So I'm reading a paper - I read lots of papers, blogs, mags, books, etc… and I come across yet another fun article on home design and building, this time a project in the Catskill using a nuanced play out of our playbook.  Same old thing we do - idyllic, gentlemanly homes that work.

Now, it's safe to assume that the $600k+ marketing we have dropped on NYC metro area in the past 8 years have inspired a lot of people to buy our homes, but it also really gets the blood pumping in some entrepreneurs.  Not quite copy cats, but inspired by what we do, and definitely aimed at the same market, with a time tested narrative of 'my grandfather was a logger', 'unscripted planning', 'tobacco in his teeth as he revs the chainsaw'.  It's so on message it's embarrassing.

So I'm reading this article and the writer is fawning over this guy like they woke up in the same bed or something, and eventually goes on to say this -

"Earnest and soft-spoken, he appeared to be a man with discerning aesthetic judgment and the good sense not to broadcast it too loudly."


Check back in a year or two, and we will see if the low key approach to selling high-priced homes actually works. Like I said, it's remarkable how similar these articles are to the ones I was seeing in 2005/6, and looking back, those articles were about projects that failed -typically not in a dramatic crash and burn scenario - but more in a 'we have no sales and it's draining our bank account and ruining our relationships with our money guy'. The writers are even drawn to the same type of person - Brooklyn hipster designer with a great narrative and zero sales. Or actually not even a house built.


My thoughts- succinctly - price matters, and so does the reach of your voice.

New updated photo slide show of the home we are building in Stone Ridge NY.

Looking for a New Old House?

Couple of notes of interest regarding this article.

1. Seems like we have now come full circle - these same articles were being written in 2005/6/7.  
2. The volume of articles on homes, home designs, home sizes, etc… has exponentially increased over the last 3 months.  Big homes, small homes, old homes, new homes.  All good news for us whose approach is typically validated by these articles (in fact, half the time I think they are inspired by our approach, ideas and homes).
3. Once again, these articles - including the one in the Times yesterday - feature projects with large budgets, and tremendous sq ft costs.  I mean, $300 to $500 a sq ft at a minimum for these babies, not including architecture, land, permitting, landscaping, and a ton of other costs.  I've said from the beginning that building nice stuff at big budgets is easy.  Try doing it affordably if you really want a viable business.

So for me, the validation of this article mostly centers around how affordable our offerings are - land, design, transaction costs, money costs, holding costs, and construction for under $250 per sq ft for our smaller homes and under $210 for our bigger homes.

It's really quite simple how we do it - simple vertical integration - cut out the middle man, sell direct to the consumer.

No percentage architect fee, no contractor markup on our new homes, no real estate fee.  Any team less cross-talented could easily charge another $70k to build homes like we do and would be in no way over charging or lining their pockets- they would just be paying a lot more middle men than we do, and along the way, creating many more opportunities for mis-communication amongst the team and fractionalization of the project.

I just ran across a new old home in Stone Ridge the other day - pretty nice house, but at $499k for 2000 sq ft, all I got to say, is good luck with that.  But I'm not going to say he's being greedy, just less 'in-house'.

To us, affordability has always been the key, and we reversed engineered a product/home at different price points that attempts to match affordability and value perfectly.  Never suckered in that all bells and whistles are made the same or worth the extra cost.

Alarm systems yes.

Low heat alarms yes.

Spray foam insulation yes.

On demand hot water heaters yes.

Simplicity and restraint yes.

‍

New York Times has a neat article out today about the glories of a 700 sq ft home.  I agree, they can live large, and I believe our latest design, that comes in right at 721 sq ft (Town zoning 720 minimum), might be a real winner - I've already warned the owner that everyone is going to want to see this house so she should keep her hair done and the place tidy for a few months at least.  We have a lot of people poking around our homes, seeing what sort of design and size and approach we are up to now.

Here's our mini- barn.

We've also done the Shack, at 500 sq ft, the Modern at 720 sq ft, and quite a few at 800 sq ft.

‍