Dutch Colonial Revival new construction

Here's a question for those who know about modern construction materials: Not far from my neighborhood in Indianapolis, in 2005, a builder put up a 5-bed, 6-bath, 8,100 square foot Dutch Colonial Revival. It has never been lived in. The price used to be ~$700K but recently a new realtor has taken it on and the price has jumped to over a million. I took a walk around the place a couple days ago and made several observations. The fascia and facing around the dormers are of a mill-rough lumber that looks sort of "shaggy," the type often seen on cheap, newly-built apartment complexes. Plastic shutters. Vinyl windows. Metal over foam doors. Concrete siding. Composite decking. No gutters (!). I looked through the windows into the kitchen and noticed the ceiling was made of some sort of plywood that had been tinted. Can anyone debunk my suspicions that this house is some sort of a ruse slapped up in hopes of quickly turning it over to some fool? Or could this be a very well-constructed house? The MLS is 21024401. Pictures may be found by searching www.mibor.com Thanks in advance for any insights!

I don't like the dormers, what they look like outside or inside: strange, dark and claustrophobia-inducing. A shed-roof knockout with much more glass in the front would have made for a better house.

As far as those materials you mentioned go, that seems pretty much standard for new home construction at that price point and even higher, these days. You aren't going to get the individually-mullioned windows and copper hand-laid roofs. Leaving off the gutters is actually not rare in high-end period-style homes, at least in the mid-Atlantic, but those techniques go along with specially-crafted roofs and drainage tile paving around the foundation walls. The runoff water has to be directed away from the house at surface level.

I'm not picking up a ruse vibe.
And a new agent taking the listing and raising the price isn't a horrible strategy if the house has been on the market a long time. I've used it successfully in the past.

Still, it doesn't seem like a $1mil house.

Wow at the theater's wallpaper and carpeting. That's some patterning...

Also a bit surprised to see the carpeting and wallpaper elsewhere - just doesn't seem like something you'd put in a new house you're trying to sell.

Still, looks like a lot of space, which is good.

Do you need the inlaw suite? We have two kitchen and use the second once a year on thanksgiving. Kind of a waste otherwise.

p.s., I like Indianapolis. I've only been only a few years ago, but thought it was a nice, clean city.

I've seen better at that price point in some areas. I've also seen areas where the low average cost of homes ensures that the techniques known and skills possessed by local builders are limited and what passes for "high-end" construction is essentially surface treatments using expensive materials.

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Click to expand...

Wow at the theater's wallpaper and carpeting. That's some patterning...

Also a bit surprised to see the carpeting and wallpaper elsewhere - just doesn't seem like something you'd put in a new house you're trying to sell.

Still, looks like a lot of space, which is good.

Do you need the inlaw suite? We have two kitchen and use the second once a year on thanksgiving. Kind of a waste otherwise.

I was left with many of the same impressions of the interior "extras." Another negative is that it's right beside a road with nearly constant traffic, although the landscaping tries to distract one from that.

I am surprised someone constructed a house that already looks so dated.

Originally Posted by johnapril

Click to expand...

I was left with many of the same impressions of the interior "extras." Another negative is that it's right beside a road with nearly constant traffic, although the landscaping tries to distract one from that.

More than 8,000 square feet on less than half an acre. Incredible.

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Click to expand...

p.s., I like Indianapolis. I've only been only a few years ago, but thought it was a nice, clean city.

8 bathrooms?? Dannnng.

Yea, indy is a good family place to live. Kind of amazing what a million there can get vs. a llot of other cities. I rag on it pretty hard as a native son and former resident but its not too bad.

It looks cheap. Big, but cheaply built. I'd never pay a million dollars for that.

p.s. if you want a real Dutch house... Mine's on the market

I don't know what the market is like in Indy so it's hard to judge. But I agree with what some of the others have said that the materials used don't sound abnormal for other new-construction homes in the $700k price range (as it was originally priced). Basically, it sounds and looks to me like it was just meant to be a big house with a lot of space, but not necessarily the most high-end of amenities.

Regarding the 8,000+ sqft house on a >.50 acre lot, the footprint for this particular house is about 5,600 sqft which, looking at the aerial photos, does not seem out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. If this were a more rural area though and everybody else had 8,000 sqft homes on lots bigger than a few acres, that's when this home would be out of place.

As for the composite decking, I know that some here will probably scoff at it (and there are definitely a few different grades of it), I actually like it. If I had a raised deck like that and had the choice between wood or composite, I'd take the composite just for the ease of use. But, then again, I'm pretty lazy and don't want to have to deal with repainting every few years and replacing the deck eventually. Of course, if the house were a 1928 Tudor style home or something like that, the composite material would really look out of place. In the end, I think it works well for a home like this one. I feel the same way about the concrete siding. The stuff is very durable and versatile and I would pick it over wood in most any situation for newer construction.

But would I pay over a $1,000,000 for this house? No.