or traditional, is going to go cheap. The idea of a one off custom designed house has always been something for the elite, not for the common man and I do not expect this to change. But a development of modest modern spec homes I belive would be a marketable solution in the Dallas marketplace, the only catch is that it would have to happen in the burbs (now way around the Dallas land prices, we can agree on that 100%) In essence, modular housing is a glorified "spec home" but allows one off construction in existing neighborhoods instead of requiring an entire homogeneous development.

I haven't actually been in that house. I thought it was more like 2,000 square feet but none the less I would have to agree that it is overpriced. But then again it was designed as a one off house

I lived in a corrugated metal townhome from Urban Lofts years ago. I paid $200,000 for a 2,000 square feet home. Townhomes provide a unique scalability and price advantage for construction costs that are unavailable in a one-off house. The cube house is a high concept overpriced home that doesn't even have a garage. They aren't going to sell it for $650,000.

P.S. I love architects that are too cool to put garages in a house. They think it looks bad or something but forgo how useful they are. Sometimes function should overrule form.

 

The one reason in favor of the detached garage is the lack of transmission of fumes from the garage. I have noticed at my home (granted the 50 year old weather strip does not help) that allot of the car exhasut and gas fumes transmit into the house even with the door shut. The detached garage is a better solution from a health standpoint, although harded to secure. I do agree, even if difficult to integrate cleanly, homes need a garage. To just not provide one beacuse it is ugly is not acceptable. I love architecture but I also love my cars, non-enclosed parking is not an option.

 

Dallas does lack a new sub-division like Agave in Austin to build homes. That said I visited Agave last fall and was under-impressed with the look and feel of the area and the homes, the area, although close (more or less to Austin) was quite rural with a lack of apparent services. The homes admittedly are very interesting in the renderings, in real life are bland and did not look to be worth anywhere near the 250+ price point. Not to mention there were no garages. All those families all those cars, all their garage junk with no place to hide it. I could not believe that in a few years Agave will look like crap.

 

I am not so sure about the acceptance of modular homes in the Dallas area.  There are several designers/manufacturers doing some stylish work but according to my numbers you could stick build it cheaper. They may make sense in areas with limited access and labor but in city like Dallas I don't see it. The part I don't understand is, why traditional modular homes are far less expensive than modern ones?

http://www.agaveaustin.com/index.html

 

You all indeed bring up some interesting points on the what is affordable modern question?

What I gleam from your responses are:

Affordable is more a function of the final cost as opposed to a cost per foot but because of lending what it is the cost per square foot is king. Furthermore, due to the cost of land/lot (in a reasonable location) not being lower than 100k and construction  being 100.00 - 200.00 per foot the minimum cost to build a 1500 sq ft home would be somewhere in the range of  $250,000. - $400,000.

This is actually very doable.

The questions is:

Would you pay between $300,000 and $400,000 for a 1500 sq ft one story 3 bed, 2 bath, 1 living area home, 2 car garage, modern home inside the loop between Marsh and Midway in North Dallas ?

 

 

 

"Would you pay between $300,000 and $400,000 for a 1500 sq ft one story 3 bed, 2 bath, 1 living area home, 2 car garage, modern home inside the loop between Marsh and Midway in North Dallas ?" Well, Considering that I live off of Merrell just west of Midway and we purchased our 1700sqft home for just at 200K I would have to say no. I know that prices jump considerably once you cross Marsh (for no real reason) but paying double for less square footage would be hard. Most of the 450-800K houses in this area are in the 2000-4000sqft range. I think you would be hard pressed to sell that small of a house in this area (at least in current market conditions) Maybe as energy prices continue to rise people will start to understand the value of a smaller but well crafted home. For reference, just a few streets south of Merrell when we were looking for houses 4 years ago a 1480sqft home was on the market for $160k.

Sorry maybe a little more explanation is required:

New affordable modern inside the loop between Marsh and Midway,
Royal and NW Highway the following construction scenario is plausible.

Lot w/house to tear down cost between 100k and 125k.
1500-1750 s.f 3-2-2           cost between 190k and 225k
Misc and Selling Costs                                30k and   30K
Total to build and sell                between  320k and 380k

 

I agree that if you already live in the area moving into a smaller

home and paying more money doesn't make sense. But, if you were

in the market for a home and were looking in this area would you buy:

 

A.) Old-larger-cheaper-not style oriented
or
B.) New-smaller(?)-higher priced-modern

 

 

Or even a simpler question:

 

What is the premium you would consider paying for a
equal size, similar location New Modern vs Old any style?

A.)    2 times the price of old

B.) 1.5 times the price of old

C.) pay the same for both

D.) ?????

 

 

 

Jeeze, I cannot believe I have been missing out on this fun topic (I have had a pretty eventful couple of weeks).

 

We are building (and building, and building, and building) a house in Farmers Branch (yes, be bought the lot before the nut-balls got elected). The lot cost us $95,000 (including demo of the old 776 SF meth lab). We are building 2800 SF for about $130/SF, including the landscaping and design and engineering we have a lot of steel and glass).

I have learned a lot about the process over the last couple of years and I think $115/SF is doable. The problem (in my eyes) with the Welches and Levys, etc. in Dallas is that they have decided that heroic structure, nice finishes, and minimalistic details are necessary for good modern design. I completely reject that. I will acknowledge that FLW houses with interior brick and wood walls and plaster and wood ceilings are very nice (as are the Kessles Woods houses), but take a look at LeCorbu's houses. None of them have any such fancy materials or details and every one is a wonder of interplay between forms and light. THAT level of design need not be expensive to build.

 

But here is the rub: does the market really want wonderful interplay of forms in light or do they want minimalistic details and expensive finishes and fixtures? I have heard that Texas Andersen Builders (Jonathan's and my favorite Dallas builder) can build 4000 SF vaguely European houses in our neighborhood in Dallas for $100/SF. With this med. size builder's ability to take advantage of economies of scale and the industry's ability to fake high quality materials cheaply, a $650,000 4000SF traditional house looks like a pretty good deal compared to a $650,000 2000 SF modern house to most people (banks have a day in this too, as has been mentioned). For modern to work, you need to get the cost per SF close to what Texas Andersen can accomplish.

 

Could one of the problems be that the modernists won? I mean, the basic open plan layout we all take for granted in volume builder homes and McMansions is a modernist invention. Given we no longer have that to ourselves, what really defines a modern house? A really stripped down McMansion (plain siding, no fake dormers, and a flatish roof) looks a lot like a really stripped down modern house (without a formal living/dining). I fear that modernism now means high-end minimal finishes and details.

As for the economics, here is the conventional wisdom. When deciding to spend an extra $1 on a house, people typically like to allocate $.20-$.30 on a nicer lot and $.70-$.80 on a nicer house (whether nicer = bigger is a big question). So when a builder sees a lot that will accomodate a 4000 SF house in a market where the lot/house will be worth $600k, with a $100/SF construction cost, this lot is worth $200k. Any house in the neighborhood not worth $200k to live in as-is is a goner.

 

This makes building a house smaller than 4000 SF at the same construction cost per SF will drive the total cost per SF up. For that to work, the perceived quality must be proportionatly higher. The smaller the house, the higher the preceived quality must be. Building small is tough.

 

The trick might be to find a neighborhood where house size is already constrained... keeping the lot values down. I am also pretty sure there is a quantity/quality tradeoff people will accept, but the increasing lot cost per SF limits that as well. 

I do think that as houses get bigger, quality may become relatively more valued than quantity. So, I think the optimal market strategy is between:

$100k lot

$115/SF for 2700 for $410k total.

and

$150k lot

$115/SF 3200 SF house for a total of $520k.

People with smaller budgets are not going to pay a premium for new construction (given that the McMansion builders are bidding for lots based on maximum SF).

The more volume and the lower the cost, the more you can move down the scale. This would mean that on empty suburban land, I think modern can compete with other volume builders.

 I guess this last point speaks to the original question. People see volume builders offering new 3000 SF houses for $70/SF and want a modern version for $210,000. Once you go to a one-off, "affordable" by that definition is not doable. I think a better definition would be comarable to other one-offs being built.

 

^ Well stated. Tom, to answer your question. I would pay a premium for a well-designed modern home (especially new construction) over a 50-year-old "cottage" or "Ranch" type home. However, that premium for me personally is minimal (15-20%) because I have the ability and skill to take the said ranch and modify it to meet my design and aesthetic requirements. The truth of the matter is when we buy a ground up new construction home; I will design it. No offense to members of this site, but if you are an Architect and you go to a spec home builder to have a new place built from a plan out of a book, shame on you. Jeff makes a great point about what the true philosophy of Modernist architecture is. High-end details and finishes is no more Modernist than fake shutters and gargoyles. We should be careful not to confuse the Modernist movement with what is commonly called "Modern" architecture. Corb, Mies, etc define modern. I think today’s modern is interchangeable with contemporary (contemporary became a nasty word due to the white box, Miami Vice crap of the 80's). True Modernist architecture is supposed to be simple, clean, using common materials, affordable, free of ornamentation, and philosophically holds form in greater regard than materials or finish. A corrugated metal barn is in many respects more Modernist than most of the so-called Modernist architecture out there. Overly complex details and connections, no matter how clean are no more than added ornamentation. I am not knocking the nice modern designs of housing that I have seen in Kessler Woods, Urban Reserve and the like, but we should not label this as Modernist.

I think relatively few buyers out there are interested in modern design at an intellectual level. For most people, it is just another style. That style might be appealing because it is less pretentious than the McMansions going up around town, or because it is cool. For most, higher end finishes are appreciated as a sign of quality. From my observations looking at books on new modern architecture or magazines like _Houses_, the Corbusier/Gropius form of modernism is dead. That being said, FLW was a modernist whose houses have exterior and interior finishes that would cost $400/SF today and Mies houses would be as spendy (his form of minimalism would be $$$.

 

Practically, I think the real question is what does it cost Texas Anderson per SF to build a house? If it is $110 for a 4000 SF home, then I think a modern house that is 15%-20% smaller costing 5%-7% more per SF (3200-3400SF for $115.50-$120/SF) would work. If it costs Texas Anderson more, then these prices could rise too. I think this because I believe the last 600-800 SF in a 4000+ SF house is of comperable value to an extra $5-$8/SF in design quality. As for finishes, although the type would be different, the quality of finishes would have to match the Texas Anderson level.

Anyone know the name of the window mfg. (Austin I think) that still builds mill-finish aluminum windows? The company is named after a person and they only make sliders and single hung windows. THey are incredibly well made and cheap although I am not sure they are thermally broken. This comes to mind as I think windows are a big cost difference between Texas Anderson and what a modern house would need. Crappy single-hung windows only work (IMHO) if you are going to hide them behind heavy window treatments.

 

I also think that metal and Hardie siding can be used to a incredibly rich effect that is much cheaper than any masonry, so this would be a real savings over the Texas Anserson type construction.

 

I visited Agave in Austin this past weekend, thoughts posted shortly.

Jeff - I use an Alum. window that is available in mill finish from a company called RAM INDUSTRIES out of Houston. Great windows, Low E, Thermobreak frames. Very nice windows, their cost is less than wood but more than vinyl.

Jonathon - I am curious to hear your thought on Agave.

and here is a link: http://www.ramind.com/

 

Ah, Ram. Yes, we had them bid our house too. Long story, but they were not at thermally efficient as Showcase. I think they were clear anodized as well.

In any case, this is the one I was thinking of.

http://www.donyoungwindows.com

Do you have a link for Showcase?

  www.showcasewindows.com

 

I first heard of them in a modern house about a mile from my current house and then Jon Delcambre used them in his Eastside house. If I did this over again, I'd use Thermal brand doors for the 144" x 97" biparting sliders. The vinyl track is just too flexible for such large doors so setting them was a pain and they still don't all move as easily as I would like. Other than that, their design is as clean as can be and the quality is really good for a vinyl window. Oh, and they have no standard sizes, everything is custom.

Do you have any pictures of that house?

I first heard of them in a modern house about a mile from my current house and then Jon Delcambre used them in his Eastside house. If I did this over again, I'd use Thermal brand doors for the 144" x 97" biparting sliders. The vinyl track is just too flexible for such large doors so setting them was a pain and they still don't all move as easily as I would like. Other than that, their design is as clean as can be and the quality is really good for a vinyl window. Oh, and they have no standard sizes, everything is custom.

 

Hi all,
If you are looking for contemporary stainless steel door hardware, you should have a look at DAYORIS Hardware.
They have all kind of modern stainless steel door handles, stainless steel door levers, and very nice stainless steel door pulls.

The good thing is that they have all these stainless steel door hardware in stock.

But they also have modern doors, modern door stops and modern doorbells.

DAYORIS Hardware is the one stop shop for all modern hardware.

They distribute brands like Valli and Valli, FSB, and many stainless steel door handles suppliers.

We don't usually think about door hardware, but once installed you realize the value that these stainless steel door hardware added to any home or office.
It is a great thing to change before selling a home; home buyers pay attention to details, so with these modern hardware, the details will be here.

There is also a new product that just came out: wood wall panels.
This new line of modern wall panels is a new concept that standardize carpentry.
They have wood wall panels available in many diferent sizes, and diferent colors.
These modern wall panels are delivered with a sub-panel. You will just need to screw the sub-panel to the wall, and easily hang your wood panels like a picture frame.
This process is great you should look at the categorie wood wall panels : http:linkto wall panels.com

http://www.dayorishardware.com