Anyone interested in cottage style housing in DC area?
September 14, 2006 2:47 PM Subscribe
We're interested in building a cottage-home community in the Montgomery County, MD The idea is to build about 8 small (less than 1000 sq. feet) well-built, environmentally-friendly cottages facing a common courtyard/gardens on about 1 acre- based on those like The Cottage Company's http://www.cottagecompany.com/ designed by Ross Chapin, http://www.rosschapin.com/. The idea would be to give a more affordable, environmentally-friendly housing option to single people, young couples, small families, empty-nesters- those who are priced out of the current market, searching for community. DC Me-fites, does this sound interesting/do-able?
We're not architects, developers, or builders, but we do know someone who runs a big contracting company, and have been in touch with one of the architects who builds these in the Seattle area. We need to figure out Mo. Co's zoning laws and financial feasibility, but we're curious to see if this is an attractive idea to anyone.
We're not architects, developers, or builders, but we do know someone who runs a big contracting company, and have been in touch with one of the architects who builds these in the Seattle area. We need to figure out Mo. Co's zoning laws and financial feasibility, but we're curious to see if this is an attractive idea to anyone.
Best answer: We live in Montgomery County (MoCo Mefi Meetup anyone?) and it sounds like a fascinating idea! (As for its do-ability we're neither architects, developers, or builders as well.) But let us know how the project goes!
posted by catdog at 3:14 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by catdog at 3:14 PM on September 14, 2006
Best answer: I would definitely be interested, depending on the location.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by Mr. Gunn at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2006
Best answer: I'd want to hear more, but my big concern would be that most of the price punishment in our area has to do with the land cost - how much more affordable could something be made by altering building?
posted by phearlez at 3:52 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by phearlez at 3:52 PM on September 14, 2006
Check zoning laws first. Many areas have many restrictions on "minimal sq ft"/residence and density.
Sometimes the rational is to prevent someone from erecting a lot of tiny shacks and creating an instant ghetto.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 3:52 PM on September 14, 2006
Sometimes the rational is to prevent someone from erecting a lot of tiny shacks and creating an instant ghetto.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 3:52 PM on September 14, 2006
I would wonder if you'd be able to get a builder to do a project on such a small scale. So much of what's being built now are complexes of 100+ townhouse and condo units. Or the pricey Luxery homes, and even then it's usually at least a dozen going up in an area.
I think you'd really have to push the "Green" aspect of it to get people interested, because the price per square foot is probably going to be very high. I know I've seen some similiar projects advertised, maybe further out in Frederick county. One property was a former farm, and the houses were grouped together so that more of the acreage would stay open and natural. I don't remember how pricey that was.
I would have been interested in this two years ago, but we cashed out our equity in Germantown and moved to the NY boonies. Bye-Bye Beltway!
posted by saffry at 4:06 PM on September 14, 2006
I think you'd really have to push the "Green" aspect of it to get people interested, because the price per square foot is probably going to be very high. I know I've seen some similiar projects advertised, maybe further out in Frederick county. One property was a former farm, and the houses were grouped together so that more of the acreage would stay open and natural. I don't remember how pricey that was.
I would have been interested in this two years ago, but we cashed out our equity in Germantown and moved to the NY boonies. Bye-Bye Beltway!
posted by saffry at 4:06 PM on September 14, 2006
Best answer: What about Howard County? They have major affordable housing problems but seem to want to change that. And Columbia was sort of founded on the ideals of housing for all and a full-service community, etc. As for Montgomery County, there has to be an official in Takoma Park who would be interested in that. Sounds interesting to me, but I wouldn't move out of the city for it, when it seems more environmentally efficient to live and work in the city (in my case, Baltimore).
posted by Airhen at 4:12 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by Airhen at 4:12 PM on September 14, 2006
Best answer: Frederick County, MD here, looking to relocate closer to DC if I stay in the area. Land prices are going to screw you over if zoning doesn't, from what I understand. Montgomery County housing prices are truly insane. But if it could be done, and I could afford it, I might go for it.
posted by Alterscape at 4:38 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by Alterscape at 4:38 PM on September 14, 2006
I think it's a wonderful idea, but this worried me a bit:
...based on those like The Cottage Company's http://www.cottagecompany.com/...
The first huge problem I see with the setup on their website is that the homes are just way to close to each other. I don't know what your plans are, but I would just like to suggest that if you've got an acre of land, spread the houses out a bit more than those pictured on that website.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:07 PM on September 14, 2006
...based on those like The Cottage Company's http://www.cottagecompany.com/...
The first huge problem I see with the setup on their website is that the homes are just way to close to each other. I don't know what your plans are, but I would just like to suggest that if you've got an acre of land, spread the houses out a bit more than those pictured on that website.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:07 PM on September 14, 2006
Response by poster: Hey folks,
Mrs. Leotrotsky posted the initial question above. (on my login! the horror!) A couple of notes:
1. We're looking at land prices in Silver Spring, Rockville, etc.. an acre of land comes to about 500k (of course, it varies). If you take the 3rd Street cottages as an example (8 cottages) that comes to about 62k per cottage. Those were built on 2/3rds of an acre
2. Construction: price per sq foot, as estimated by the builders out in washington st is $200. Assume 1000 sq ft, you're talking $200k per cottage
3. Sum the two, and the rough estimate is 262k per house. Undoubtably it will be more expensive than that for building permits, etc. But those are the rough #s we came up with.
4. Zoning: Obviously an issue, but there are ways to address it. In Washington State they either obtained exceptions from the local planning board, or they created a special 'cottage zoning' on top of existing rules.
5. We'd probably be looking to sell the homes as condos, with fees to upkeep the common areas
6. The ratio of house size to open land, and the distance from other cottages (despite appearances) actually gives a real sense of spaciousness and light.
7. Should I post this to Projects, or something? if you're interested, drop me an email to allen.reeceATgmail.com
posted by leotrotsky at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2006
Mrs. Leotrotsky posted the initial question above. (on my login! the horror!) A couple of notes:
1. We're looking at land prices in Silver Spring, Rockville, etc.. an acre of land comes to about 500k (of course, it varies). If you take the 3rd Street cottages as an example (8 cottages) that comes to about 62k per cottage. Those were built on 2/3rds of an acre
2. Construction: price per sq foot, as estimated by the builders out in washington st is $200. Assume 1000 sq ft, you're talking $200k per cottage
3. Sum the two, and the rough estimate is 262k per house. Undoubtably it will be more expensive than that for building permits, etc. But those are the rough #s we came up with.
4. Zoning: Obviously an issue, but there are ways to address it. In Washington State they either obtained exceptions from the local planning board, or they created a special 'cottage zoning' on top of existing rules.
5. We'd probably be looking to sell the homes as condos, with fees to upkeep the common areas
6. The ratio of house size to open land, and the distance from other cottages (despite appearances) actually gives a real sense of spaciousness and light.
7. Should I post this to Projects, or something? if you're interested, drop me an email to allen.reeceATgmail.com
posted by leotrotsky at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2006
I looked at the cottagecompany layouts and did not like them. My suggestions are 1) get rid of the commons, and 2) make the front yards big enough to entertain in, for little kids to run around in, and for fancy gardening.
The walk streets in Venice CA were built around 1910 and seem to have gotten most things right. People there hang out and entertain out front because it is only neighbors walking by. (Most sub-urban house use back yards for entertainment to keep it private from those driving by).
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 7:26 PM on September 14, 2006
The walk streets in Venice CA were built around 1910 and seem to have gotten most things right. People there hang out and entertain out front because it is only neighbors walking by. (Most sub-urban house use back yards for entertainment to keep it private from those driving by).
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 7:26 PM on September 14, 2006
Best answer: I also adore the Cottage Company designs, but the more I look at them the more it seems like they're not really designed with low cost as the priority -- especially with all the nice materials and detailing in their own photos of completed houses. I'd plan on cost per square foot being significantly higher than the local average if you want to achieve the same level of quality.
Someone I know has recently been working on a similar project (though more units) for a new cohousing community. Based on what I've heard of his experience I'd just warn you that it will be at least a part-time job for one person, and likely considerably more than that, to keep a project like this on track. It's a truly surprising amount of work to coordinate everything between the buyers, architects, and contractors. You'll need to provide some kind of cost cap up front for buyers (assuming you don't intend to build the entire community on spec) and it will still be somewhat more difficult than usual for them to obtain financing. Meanwhile there will be inevitable time and cost overruns on site, and at least a few problems with permits and zoning.
And it can be hard to find people who are interested in buying small houses, no matter how nicely built, for what it costs to build them (e.g. something like 1200 sq ft may be much easier to sell than 1000). More space is always easier to sell than better quality.
None of this should discourage you, but if it were me I'd want to assure myself that the finances would work out, and have (legally) committed buyers for most or all units, before buying a lot.
posted by RogerB at 9:04 PM on September 14, 2006
Someone I know has recently been working on a similar project (though more units) for a new cohousing community. Based on what I've heard of his experience I'd just warn you that it will be at least a part-time job for one person, and likely considerably more than that, to keep a project like this on track. It's a truly surprising amount of work to coordinate everything between the buyers, architects, and contractors. You'll need to provide some kind of cost cap up front for buyers (assuming you don't intend to build the entire community on spec) and it will still be somewhat more difficult than usual for them to obtain financing. Meanwhile there will be inevitable time and cost overruns on site, and at least a few problems with permits and zoning.
And it can be hard to find people who are interested in buying small houses, no matter how nicely built, for what it costs to build them (e.g. something like 1200 sq ft may be much easier to sell than 1000). More space is always easier to sell than better quality.
None of this should discourage you, but if it were me I'd want to assure myself that the finances would work out, and have (legally) committed buyers for most or all units, before buying a lot.
posted by RogerB at 9:04 PM on September 14, 2006
We've been working on developing a cohousing community in Canada, and here's a few things I've learned that may be helpful to you.
- How are you going to buy the land? Someone needs to buy the land for the group, whether it be a developer or a prospective owner(s) with enough cash to buy it out-right. This is the trickiest part, as you'll need to use the land as collateral for construction financing if that's the way you're going to go, and you generally can't get financing for both. Also, finding a piece of land that meets the needs of a larger group is difficult. A lot of successful groups have had one or two members who purchased/owned the land first before building up membership.
- Take a look at the cohousing literature if this is the direction you want to go. Especially McCamant & Durrett and Scott-Hanson. Experience from other cohousing communities suggests that the preferable size for a cohousing development is 20-30 units, providing economies of scale (for common costs), sustainability and community cohesion. 8 is certainly do-able, but there are some challenges of building a community this size.
- People get really hung up on design right away, and it's a real challenge to keep the group from getting ahead of itself. If you form a group, spend some time early on working on your process (the formal consensus decision-making process that many cohousing communities use is really cool). I've seen a few communities dissolve because they could not work out their differences in a healthy, constructive way. Also, begin community-building within the group right away. I've heard of groups jumping on an opportunity to build something really quick, moving in, and then realizing that they have no real sense of community--just some pretty homes to live in.
That's enough--I get really excited talking about intential communities, as they're so much more interesting than what's generally out there. I wish you the best of luck!
posted by RibaldOne at 8:07 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
- How are you going to buy the land? Someone needs to buy the land for the group, whether it be a developer or a prospective owner(s) with enough cash to buy it out-right. This is the trickiest part, as you'll need to use the land as collateral for construction financing if that's the way you're going to go, and you generally can't get financing for both. Also, finding a piece of land that meets the needs of a larger group is difficult. A lot of successful groups have had one or two members who purchased/owned the land first before building up membership.
- Take a look at the cohousing literature if this is the direction you want to go. Especially McCamant & Durrett and Scott-Hanson. Experience from other cohousing communities suggests that the preferable size for a cohousing development is 20-30 units, providing economies of scale (for common costs), sustainability and community cohesion. 8 is certainly do-able, but there are some challenges of building a community this size.
- People get really hung up on design right away, and it's a real challenge to keep the group from getting ahead of itself. If you form a group, spend some time early on working on your process (the formal consensus decision-making process that many cohousing communities use is really cool). I've seen a few communities dissolve because they could not work out their differences in a healthy, constructive way. Also, begin community-building within the group right away. I've heard of groups jumping on an opportunity to build something really quick, moving in, and then realizing that they have no real sense of community--just some pretty homes to live in.
That's enough--I get really excited talking about intential communities, as they're so much more interesting than what's generally out there. I wish you the best of luck!
posted by RibaldOne at 8:07 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
I would love something like this. Studio prices are awful, so I'm stuck in a room with bunny wallpaper living with a parent in Twinbrook.
But where to find untouched land in MoCo?(!)
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:20 AM on September 15, 2006
But where to find untouched land in MoCo?(!)
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:20 AM on September 15, 2006
Given the pro-development direction Montgomery Co. has taken this would be a refreshing alternative to high-rise/high density housing. With Tuesday's "just about" elected Ike Leggitt as County Exec, perhaps the county government would be more open to this type of moderate development.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 11:46 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 11:46 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]
I just saw an article in Dwell magazine, profiling Gregory La Vardera, an architect who sells stock plans for modern houses (i.e. not those awful giant log cabins/McMansions that every other stock plan seems to feature). The rates are incredibly reasonable in comparison to hiring an architect to custom design the homes, I think about $1500 for construction plans. Check out the Camp House Group for some lovely, small footprint houses.
If you haven't already seen the Dwell article, they show pictures of a Plat House being built in Arkansas. Might be an interesting option to keep architect fees down. La Vardera oversaw the construction remotely, from his NJ office.
posted by Joh at 6:29 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
If you haven't already seen the Dwell article, they show pictures of a Plat House being built in Arkansas. Might be an interesting option to keep architect fees down. La Vardera oversaw the construction remotely, from his NJ office.
posted by Joh at 6:29 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dersins at 3:10 PM on September 14, 2006