Winter storm watch issued for Linn, surrounding counties
Corbett asks Cedar Rapids residents to ‘fall in love’ with city
Woman backs into Cedar Rapids police department’s red Jeep
Corbett announcing new naming rights deal with U.S. Cellular Center for arena, convention center
Subject of Hawk Alert at University of Iowa found in Washington County
 Rick SmithRick Smith has been covering Eastern Iowa for 28 years. In the last decade, he has reported on City Hall [...] |
|
Cedar Rapids, Marion take aim at ‘snout’ houses
Cities plan to update design standards for developments
Multimedia
Photo: snout house
A row of "snout houses" line 49th Street in Marion on Friday, Aug. 5, 2011. The city of Cedar Rapids is discussing possible new design standards, including a proposal that garages not be built closer to the street than a home's living area. (Liz Martin/SourceMedia Group News)
CEDAR RAPIDS — They’ve come to be called “snout” houses, a label that sounds more barnyard than city street and, in any event, certainly doesn’t sound pretty.
Such a name suggests that something needs to change, and just such an effort is now afoot in Cedar Rapids, Marion and elsewhere to try to turn the tide against what has been a proliferation of a certain kind of house in the cities’ new subdivisions.
Specifically, the snout house is one in which two-stall and sometimes three-stall garages extend well in front of the houses in tightly packed neighborhoods, creating subdivisions that seem more like rows of garages than homes.
City planners in Marion and Cedar Rapids are proposing new housing design standards that would cajole if not require homebuilders to build homes that seem less garage and more house.
The proposals started with the idea that garages should not extend closer to the street than the living area of the house.
“This met with extreme resistance, of course,” reports Tom Treharne, director of planning and development for the city of Marion. I
The city of Marion, he says, is continuing a discussion with the Cedar Rapids Area Home Builders Association, but at the same time, he says the city is looking to implement a new design standard that will lead to some change.
“What has occurred over time is that a lot of the development starts looking the same,” Treharne says. “And it’s led to some neighborhoods that all you see is garages. We’re kind of worried in the long-term that this cookie-cutter type of development might come back and bite us.”
Treharne says the city of Marion has worked with the owners of lots in one proposed development to design homes that are not garage-centric. Elsewhere, he says one developer has built some homes in which the garage is entered from the side, not the front. Another has come up with a concept in which the front of the house becomes the back of the house.
Des Moines approach
Mike Ludwig, planning administrator for the city of Des Moines who worked a decade ago for the city of Marion, says the City Council in Des Moines doesn’t prohibit snout houses, but it negotiates with developers to consider other designs.
One approach, he says, is to allow builders to build the house closer than the typical 30 feet from the street in exchange for a design that sets the garage 5 feet back from the front of the house.
“Let’s emphasize the living portion so the front is not just the garage door,” Ludwig says.
The side-entry garage of this house on Creekview Court in Hiawatha is an example of the design standards the city of Cedar Rapids would like to establish for new home construction. (Liz Martin/The Gazette)
Planners and builders agree that the snout house with attached forward garage has become a prevalent home design over the years in large part because it makes for a shorter driveway and so cuts down on costs. At the same time, customers love to be able to drive into the garage and walk the groceries directly into the kitchen, they say.
Even so, Ludwig says urban designers nationwide are looking for design options that do not feature “auto-dominant” architecture. There’s even a push, he says, for “neo-traditional” designs that put garages in back of houses with single-wide driveways alongside the house.
Focus in Iowa City
In Iowa City, Karen Howard, associate planner for the city, reports that Iowa City took on “garage-dominated streetscapes” in 2005, with the focus on street-facing garages on lots narrower than 60 feet in width.
Back then, she says an effort to prohibit garages that protrude beyond the living space on these narrower lots was set aside in favor of a standard in which the front surface area of the garage can’t exceed 60 percent of the total width of the house. In addition, builders can build homes on even narrower lots — which allows a “density bonus” of more homes on a parcel of land — if they agree to put the garage off an alley in the back, Howard says.
C.R. developers
Well-known builders in the Cedar Rapids metro area, Kyle Skogman and Jim Sattler, say they understand the concern about snout houses and garage-door-dominated developments. However, both say rigid rules for developers aren’t the answer.
Skogman, president of Skogman Homes, says the garage-forward design has made sense in cities that have favored more-dense and less-sprawl development because the design helps keep the price of homes down. He says cities could insist on developments with wider lots or deeper lots, but that would mean fewer homes on a parcel of ground, which drives up costs.
Sattler, president of Jim Sattler Inc. Custom Homes, calls the push to move garages back from the street “a bit of an overreaction,” and he says City Hall planners and policymakers need to take a bigger-picture look and focus on the entire streetscape.
His idea is to vary what is built in a development so some houses in the development might have garages closer to the street while others are farther back, “so you don’t have a lineup of garages.”
Cedar City Council member Tom Podzimek calls it “challenging” to get government involved in trying to coax or dictate design standards. At some level, a property owner has the right to develop a piece of property as the owner sees fit, he says. “But you don’t want to put things in that are going to take the neighbors down,” he adds.
Podzimek, a carpenter who runs a small construction company, says he favors “providing carrots rather than sticks” to developers,” and he says he believes home designs evolve over time.
“All the different things we talk about from street trees and everything else,” he says. “Designs are going to evolve as individuals also evolve. Is it really so bad to take a little walk from a (detached) garage into the house? It gives me a calming effect.”
i used to refer to such houses as “garage with attached house.” now i live in one. i do like the “bringing groceries directly from garage to kitchen” idea regardless of the style of house. our whole street is not cookie cutter tho (in a suburb of Columbus OH) most homes feature the double garage out front. that style also insulates the family room and bedrooms from street noise-not that it’s much of a problem in this neighborhood.
From what I’ve seen, the attack on “auto-dominant” architecture has been in place for a while now. If Bever gets any worse I’ll have to buy a tank to get down it. Now wouldn’t that be interesting, “tank-dominate” architecture.
Aren’t smell chippers great?
…..”dominant”
Why is it the government’s duty to tell homebuilders how they must design a home?
If people are willing to buy the home..what business is it of government to dictate how its to be designed?
I lived in Florida for a few years and moved back to CR recently. Ever since I’ve moved back, I just can’t shake the feeling that I’ve somehow lost a little freedom moving here. It has to be crap like this (the state income tax doesn’t help either). On the other hand, I now live in a city that buys and runs private businesses (hotel), so it’s got that going for it (har har).
Skogman, president of Skogman Homes, says the garage-forward design has made sense in cities that have favored more-dense and less-sprawl development because the design helps keep the price of homes down. He says cities could insist on developments with wider lots or deeper lots, but that would mean fewer homes on a parcel of ground, which drives up costs.
************************************************************
Why would a wider and deeper lot drive up costs? Truth is, If a person has to spend more on a larger lot, that leaves the DEVELOPER less money to work with to build the house. We have lived in a cracker-box society with people piled on top of one another and the cheese cutter designs for 20 years now. Hell, every neighborhood looks the same.
The other thing I have noticed is that because these homes are built with the cheapest materials you can get so the developers and contractors can make MORE MONEY by providing less, these homes get “long in the tooth” LONG before any trees can grow. The concrete starts cracking, paint is fading and they look like trailer homes on steroids. BUT, they pack loads of people in small treeless areas that under normal options couldn’t afford to live there.Another step towards a two class society…….those who have and those who don’t. These homes are mostly form over function complete with the cheapest appliances available. The good old cheap Whirlpool undercounter dishwashers for 199.00 get old quickly.
I live in the neighborhood by the “side entry garage” home (pictured above), and the general concensus is that this home is an eyesore in the neighborhood. “What were they thinking?” is the comment most often heard. Drive by and see for yourself…
I’ve driven by this home many times myself and think the home looks very nice.
So what are you advocating Mr. Adams? That city government dictate to homebuilders how the home is built now? Require them to install specific appliances, use certain materials?
No one puts a gun to people’s head and are forcing them to purchase these homes. Again, if people are willing to purchase these homes, then what business is it of the government to tell the homebuilders how to design them?
The government’s responsibility here should be limited to insuring the home is built safely by a licensed builder and that it passes inspection and meets codes.
The city doesn’t have any business in what people want to do with their homes. I think there are far more important things that the city should be dealing with than this. I think these “snout” houses look a lot better than some of the homes that are still boarded up in the flood zone.
The city wants to tell you what kind of design your house can be…The heck you say…
THis shouldn’t be a big surprise to anyone. Cities have been telling us what we can and cannot build on our property, where, how, and what size, for decades. People who complained about it, or warned about it being a bad pecedent as each new “it’s the best thing for everyone” law (or ordinance, if you prefer) about zoning, setbacks, parked cars, or whatever flavor of the day was passed have been scoffed at, labeled, and maligned. It’s a little late to start whining now. You asked for it, you agreed to it, you got it.
There are plenty of guys out there that would rather have a bigger garage then house and the city dictating what people want is ridiculous. If people didnt want them, they wouldnt buy them which would force design change.
I’m thinking that the city should keep their snouts out of home designs. Let the consumers and the builders decide.
I guess it’s all relative. Where I moved from was an area really bad regarding “snout houses”, so when I moved here it was something of a relief to see some sort of variety in most neighborhoods.
One thing here that helps is that many of the newer subdivisions sell most of their lots so you have multiple developers for the homes themselves, each with their own designs. Out west most subdivisions are fully developed by a single developer. The worst example I have ever seen was a subdivision of 183 homes… with 3 designs. That was redundant.
I’ve had a house with the garage in the back. So I appreciate only having to shovel 1/3 the snow I used to. Not only that, but less pavement means more grass area for kids to play.
If we’re that worried about the aesthetics of garages, maybe we need to go back to the old days where we had garages hidden in the back with alleys for access.
Actually, that’s a pretty good idea.
I don’t live in CR, nor do I live in a “subdivision,” but access to my double garage is from the alley. My neighbors and I make sure that snow is cleared from the alley, since the “city” government does not plow alleys. Works like a charm, and I can still lug my groceries and other stuff right into the house from the attached garage.
If some alien beings were to visit the US without prior research their first impression might be that cars are the domant life-form and those houses are where cars live.
This design make a lot of sense for a number of reasons, one of which is cost. You can fit and house and garage on a smaller lot than what would be needed for a garage on the side or garage in the back design. Smaller lot = less $$, making the property more affordable. It also increases housing density, which is a main theme of sustainable/green building. The reality is garages are becoming bigger, consider the SUV’s and full size pickups that get parked inside. And three and four stall garages are common too. Good luck moving away from an “auto-dominant architecture”. Throw in restrictive neighborhood covenents that don’t allow out buildings (sheds) and require boats and trailers to be kept in a garage, out of sight. The government has yet to elaborate on what “drawbacks” there might be to neighborhoods of this housing design. They need to make their case.
I live in a “snout house.” Our master bedroom, porch, and decks all look out to the trees on an adjoining property. Carrying groceries in is convenient, and I have a short drive to shovel in the winter.
However, my house also meets Coralville code for its structure, electrical wiring, and plumbing. Contrary to what the libertarians above whine, there is a definite purpose for municipalities to inspect and license new home construction. And, we have restrictive covenants in our neighborhood which prevent me from keeping junk cars (or antitank guns!) on the front lawn. But, municipalities need to focus on the functionality of homes, not their subjective aesthetics.
So they’re still allowed in your back yard?
Used to own a snout, and I also liked having a shorter drive to shovel. One drawback that I didn’t think of when buying: you can’t see diddly out the front. The house was on a ooul-de-sac with the snout on the inlet side, so you couldn’t really see who’s driving down your street until they’ve passed your driveway. A minor thing to be sure, but it’s kind of nice to be able to look out the front to see if guests have arrived.
I’m sitting in the small front bedroom, which we turned into a study. The window gives us a view to the front: with some sandbags and an M60, I could control access into our subdivision…
Right or wrong, I do agree with this statement from above “they look like trailer homes on steroids”. Although, I think that is my personal opinion because I like neighborhoods where houses have a little more individuality. If every individual on the block wants a house that looks exactly like their neighbors, then they should be able to have it. Practically every neighborhood in CR can be dated based on the type of houses in the neighborhood. In 30 years, these houses will be just another signature of times gone by.
I went from the neighborhood with ranch style houses with detached garages set at the back of the property (a very long driveway), skipped the split-level houses, and went straight to the snout house.
As you said, every era (and area) has its “style”.
Daggum gummint comin’ fer mah garage now! Quik! to teh intertubes!
Just a theory, but… I think this house ‘design’ is destructive to the sense of community one would have in a ‘normal’ neighborhood. With such a prominent garage so close to the street, the occupants of these dwellings are able to come and go without ever interacting with their neighbors. The atmosphere created by the neighborhood even seems uninviting and devoid of personality.
I do, however, appreciate them for their personification of America; Cheap, low quality and plentiful.
Oh come on, Chaim! I greet my neighbors when we are working on our yards together, and the neighborhood kids have backyards, away from the street, to play in.
While architecture plays a role, it is the people who make a neighborhood.
*Goldarnit, Gazette, your “posting too fast” message is messing with my style!*
…i agree government should not have to get involved in this…people should realize plain white metal garage doors are not attractive on their own…
“people should realize plain white metal garage doors are not attractive”
That’s why I painted a big, red hammer and sickle on MY garage door. The neighbors love it!
[golf clap] Bravo Comrad!
this would have probably been more beneficial back when ya know, people were building homes..
If you look at the center of old neighborhoods, or small rural towns, you can note the general social motion towards ‘me’ instead of ‘we’ in community architecture that has occurred since the mid-20th century.
In newer developments, as yards and space became more important and available, we moved homes away from the streets, such that homes were less ‘inviting’ to the passerby. Often, sidewalks came as afterthoughts, and something that were then pushed in zoning, to ensure people could walk in neighborhoods without being forced to walk in the streets.
Front porches were big architectural pieces in old towns. People would go there to escape heat, relax on porch swings, shell peas…or similar tasks. As such, they were invitations to interaction…sidewalk not far away, anyone going by was in the social space that almost demands some acknowledgment of some kind. People walked to more places and more things. It was common for the unplanned visiting, sharing of information, and so on that front porches made possible.
We got rid of front porches, but as decorative almost. We hardly use front doors anymore. We use side doors, garage doors, near our cars. Instead of front porches, we moved to back patios, decks, and yards. Instead of a porch being inviting to social interaction…the back patio is always by invitation only, thereby limiting social interaction to only the chosen, the ‘circle’ of close friends and family.
Air-conditioning made the interactions less likely as we now escape to the indoors, where we use to escape summer heat to the outdoors.
And then we removed parking from the street, with remote access, ensured that we can insulate ourselves from one another even more. Pull up the street, hit the garage door opener, pull in, close the door, and never have to interact with anyone.
This ‘privatization’ of experience ensures ‘I’ get to do and live how I want…while in complete disregard to the fact that I am a social animal living in community…i.e., amongst and in relationship to others. Planning ‘communities’ is challenged by how to ensure communities that are more than a cluster of buildings near one another.
Ironically, forcing people to live by your ideals is one of the most anti-social acts committable by man. Personally, I don’t buy it; you speak of niceties only known to the common person during the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. Before that, the cattle class among us (majority) was living in the cramped slums of the inner-city, or in tenant shacks spread far and wide among the country side. The fact is, yes humans are social animals, but they are also reclusive thinkers and very selective about contact. To blame our “lack of porches/excessive garages” as the reason for our ills is a bit presumptive. To the contrary, the massing of millions of independent souls in conformist cities (read, lack of freedoms) is in fact the root cause. So in other words, while I’m forced by social norms to live in this city, stay out of my business, and we’ll get along just fine.
When you write “while I’m forced by social norms to live in this city, stay out of my business”, it seems like you are reinforcing what Mr. Chaffee has written above.