The perfect BK style house designed just for IHBers.

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Here is the math for a house with an ugly garage at the front.



Width must be 45' minimum to get a parking stall in front of a house (2 car driveway and flares + 20' parking stall) a total of 3 stalls.(2 on driveway and 1 at curb side)



Depth for 1/2 of street right of way 30'+ driveway 20'+ garage 20'+ house 35'+ yard 15'=120'



Total minimum land area for this house is 120x45=5580 sf of land.



Take 1 acre 43,560 sf/5580 sf= 7.8 houses per acre



At this density the house is worth $908,250











Here is the math for a plenty of curb appeal house with the garage at the rear.



Width is no longer dictated by the driveway so 35' is a good dimension for 1.75 cars at curb side and a total of 2.75 stalls are provided. (1 stall next to the rear garage and 1.75 at curbside)



Depth for 1/2 of street right of way 30' + 15' front yard setback + house 35' + yard 15' + garage 20' + Garage apron 3'+ 1/2 of alley 12'=128'



Total minimum land area for this house is 128x35=4480 sf of land.



Take 1 acre 43,560 sf/4480 sf= 9.72 houses per acre.



At this density the nice curb appeal house is worth $738,345 with more footage compared to the ugly garage house. The granny flat is an option based on a lower value ratio.









Here is the math for the nice curb appeal house (zero lot). 27.5' wide x 35' deep is the footprint for first floor=963sf.

(963sf x2 is the footage of both upper and lower level ) +( 7'x15' (105sf) mud room ) a single story only+ (600sf granny flat over garage)=2613 sf









Here is the math for the ugly garage house (conventional lot). 35' wide x 35' deep is the footprint for the first floor=1575sf-400sf(garage)=1175 sf. 1175sf (lower level)+1575 sf (upper level)=2751sf. Because the entire house is flushed with the garage plane architectural guideline mandates an offset to the building at least 4' : 2x(4x15) both levels x depth of recess x width of frontal living area without garage=120sf



2751sf-120sf=total area of an ugly garage house=2595 sf











$908k for an ugly house 2,595 sf with only a 2 car garage and a driveway or a nice curb appeal house 2,613sf for 738k with a 3 car garage and no driveway.



I think the decision will be obvious. That piece of concrete in front of the ugly house, a 15' longer run of street and a 0.25 parking space ended up costing the consumers $169,905.



This is my educated accessment based on assumed criterias I learned from various CA builders . This study is not an indicator of realistic pricing set by local OC develpers in the near future.



Anymore doubts?
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1233203598]

Anymore doubts?</blockquote>


No doubt that I would buy this house, but for the fact that I doubt it will ever be built in Orchard Hills with an effective tax rate of 1.5% or less. I would love to buy a new home (and especially one like this) in OH when/if OH comes online in 2011 --- but I REFUSE to pay a PS/Woodbury/VoC style Mello Roos. So I'll probably be stuck in some relic with a driveway in front...
 
Hi everyone,



Been busy for a bit as I've sold my North Orange County home (thanks Scott!) and am almost done on closing on a home in Irvine. I just wanted to jump into this discussion and point out that BK's assumptions on what can and can not be achieved with regards to land use/floorplans are not accurate, unless there is some kind of zoning difference between where I live and Irvine. Our home sits on a 4500 sq ft lot (10 to an acre) and has a two-car attached garage with driveway that can park 2-6 cars (depending on how you do it). 6 cars, of course, would take some skill and would violate HOA policy by blocking the public sidewalk... but it can be done. The lot is 45' x 100' including a decent (not large) backyard and a smallish front yard. This floorplan, however, does make the main house itself somewhat narrow, although it was the most popular floorplan in the development when it opened and sold out instantly whenever they had models available. The entire house was about 2600-2700 sq ft. IR2 can provide pictures/floorplan if people are really interested and if he's willing to share. I don't mind, now that I'm almost out. :)
 
[quote author="Irvine Allergy Dr" date=1233206714]Hi everyone,



Been busy for a bit as I've sold my North Orange County home (thanks Scott!) and am almost done on closing on a home in Irvine. I just wanted to jump into this discussion and point out that BK's assumptions on what can and can not be achieved with regards to land use/floorplans are not accurate, unless there is some kind of zoning difference between where I live and Irvine. Our home sits on a 4500 sq ft lot (10 to an acre) and has a two-car attached garage with driveway that can park 2-6 cars (depending on how you do it). 6 cars, of course, would take some skill and would violate HOA policy by blocking the public sidewalk... but it can be done. The lot is 45' x 100' including a decent (not large) backyard and a smallish front yard. This floorplan, however, does make the main house itself somewhat narrow, although it was the most popular floorplan in the development when it opened and sold out instantly whenever they had models available. The entire house was about 2600-2700 sq ft. IR2 can provide pictures/floorplan if people are really interested and if he's willing to share. I don't mind, now that I'm almost out. :)</blockquote>


Kudos on the sale.

It?s been a while, thought you might have picked something up.

We were looking in similar areas and price points.

Where did you finally settle at, 92602?
 
[quote author="tenmagnet" date=1233207226]

Kudos on the sale.

It?s been a while, thought you might have picked something up.

We were looking in similar areas and price points.

Where did you finally settle at, 92602?</blockquote>


Heh, uhoh, here comes the guessing game. Not sure I want to fess up... don't want IHB'ers showing up for impromptu keg parties...



I will say this much about the sale of my home... with Scott's help, the home was first shown 2 hours (!) after hitting the MLS, we had a verbal offer immediately, open house that weekend produced another 4 offers, and we finally sold for over listing.
 
[quote author="Irvine Allergy Dr" date=1233206714]Hi everyone,



Been busy for a bit as I've sold my North Orange County home (thanks Scott!) and am almost done on closing on a home in Irvine. I just wanted to jump into this discussion and point out that BK's assumptions on what can and can not be achieved with regards to land use/floorplans are not accurate, unless there is some kind of zoning difference between where I live and Irvine. Our home sits on a 4500 sq ft lot (10 to an acre) and has a two-car attached garage with driveway that can park 2-6 cars (depending on how you do it). 6 cars, of course, would take some skill and would violate HOA policy by blocking the public sidewalk... but it can be done. The lot is 45' x 100' including a decent (not large) backyard and a smallish front yard. This floorplan, however, does make the main house itself somewhat narrow, although it was the most popular floorplan in the development when it opened and sold out instantly whenever they had models available. The entire house was about 2600-2700 sq ft. IR2 can provide pictures/floorplan if people are really interested and if he's willing to share. I don't mind, now that I'm almost out. :)</blockquote>


Your 45'x100' lot counting the public street is 7.4 units/ac not 10 to an acre.
 
[quote author="mikal1" date=1233152189]<blockquote>The average median income for IHB members is $220k. 3x220k =$660k.</blockquote>


As enjoyable as this exercise is, I suspect that you are going to find that the majority of IHBers cannot afford to purchase one of your properties - a quick glance at your "income" poll tells me that.</blockquote>


OK, maybe I've misread what you're attempting to do, so let me try a different approach. First, an "average median" is the average value of a set of median values, right? I'm just trying to figure out if you're doing any sort of calculation that isn't obvious to me. Your income poll gave you a series of values to work with, and it appears to me that you "averaged" those values. Actually, you averaged the high value of each range of values, which highlights the basic problem with the poll using "ranges of values" versus "values", but I understand that the polling mechanism limits you in that regard (except for the top most bracket which was a value not a range).



What you should have done is determined the "median" value - that's the number that you're after. So if we continue to ignore the issue with ranges versus values, and we simply take the high value of each range, then the median is 199,999 (call it 200,000).



But let's adjust a bit for the use of ranges. Lets just use the mid-point of each range as the value for that range (a reasonably conservative approach given what we know about peoples tendencies in these types of polls). If we do that then we end up with an average of 195,796, and a median of 175,000. But again, we're just going to throw out the "average" because it's not of any use in determining affordability (unless everyone wants to play nice and share).



So using your 3xincome formula then you should be building properties to sell at $525k, not $660k. 525k is the point where half of the IHB users could afford the home (based on the formula you're using), and isn't that what you're attempting to accomplish? Design something that the "average" (the usage of the word can be a bit tricky) IHBer can afford?



If I've simply misread your objective, or if I've missed something else that's going into your calculations, then apologies, my bad.
 
I'm not in the RE business but in my casual observation, it is possible to have a driveway on a very small lot. For example, in Oak Creek, there are lots of little detached condos that have driveways, these homes look just like conventional SFR's except for the small lot size. In Portola Springs, there is a neighborhood of Taylor Morrison detached condos that have driveways and conventional frontal garages on very tiny lots. Of course, if the issue is aesthetic, then that is something no financial analysis will resolve. As someone who has lived in both drivewayless and driveway homes, my personal opinion is (apologies to Charleston Heston) you'll have to pry my driveway out of my cold dead hands.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1233207684]Your 45'x100' lot counting the public street is 7.4 units/ac not 10 to an acre.</blockquote>


Ah, I see what you mean. Its an interesting topic, as in our community, there is a collection of homes that are lane-loaded with garages (attached, not detached) that are just in the street behind us. The non-lane-loaded homes are models 1-3, the lane-loaded homes were models 4-5. The total lot size (not including public streets/garage lanes) were the same for everyone, 4500 sq ft give or take. However, the homes that were lane loaded were much larger in usable sq ft as lane-loading is, as you've pointed out, a more efficient use of space on a lot. Those homes were like 2800 sq ft if I remember correctly. They did give up some yard space overall, but not much.



My wife and I looked at all the models but decided we just don't like lane-loading. It doesn't look right to us, and we didn't like the placement of the yard, which turned into a little square on the side of the home. The buying public seemed to agree, as even though the sq ft was 200 more on the lane-loaded homes, they ended up almost the same price as our floorplan.
 
[quote author="Irvine Allergy Dr" date=1233207379][quote author="tenmagnet" date=1233207226]

Kudos on the sale.

It?s been a while, thought you might have picked something up.

We were looking in similar areas and price points.

Where did you finally settle at, 92602?</blockquote>


Heh, uhoh, here comes the guessing game. Not sure I want to fess up... don't want IHB'ers showing up for impromptu keg parties...

</blockquote>


Don't be shy

No need for specifics.

Zip code will work.

Don?t worry, I?d only show up as your neighbor.

You?d be proud, believe me.
 
[quote author="Irvine Allergy Dr" date=1233209052]Um, ok. 92602.</blockquote>




I knew it.

This breaks my heart but I?m very happy for you.

In the back of my mind, I figured we?d compete against one another if you were looking in that area.

From your prior posts, I thought you?d bite on something older on a large lot in Tustin Ranch.

I made an offer on one of the properties that?s in escrow right now, Scott knows which one.

If you scored that one over me you deserve all the credit and accolades that go along with being the victor.

Well Done!
 
[quote author="Irvine Allergy Dr" date=1233206714]Hi everyone,



Been busy for a bit as I've sold my North Orange County home (thanks Scott!) and am almost done on closing on a home in Irvine. I just wanted to jump into this discussion and point out that BK's assumptions on what can and can not be achieved with regards to land use/floorplans are not accurate, unless there is some kind of zoning difference between where I live and Irvine. Our home sits on a 4500 sq ft lot (10 to an acre) and has a two-car attached garage with driveway that can park 2-6 cars (depending on how you do it). 6 cars, of course, would take some skill and would violate HOA policy by blocking the public sidewalk... but it can be done. The lot is 45' x 100' including a decent (not large) backyard and a smallish front yard. This floorplan, however, does make the main house itself somewhat narrow, although it was the most popular floorplan in the development when it opened and sold out instantly whenever they had models available. The entire house was about 2600-2700 sq ft. IR2 can provide pictures/floorplan if people are really interested and if he's willing to share. I don't mind, now that I'm almost out. :)</blockquote>


Thank you for the opportunity, Doc. Congratulations again.

Yours was a beautiful home to work with: <strong><a href="http://www.2034McGarvey.com/">www.2034McGarvey.com</a></strong> or <strong><a href="http://www.realestateshows.com/show.php?id=358924">video tour</a></strong>
 
Nice house and great job on the site, Deuce. I notice your house had one of my fav features - a porte-cochere. How did you like having that?
 
[quote author="SoCal78" date=1233212221]Nice house and great job on the site, Deuce. I notice your house had one of my fav features - a porte-cochere. How did you like having that?</blockquote>
I'm afraid I am thread-jacking BK's thread. I will start a new thread about this. About the porte-cochere, originally my wife and I thought it was just silly given how small the driveway was. However, we soon came to appreciate it and will now miss not having one. Oops, tiny clue.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1233203598]Here is the math for a house with an ugly garage at the front.



Width must be 45' minimum to get a parking stall in front of a house (2 car driveway and flares + 20' parking stall) a total of 3 stalls.(2 on driveway and 1 at curb side)



Depth for 1/2 of street right of way 30'+ driveway 20'+ <strong>garage 20'</strong>+ house 35'+ yard 15'=120'



Total minimum land area for this house is 120x45=5580 sf of land.



Take 1 acre 43,560 sf/5580 sf= 7.8 houses per acre



At this density the house is worth $908,250

</blockquote>
Hold. You're adding an extra 20' for the *attached* garage... see below...

<blockquote>

Here is the math for a plenty of curb appeal house with the garage at the rear.



Width is no longer dictated by the driveway so 35' is a good dimension for 1.75 cars at curb side and a total of 2.75 stalls are provided. (1 stall next to the rear garage and 1.75 at curbside)



Depth for 1/2 of street right of way 30' + 15' front yard setback + house 35' + yard 15' + garage 20' + Garage apron 3'+ 1/2 of alley 12'=128'

</blockquote>
This is wrong... this adds up to 130' but that's nominal.

<blockquote>

Total minimum land area for this house is 128x35=4480 sf of land.



Take 1 acre 43,560 sf/4480 sf= 9.72 houses per acre.



At this density the nice curb appeal house is worth $738,345 with more footage compared to the ugly garage house. The granny flat is an option based on a lower value ratio.



Here is the math for the nice curb appeal house (zero lot). 27.5' wide x 35' deep is the footprint for first floor=963sf.

(963sf x2 is the footage of both upper and lower level ) +( 7'x15' (105sf) mud room ) a single story only+ (600sf granny flat over garage)=2613 sf



Here is the math for the ugly garage house (conventional lot). 35' wide x 35' deep is the footprint for the first floor=1575sf<strong>-400sf(garage)</strong>=1175 sf. 1175sf (lower level)+1575 sf (upper level)=2751sf. <strong>Because the entire house is flushed with the garage plane architectural guideline mandates an offset to the building at least 4' : 2x(4x15) both levels x depth of recess x width of frontal living area without garage=120sf</strong>



2751sf-120sf=total area of an ugly garage house=2595 sf



$908k for an ugly house 2,595 sf with only a 2 car garage and a driveway or a nice curb appeal house 2,613sf for 738k with a 3 car garage and no driveway.

</blockquote>
If your subtracting 400sf for the garage... you can't add 20' of the garage to your land area calculation. Based on this:



Total minimum land area for this house is 100x45=4500 sf of land.



Even if I don't add the extra 2' you missed in the back garage equation... the land usage is about the same. Also... due to the need for added depth for street and alley access... the layout of such a neighborhood would be interesting as you can't make houses back a slope or any other public area without wasting 12 extra feet for alley access. Some homes would have to front these locations and then you lose street parking.

<blockquote>

I think the decision will be obvious. That piece of concrete in front of the ugly house, a 15' longer run of street and a 0.25 parking space ended up costing the consumers $169,905.



This is my educated accessment based on assumed criterias I learned from various CA builders . This study is not an indicator of realistic pricing set by local OC develpers in the near future.



Anymore doubts?</blockquote>
I'm not an architect but I've seen enough floorpans and neighborhood layouts to guess that something like this isn't really a land savings. If the rear garage were attached, that would be a different story... but I still contend that a separate detached garage will take up just as much, if not more space than a standard front garage w/ driveway.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1233213329][quote author="bkshopr" date=1233203598]Here is the math for a house with an ugly garage at the front.



Width must be 45' minimum to get a parking stall in front of a house (2 car driveway and flares + 20' parking stall) a total of 3 stalls.(2 on driveway and 1 at curb side)



Depth for 1/2 of street right of way 30'+ driveway 20'+ <strong>garage 20'</strong>+ house 35'+ yard 15'=120'



Total minimum land area for this house is 120x45=5580 sf of land.



Take 1 acre 43,560 sf/5580 sf= 7.8 houses per acre



At this density the house is worth $908,250

</blockquote>
Hold. You're adding an extra 20' for the *attached* garage... see below...

<blockquote>

Here is the math for a plenty of curb appeal house with the garage at the rear.



Width is no longer dictated by the driveway so 35' is a good dimension for 1.75 cars at curb side and a total of 2.75 stalls are provided. (1 stall next to the rear garage and 1.75 at curbside)



Depth for 1/2 of street right of way 30' + 15' front yard setback + house 35' + yard 15' + garage 20' + Garage apron 3'+ 1/2 of alley 12'=128'

</blockquote>
This is wrong... this adds up to 130' but that's nominal.

<blockquote>

Total minimum land area for this house is 128x35=4480 sf of land.



Take 1 acre 43,560 sf/4480 sf= 9.72 houses per acre.



At this density the nice curb appeal house is worth $738,345 with more footage compared to the ugly garage house. The granny flat is an option based on a lower value ratio.



Here is the math for the nice curb appeal house (zero lot). 27.5' wide x 35' deep is the footprint for first floor=963sf.

(963sf x2 is the footage of both upper and lower level ) +( 7'x15' (105sf) mud room ) a single story only+ (600sf granny flat over garage)=2613 sf



Here is the math for the ugly garage house (conventional lot). 35' wide x 35' deep is the footprint for the first floor=1575sf<strong>-400sf(garage)</strong>=1175 sf. 1175sf (lower level)+1575 sf (upper level)=2751sf. <strong>Because the entire house is flushed with the garage plane architectural guideline mandates an offset to the building at least 4' : 2x(4x15) both levels x depth of recess x width of frontal living area without garage=120sf</strong>



2751sf-120sf=total area of an ugly garage house=2595 sf



$908k for an ugly house 2,595 sf with only a 2 car garage and a driveway or a nice curb appeal house 2,613sf for 738k with a 3 car garage and no driveway.

</blockquote>
If your subtracting 400sf for the garage... you can't add 20' of the garage to your land area calculation. Based on this:



Total minimum land area for this house is 100x45=4500 sf of land.



Even if I don't add the extra 2' you missed in the back garage equation... the land usage is about the same. Also... due to the need for added depth for street and alley access... the layout of such a neighborhood would be interesting as you can't make houses back a slope or any other public area without wasting 12 extra feet for alley access. Some homes would have to front these locations and then you lose street parking.

<blockquote>

I think the decision will be obvious. That piece of concrete in front of the ugly house, a 15' longer run of street and a 0.25 parking space ended up costing the consumers $169,905.



This is my educated accessment based on assumed criterias I learned from various CA builders . This study is not an indicator of realistic pricing set by local OC develpers in the near future.



Anymore doubts?</blockquote>
I'm not an architect but I've seen enough floorpans and neighborhood layouts to guess that something like this isn't really a land savings. If the rear garage were attached, that would be a different story... but I still contend that a separate detached garage will take up just as much, if not more space than a standard front garage w/ driveway.</blockquote>


Nominal does not make a difference in the calculation because I did not apply it to both. If you want to be picky then we will have to add inches to complicate the calculation. There are 3 nominal walls in the frontal garage house and 4 nominal walls for the alley garage house. The difference is another 4" added to alley garage site.



Yes, I did make the mistake of taking out the footage for the garage -400sf. I will also add back the 120sf of offset since the garage does not plane out with the house. The total area of the house 2,595sf (my previous total) + 400sf (garage is not a part of the footprint) + 120sf (no off set required)= 3,115sf. That is a very big houses for a 45' wide lot. 3,115sf at $320/sf would be $1 million dollars. This scenario with more footage would make the builder very happy but it will look like a McMansion.



The density does not change because frontal garage products still plot at 7.8 units/ac vs the alley garage at 9.8 units/ac. That difference of 1.8 unit/acre means 20 more houses for a typical 10 acre site. The additional revenue will reduce the selling price for each alley garage home because the cost of the land is evenly distributed among 98 alley garage homes vs 78 front load garage houses.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1233217283]Yes, I did make the mistake of taking out the footage for the garage -400sf. I will also add back the 120sf of offset since the garage does not plane out with the house. The total area of the house 2,595sf (my previous total) + 400sf (garage is not a part of the footprint) + 120sf (no off set required)= 3,115sf. That is a very big houses for a 45' wide lot. 3,115sf at $320/sf would be $1 million dollars. This scenario with more footage would make the builder very happy but it will look like a McMansion.



The density does not change it still plot at 7.8 units/ac vs the alley garage at 9.8 units/ac. That difference of 1.8 unit/acre means 20 more houses for a typical 10 acre site. The additional revenue will reduce the selling price for each alley garage home because the cost of the land is evenly distributed among 98 alley garage homes vs 78 front load garage houses.</blockquote>
Sorry bk... no wooling my eyes.



We need to compare apples to apples and that means keeping the garage flush because otherwise you have created basically a detached front garage... which of course would take up more land.



When you compare a front garage house with the garage as part of the footprint... it should not take up more space than a similar sized detached rear garage house. And I would argue that your plan takes up more space overall as a neighborhood because of the requirements of the alley space.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1233217819][quote author="bkshopr" date=1233217283]Yes, I did make the mistake of taking out the footage for the garage -400sf. I will also add back the 120sf of offset since the garage does not plane out with the house. The total area of the house 2,595sf (my previous total) + 400sf (garage is not a part of the footprint) + 120sf (no off set required)= 3,115sf. That is a very big houses for a 45' wide lot. 3,115sf at $320/sf would be $1 million dollars. This scenario with more footage would make the builder very happy but it will look like a McMansion.



The density does not change it still plot at 7.8 units/ac vs the alley garage at 9.8 units/ac. That difference of 1.8 unit/acre means 20 more houses for a typical 10 acre site. The additional revenue will reduce the selling price for each alley garage home because the cost of the land is evenly distributed among 98 alley garage homes vs 78 front load garage houses.</blockquote>
Sorry bk... no wooling my eyes.



We need to compare apples to apples and that means keeping the garage flush because otherwise you have created basically a detached front garage... which of course would take up more land.



When you compare a front garage house with the garage as part of the footprint... it should not take up more space than a similar sized detached rear garage house. And I would argue that your plan takes up more space overall as a neighborhood because of the requirements of the alley space.</blockquote>


I will compare apple to apple





Here is the revised front loaded garage house for the garage as part of the 35'x35' footprint.

Right away 30'+ setback 20' + house 35' inclusive of garage + 15' yard= 100'



45'x100'=4500sf 43,560sf/4500sf=9.68 units/acre. The total area for the frontal garage house is 2,595 sf

35'x128'=4480sf 43,560sf/4480sf=9.72 units/acre. The total area for the frontal garage house is 2,613 sf



Frontal garage house would cost the same as Alley loaded house since the densities are very close.



Frontal garage has a driveway and a 2 car garage. 5 contiguous neighbors and no privacy at rear yard.

Alley garage has a minimum of a 2.75 garage and 40% will have a 3 car garage, 2 adjacent neighbors that can't see the rear yard. Granny flat, mud room, flex space in garage accessible from rear yard.





<img src="http://www.designlens.com/projects/2008/12/6/39.jpg" alt="" />

Images of frontal garage house



<img src="http://www.designlens.com/projects/2007/01/8/11.jpg" alt="" />

Alley loaded garage house
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top