Talk:Single-family detached home

Single-family = detached?

Rowhouses, such as the houses that make up most of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston, are single-family attached homes. This article seems to be talking about detached houses. "Single-family" simply refers to the fact that the home is not a multiunit building, such as an apartment building or condo. It is entirely possible to have single family attached homes, multifamily detached homes, single family detached, multifamily attached, etc etc.

I can see how out West in California or Oklahoma one might use the term "single family" to mean "detached" (because there are no rowhouses) but I'm not sure it's used that way in the Northeast. Passdoubt | Talk 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... these should probably be two separate articles -- I *live* in a single-family rowhouse, of which most of my neighborhood is made up. 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, semi-detached home in Queens, NY here.

Because I agree with Passdoubt above that this article is really about single-detached dwellings, I have renamed the article and corrected the terminology throughout. I don't think there is a need for a separate article as "single-family" is simply an older term for the same idea. --Jrsnbarn 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I'm disappointed with JackLumber's choice to revert the move from Single-family home to Single detached dwelling, particlulary when detached is a more explicit term than family and is used in Canada, the UK, and the United States. Consider Chicago, "Residential Single-Unit (Detached House)"; New York City, "Detached Building"; Denver, "Dwelling, single unit". I invite JackLumber to further justify his rationale here so the matter can be discussed. --Jrsnbarn 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture gallery

As I think that the previous gallery (displaying US single family homes) is the best match to the described building type above, I added it back in. The mix of "real" single family homes and "huts-around-the-world" did not look right and did not help to display the matter of a single-family home. I am probably right if I say the river house is a bit exotic for when you look up "Single-family home" in an encyclopedia. So maybe we should open a new article "single-family homes in other nations" or something like that. Let me know what you think. -- Boereck 11:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class and size references

I would like to point out that the inclsuion of class references (e.g. "upper middle class home" or even "mid-size" home) is highly arbitrary. An upper middle class home (valued at roughly between $400k and half a million USD) in California might only have 1,000 square feet (as seen here), whereas such a home in suburban Chicago might be big enough to fit that 1000 square footer in the garage (as seen here). Thus, considering that an upper middle class home in Chicago might very well be thrice the size of one in San Francisco, we need to abstain from any class references, unless such are obvious (in the case of shacks and mansions). Size statements, though somewhat less subjective are still quite OR as there are no real guidelines. As long as we abstain from class references however we should be on relatively safe, that is objective, ground. Best Regards, Signature ^brendelNow under review! 05:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider too, that in some of the newer (developed after the automobile) inner cities in the U.S., there are many depressed areas that are primarily made up of single-family detached housing stock. One good example is Detroit, which has very few multi-family dwellings, even in the most poverty-stricken areas, and has one of the largest percentages of owner-occupied housing among the U.S.'s largest cities at 54.9% (2000 census). An example of a typical Detroit inner-city home is the right side brick building of the Hitsville U.S.A. museum, which was constructed as a single-family home in the 1930s. (I'm not sure whether or not the building on the left was converted to duplex use after it was built or if that's the original configuration.) 70.123.216.219 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very ture, while a shack in an undesirable California neighborhood California can go for $400,000, single-family homes in Detriot or Augusta can go for as little as an upscale car. In some cities such as Salinas, CA near-six figure incomes are the basis for homeownership while in others like Detriot even those at or near the poverty threshold can afford homes. BTW: Both houses belong to the Hitsville museum-that's why you see that connection between them-but they're both good examples of inner-city single family homes.Signature ^brendelNow under review! 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement suggestions

I would like to see something about the different traditions in construction methods for single-family homes around the world. For example, in large areas of the United States single-family homes are typically lightly built, the construction being dominated by materials such as timber, plasterboards, corrugated iron and so on, often without a basement. In contrast, more single-family homes in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria are massive brick buildings using concrete ceilings and very strong foundations, making the construction much more expensive but also enhances durability. In contrast again, Scandinavia nowadays tends to use a fully concrete construction and corrugated iron for the roof (I think that the lesser use of roof tiles in e.g. Norway and Iceland is at least partly due to the climate being too stressful for such materials). This is from my experience and what I remember from reading over time, I dont' have a particular source ready, therefore I hope that someone with reliable sources is able to add something regarding this :-). I remember having read in newspapers that the hurricanes e.g. in Florida would have destroyed much less homes resp. the damage would tend to be a great deal smaller if they were built in the Central/Western European fashion. Gestumblindi 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.69.8 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My overhaul (being bold)

I added a new definition, which a source for one, which is rare of this page it seems. I rearranged sections, and I tagged the gallery and the list of rooms for removal. The gallery is most just repetative images of similar houses in the US and Canada with no explaination of how they are vital to understanding the topic. The list of rooms has no conceivable boundries since ALL ROOM TYPES IN EXISTANCE could be in a single-family home, since they vary dramatically in size and style. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess and appears to have been badly vandalized

I'm challenging this edit on 20 July 2017 which radically altered the terminology in the first paragraph of the article. Anyone who has actually purchased a home or litigated residential real property title (as an attorney, I have done both) would know that "single-family detached home" is by far the most common term in the published literature. Any objections before I take out the trash? Coolcaesar (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out and undoing lousy edits. Fettlemap (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from "House"? (Possible merger)

I don't see what makes this concept different from simply house. As far as I can tell, the two terms are synonymous. Finnigami (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

"House" possible merger 103.84.100.21 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]