A recent drive through the neighborhood of Milton I grew up in, referred to “Columbine Cliffs” or simply, “The Columbines”, revealed a few distinct car related-changes in the almost seven years since I’ve lived there. As I drove along winding Hinckley Road, lined with mature trees and architecturally charming homes from the early 1900s, former governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick’s home included, I came to notice pretty much what one would expect from an established upper-middle class Massachusetts neighborhood.
Chiefly, I saw fewer Volvo wagons and Saabs, and more hybrids and luxury CUVs, such as the new BMW X1 in the driveway of former neighbors, the Greens, who were last driving a Volvo XC70 at the time I moved. Among the most CC-worthy sight, however, was this double Lexus RX 350 driveway of the house formerly occupied by the Schiffmans, a family I knew growing up. I guess no demographic is immune to today’s crossover conformity.
Photographed: Columbine Cliffs, Milton, Massachusetts – December 2017
Crossovers are the station wagons of today. Like their forbears that were everywhere in suburbia in the 1960s, they have a practicality that is universal and undeniable.
They kind of are station wagons that are sitting a little higher.
I sometimes muse that the SUV’s of today seem to be direct descendent sw of the passenger cars of the 30’s and 40’s … sort of as if the “longer, lower, wider” 1960s car were an aberration and evolution is getting back on course.
As for the conformity of the burbs, what is the current equivalent of a SAAB for those who want to be just a little different?
I really can’t think of anything that fits that niche (as I put Volvo in a slightly different place in the solar system).
Interesting observation about vehicle evolution, and I’ve been coming to a similar conclusion–for most of the automobile’s existence, buyers have liked cars that are functional and easy to use. The oversized exteriors, ultra low seating and poor space utilization of 1960s and 1970s U.S. cars really was the anomaly, not the norm. Today’s CUVs and SUVs actually are more logical branches on the evolutionary tree, with taller designs, relatively small footprints and good interior volume.
I sometimes muse that the SUV’s of today seem to be direct descendent sw of the passenger cars of the 30’s and 40’s … sort of as if the “longer, lower, wider” 1960s car were an aberration and evolution is getting back on course.
I’ve only been saying it here since day one like a broken record (and at TTAC before that), so I’m glad to know I’ve actually influenced someone’s musings. 🙂
You are our muse, Paul.
Every time I post here, I think I am personally writing to you and try not to get into trouble like I used to back in the TTAC days.
I have re-read your stuff about the 1962 Plymouth Dodge lines about four times. It is a revelation.
Wow! You should mention that to the guy who runs this website!
😉
Seriously Paul, you really are my mentor, and I am pretty sure that you have influenced my thinking. I haven’t gone looking for an old Chinook to fix up though, so I still like to believe I’m not a total cultist…. yet.
Anyhow, Merry Christmas!
> what is the current equivalent of a SAAB for those who want to be just a little different?
Alfa Romeo maybe? A few years ago I would have said Subaru but they’ve become much too popular and too normal. One of those slow-selling high-end Korean cars like the K900 would also be an offbeat choice in this segment.
About 9 years ago, we bought two saabs from the local saab/volvo – now only volvo dealer. Ever since they’ve kept us on their mailing list. What shows up in the mail? An advertisement that they are now carrying the Alfa Romeo Giulia. A beautiful car, for sure. But I’m thinking “NO”. About a year ago I was in Belgium on business and had an Alpha as a rental. Not sure what model it was. Gorgeous car for sure.
As far as replacements for the Saabs go – Subarus would have been in the running but the dealers here in StLouis are kind of pushy, and yet not responsive. Not my cup of tea. So next time the car shopping will commence – dreaded thought as it is no longer enjoyable – it will probably be some kind of hybrid. Prius V? Who knows.
Wanna be different, but can’t get your Saab fix? I’d say you need to pop a vein, and load up with a Subaru.
Subaru is the indie-rock band that’s seen as having “sold out and gone mainstream” even though their sound hasn’t really radically changed ever. The mainstream came to them.
^ Perfectly put!
Indeed. And they have a higher share of the market than wagons ever did at their peak. A two-wagon family was unusual; a two-C/SUV family is, as Brendan notes, fairly common these days.
They’re *also* the personal-luxury cars of today, seen as less “stuffy and formal” than a similarly high-end sedan while simultaneously spendy enough that the buyer isn’t seen as a cheapskate.
I kind of have a basic difficulty conflating “charming architecture” and “1990s”.
Vinyl siding, obviously facade brick work, pseudo shutters, and that infuriatingly ugly fake multi pane windows are not charming. especially where the brickwork should go around steps in the houses frontal elevation, but they transition to vinyl siding briefly instead.
I know owning a 110 year old house is almost a part time job. I mean, that’s what I own and it is a part time job. But god I can’t countenance the shortcuts on modern construction. Admittedly, I’m sure the reason older houses are usually better-built is the ones that have survived this long are the better built ones of their time.
I don’t know if you are referring to the house in the picture, but that home was built in 1939. The brickwork is real and the siding is wood, not vinyl.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Milton-MA/57467741_zpid/39799_rid/42.262583,-71.07915,42.261255,-71.081553_rect/18_zm/
zOMG, Zestimate north of $900K! I continue to be grateful that I live in a place where homes are much more moderately priced. It does depend on neighborhood but homes like that one go for no more than half that here.
Welcome to the world of land value and prime location. That is cheap compared with what it would go for in Howard County MD where I live. Houses like that start at the $2 million level and go upwards.
The greater Boston area is ridiculous these days. You’d be hard-pressed to find something within a 10-mile radius of downtown Boston for under $500,000 that’s turn-key.
Even towns historically blue collar, and therefore less desirable in the minds of many home buyers are seeing real estate values continuing to rise as their relative affordability in the area has been drawing more buyers to them.
It used to be that there was a belt – roughly described as “far enough north of Boston that you were looking at a “suburban” rather than “city” commute, but south of the NH state line” – that was actually cheap. I guess not anymore.
It seems like everyplace in the country, indeed the Western world, is either beset by red-hot and hyperinflated housing costs, or slowly emptying out due to lack of prospects.
If you dig a little deeper, in 2009 that house was estimated at $600k. (These people bought it in 2014 for 800k). So in the last nine years it has gained (on paper) 300k.
In other words, if you had purchased it in 2009 for 600K and sold it today at 900k, the gain (tax free) would be 300K in 8 years or $3125 PER MONTH. That is right around what the entire monthly mortgage, property tax, and insurance bill would be. So effectively free living, right? (notwithstanding maintenance etc but the tax deductions would likely cover that)
Many people on or near-ish the coasts use their home as a major part of their retirement strategy. In this case if you bought in 2009 for 600k with 120k down, you’d now be sitting on almost 500k of equity. IF the gains continue even at half that pace going forward and you made the same mortgage payments, in another 20 years (paid off) it’d be at a value of perhaps 1.5 million (which is likely to be very much on the low side) but that’d be tax free cash to sell, move somewhere else and buy a smaller house for significantly less money and tend your garden.
Once you look at it that very long term way, some of this pricing can start to make a lot more sense.
Just proves the old saying, “It takes money to make money.”
Sure but the above example’s an easy one. As Brendan stated some of the traditionally blue-collar towns not that far away have been seeing large increases as well. So the easy money has already been made there but if people wouldn’t be as dismissive of some locations and more willing to focus on needs instead of wants, someone could have easily bought something there at a much lower value with a mortgage comparable or lower than rent costs and seen gains as well. Over time, and on a percentage basis, might do even better.
Then again, risk is relative to reward. If you buy a $125,000 house that you can live in, even if the value craters it’s comparatively less of a hit and in theory you could still make the mortgage payment working at Home Depot, the cost of housing yourself isn’t ever going to get much lower. But if you are on the hook for a 600k or 900k house and have a mortgage payment commensurate with that, if the value craters early on or you lose your job, you’ll have a harder time making ends meet, at least in the short term, so hopefully there is a plan to get through a prolonged rough patch.
It takes SOME money to make more money in real estate, it does not necessarily have to take a lot of money. More important is being able to focus on needs vs wants and also leveraging yourself and buy something that does double duty, i.e. it houses you while appreciating while you maintain it and improve it and think about moving again to a slightly better situation and then rinse and repeat.
There are down payment assistance programs, 0 down USDA and VA loans. With some of those programs you can also have the seller pay some or all of the closing costs. Then there is the GNND program for HUD homes. So no you don’t always have to have money to make money in real estate, however you will typically make more, or should I say pay less via lower rates if you have money to put down.
Many people who bought larger houses at the height of the mid-’00s housing bubble in my parts (D.C and surrounding suburbs) are upside down on their mortgages now. Something this size in Bethesda, MD would sell for about a million now, but would have been about $1.3m in 2006. Prices have started to rise again since the Great Recession ended but are still about 25% off their peaks from a decade ago, after losing about 40% of their value in three years.
What is way too often left out of the equation in real estate is inflation. Even at recent low levels, they add up. yet everyone uses nominal dollars to talk about gains and losses.
A house bought for $100k in 2006 is the same as $130k (for 2018) in adjusted dollars. That’s 30%. For instance: our market (median) in Eugene is now finally back to 2006 levels in nominal dollars. But it’s still some 30% in constant (adjusted) dollars from their peak.
One needs to subtract a bit over 2% each year of their gains to factor in inflation, otherwise, you’re fooling yourself. Or in other words, if you’re not increasing in value more than 2.2-2.5%, you’re just standing still.
I love it when folks proudly say “I bought this house for $35k in 1975! And now it’s worth $160k!” Well, that’s exactly the same, in adjusted dollars. Of course, in some parts of the country that house could now be worth $1.6 million, or more. And in other parts, $95k.
Real estate: location, location, location.
True, however there is no way to avoid an expenditure for housing (unless you take Stan’s van and go down by the river I guess). But the buyer of that $35k house in 1975 had a mortgage and tax payment of a few hundred dollars a month without any increase beyond the tax portion and likely/possibly has owned it outright for the last 12 years if he diligently paid off his 30yr mortgage. A renter of the same exact house likely started with similar rent to the monthly mortgage and over the years that rent has edged upwards by at least the amount of inflation and that person today has zero to show for it. While I am no fan of mortgages or banks in general, the beauty of a mortgage really becomes apparent after living in the home for many years when the payment is still based on the original cost and does not increase due to inflation, so it appears comparatively lower than everything else bought with today’s dollars. Even if the $35k house didn’t appreciate at all in nominal dollars (i.e. was still worth the same $35k) the owner of it is most likely money ahead of the renter of the same house.
Good point Paul, but even if it is just keeping up with inflation you are often better off owning a home as it becomes a forced savings account. It also shelters you from rent increases that are bound to happen.
The real gain is from using the leverage that a loan gives you. Put 10k down on a 100k home and when you sell it for 200k however many years later you did not turn 100k into 200k you turned 10k into 110k plus the principal payments.
You are the one that said the neighborhood was built in the 1990’s, and that is what he was generalizing about.
However for that particular house. That brick work is a facade, or veneer if you prefer. The shutters on the facade are fake and most of the windows are fake multi pane, not true divided light.
Yes, I’ve corrected the typo.
It’s hard to tell from the photos, but the brick is actually real on that particular house. The shutters are non-functional and the windows appear newer, energy-efficient single pane design.
No one is saying that it isn’t real brick, just pointing out that it is a brick veneer on a wood framed house, it is a decoration, not a structural part of the building. A virtual drive down the street makes me believe the house didn’t begin its life that way.
The windows in the original part of the house are modern insulated glass (double pane) with the grids between the two panes to give the illusion of a divided light window at a much lower cost than insulated divided light windows. Now the windows on the breezeway are true divided light units.
The shutters (on the house portion at least) seem to show a hinge (or fake hinge) that you don’t usually (ever?) see on fake shutters. It’s that little black stub on the window side of them, 2 per. I think I even see a corresponding white portion of the hinge within the window frame. If those are fake shutters, they are well done compared to the junk hung on newer houses these days.
just pointing out that it is a brick veneer on a wood framed house, it is a decoration
It’s not “decoration”. It’s the exterior finish, the equivalent of siding, and of course it’s much more durable than siding and requires essentially no maintenance.
Hoses (thankfully) haven’t been built out of solid brick walls for some 100 years or so. A sold brick wall has terrible insulation value, and of course is bad in an earthquake. Brick facades are extremely common in some parts of the country, and command a premium for their longevity and lack of maintenance.
But yes, only doing the front wall is very tacky.
Sure siding serves a functional purpose but it is decorative as there are many different types to suit different tastes and yes some types require more or less maintenance over the years.
As I mentioned previously this does not appear to be original to the house and the people likely had it installed to improve the look of the house in their mind. Sure you can leave it as it for many years and not have to paint it, but when the majority of the house is still painted wood that is not a big advantage. It can be a huge disadvantage if not properly installed so that water can find its way between the brick veneer and the wood structure of the house.
Ah, the brick front. Very popular in the northeast, NJ in particular. And there is colonial precedent for it. The 1776 Bainbridge House on Nassau Street in Princeton is a good example. But they always looked odd to me, coming from Pittsburgh where full brick, or lower-floor brick was the norm.
I was trying to date that house too – in my ’20s to ’50s development just north of DC, any house with a brick front has brick sides and rear too. The brick front, siding on other three sides arrived with McMansions around 1990. Style-wise though, it could be anything from the last 100 years if it were in the DC area, where colonial architecture predominates and has been the only thing mainstream house builders have put up since 1980. The garage and that small connecting piece look like an obvious addition, with a smaller addition on the left side. Two chimneys on a house that size would be rare in recently built homes too.
Whoever listed this house a few years ago Photoshopped the pictures to make the rooms look bigger than they really are, just like a very shady real estate agent that works my neighborhood routinely does. This is most obvious in the kitchen photos like the one below; in real life, dishwashers aren’t wider than they are tall.
The use of a Money Facade is not something that started relatively recently. It is something that has been done for more than 100 years in some parts of the country. For example around here in the 70’s and early 80’s it was common to see moderate houses that had lap siding on the front and T-1-11 on the sides and rear.
This house like many early houses certainly has been modified multiple times in its life. A quick drive down the street via google maps indicates that this brick facade is most likely added well after the house was built. Most of the homes have the same original “core” with the two chimneys Five windows and a centered door on the front, but they vary greatly on how the garages and other additions are done as people kept up with, or one upped their neighbor.
I have mixed feelings on the use of photo shop and other tricks in listing photos. On the one hand I get the use of a wide angle lens to show as much of the room as possible, but when it is used to make the rooms look larger it deceives those who don’t know how to look at a listing photo. In general though something like this usually make me look good, when I point out that the photo is misleading.
I’m fine with taking photos with a wide angle lens – that’s a longstanding photographic technique and is often necessary to get most of a room into the picture; it is not deceptive digital manipulation to change the proportions of a room to make the room look larger than it is. At least the Photoshopping here is easily detectable and seems to be confined to widening the photo without changing the height (or reducing the height while keeping the same width).
The shady realtor I mentioned earlier has better Photoshop skills and I’ve seen rooms in her listings where several additional feet of length or width were spliced into a room. I’d compare the interior photos in her listing to the actual room in the house when I was in it. In real life, there would be two windows that were, let’s say, 3 feet wide and 5 feet tall, with double the width of the window between them, so they were about 6 feet apart. In the photo, the windows would appear to be the same size, shape, and proportions, yet there would be almost triple the width of a window between them, as if they were 8 feet apart rather than 6. A section of the flooring or carpeting would be duplicated to fill in the extra space. I pointed out the discrepancy to her once and she just shrugged me off saying it must have been because of the camera angle or something, and I was like “no, it’s because you or whoever prepared your listing altered the photograph so the room would look bigger than it really is”. Some people have this amazing ability to lie even when faced with incontrovertible evidence that they’re not telling the truth. She was one of them; she also advertised one house I looked at as having 9 foot ceilings, but they were actually only the usual 8 feet. When she insisted i was wrong and they were really 9 feet tall, I pulled out a tape measure, extended it from floor to ceiling, and showed her it only measured 8 feet. She just looked at me and said “this house has 9 foot ceilings”.
(I have no idea why real estate agents love high ceilings so much, but they do; for me it’s just extra space to heat or cool. I have never seen a buyer reject a house because the ceilings were 8′ tall).
What a nice old house. I wonder if it has 2 fireplaces or if there are 4 of them (2 per chimney)
The RX350 is everywhere around my area of Columbia Maryland. A lot of them are bought by folks whose last car was German or Swedish vehicle. Most folks I know love them and have no issue with them except that they don’t have a sunglasses holder. I never knew that not having a dedicated sunglasses holder was a big deal. I keep my Rayban Wayfairers in its case in my center console.
I don’t have issue with crossovers. A lot of folks gripe about the fact folks get them because they want to sit high up but I believe that crossovers and SUVs are simply a return to the early days of cars when they were modified carriages with engines and they sat up high. The model T sat high up.
I also agree that crossovers and SUVs are just station wagons with a higher clearance.
Fireplaces are bad news; no wonder new houses don’t have them anymore. They’re banned here (gas ones are ok). The particulate (and other) pollution from a wood fireplace fire is obscene. never mind interior air quality; some of the smoke invariably finds its way into the room/house.
And the chimneys suck out warm air and spew it out the roof, even with a damper and/or glass door. You couldn’t design a better system for eliminating warmth and as a consequence, sucking in cold air. It’s an environmental nightmare. There’s no way to build an energy efficient house with them.
I really don’t care about the “environmental nightmare” or energy efficiency – just love the ambiance of using our fireplace.
At least one of the fireplaces has been sealed off, a common occurrence on older homes.
I noticed that too, and it sure looks hideous in that room (which appears to be in the addition on the right side of the house, as the door and bay windows match the exterior shot). Why didn’t they at least drywall around the thing or surround it with built-in bookshelves so it doesn’t scream “I used to be a fireplace!”? I wonder if the other side of the fireplace facing the main part of the house is still open. There’s another chimney on the other side of the house, also between two rooms. I only see two rooms with functioning fireplaces in the interior photos of the potential three.
The styling of the second generation RX (2003-2007) remains my favorite. Given their reliability, the massive number sold, and a buyer demographic that included many older ladies with higher incomes, they make for an excellent used vehicle choice. Lots to be found in great shape with relatively low miles. Make mine an ’06 or ’07 RX 350 with AWD.
I agree with your thoughts on the second generation. I’ve driven every generation RX to date, both from multiple customers of mine trading them in, and even selling a 2014 earlier this year, and both from a styling standpoint and a driving standpoint, I like the second generation best.
The third generation became too soft in its ride, has among the vaguest steering in any car I’ve driven, and an interior that’s neither very premium feeling nor user friendly. This trend has continued with the fourth generation.
> Given their reliability, the massive number sold, and a buyer demographic that included many older ladies with higher incomes, they make for an excellent used vehicle choice. Lots to be found in great shape with relatively low miles.
The only thing stopping the 2nd (or 3rd) generation RX from being a slam-dunk great used vehicle choice is that everyone and their dog *knows* they’re reliable and were usually cosseted by their owners, and thus they haven’t depreciated much for their age and are expensive even used.
I’m with both of you on the styling (which I’d rate best to worst, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, and 4th gen), but having spent extensive time in them haven’t found the 3rd generation interior to be of lower quality or less premium than the 2nd generation. The biggest difference other than steering feel may be the close-at-hand touchscreen being replaced by the large but distant screen with the mouse-like controller. I seem to be in the minority in preferring the latter setup; I don’t have to reach far to use it; the screen doesn’t become full of fingerprints, and it’s well shielded from sunlight so it’s always readable.
The fashionable form factor also keeps them pricey used. When people approach me on a “hey, you’re into cars…” basis about used-car buying I usually advise to stick to sedans and small non-raised hatchbacks that were more popular in the early 2010s than now, you can get a newer and nicer one than a CUV for a given budget because used supply exceeds demand.
Agreed, the second-generation has the best and most memorable styling. Third-gen was a subtle evolution (or a blander devolution), while the fourth-gen has yet to grow on me. And this is coming from someone who likes Lexus’ current design language–the NX looks great, the RX not so much.
To me, this seems like EXACTLY the neighborhood and demographic that the first luxury crossover (the old RX300) was marketed to twenty years ago. I think I’d be more surprised if that house and neighborhood had for example Paul’s xB and F100 in front of it.
Did you really mean “19”90’s re: Hinckley Road or 1890’s? 1890’s houses can be and often are charming, but 1990’s stuff isn’t often really considered that, generally speaking.
Oops… just noticed my typo! I meant “early 1900s”. My bad.
Ah ok, now things make a lot more sense, thanks!
If those vehicles were made in Detroit like they were 50 years ago, Detroit wouldn’t look like Hiroshima, circa 1945, our economy would be far better off, our unions stronger, our middle class wealthier and our air wouldn’t be filled with diesel engine exhaust from hauling Japanese vehicles around the world to satisfy auto fashion.
Buy local. Support your neighbors’ jobs. Save our environment.
How do you know their neighbors don’t have a pair of Explorers, Acadias, or Durangos?
Those Lexuses were built in Cambridge, Ontario which is closer to Detroit than where GM for example builds its most profitable models (CrewCab Silverado and Sierra) which is Mexico. I don’t understand why the single biggest cash cow for a manufacturer isn’t built in its actual top market.
It wasn’t that long ago that this house had cars built in the US in front of it as the 2013 street view shows a Taurus from 00-07 era and going back to 07 shows a post update 1st gen Explorer.
It’s all relative. The Schiffmans who I guess are the previous of the previous owners of this house (they moved right around 2004 or so to a larger home about a mile up Hinckley Rd), drove a Volvo V70 and an Audi Q3.
There are certainly American cars in this neighborhood, I’m not saying there are not. They just aren’t as prevalent as European and Asian brands (who build most of their cars, at least CUVs in North America now).
@ VanillaDude
I’m facing a bit of a conundrum, because while I agree with part of your comment, I must respectfully disagree with the other.
I’m all for being environmentally conscious. Don’t doubt it – humans effects have been destroying the environment at an alarming pace and the more we can do to combat it, the better.
I’m also very much behind buying local when it comes to small businesses, even if it’s a greater cost, but when it comes to products from large multi-national corporations, “buying local” has little effect and meaning.
One of the foundations of basic economics is that trade makes everyone better off.
The majority of the worlds automobiles are no longer produced in the country their respective brand is based in. Much of the “Detroit iron” is now built in Canada and Mexico.
Furthermore, look at Volvo for example. It is a Swedish company that is owned by a Chinese holding company that will soon be building cars in the United States, benefiting the economies and generating jobs in three separate countries on three separate continents.
Another way of looking at it is “If Detroit had continuously been building vehicles just like those in the driveway, Detroit (and perhaps America as a whole) would be better off”. Toyota (and through this extension, Lexus) came from humble beginnings but in general every generation has improved on the last, i.e. there has never been a huge and sustained negative swing The Lexuses are (by their buyers) considered good value, reliable, give off a positive image, offer a pleasant and just as important, infrequent maintenance and repair interval/experience, offer excellent resale value, and are built with generally high quality materials while offering superior fit and finish.
Someone may prefer a Lincoln or a BMW or a Jaguar or find something better fitting their needs, taste, or desires, but I have yet to meet anyone who actually truly believes that a Lexus is an objectively poor choice of vehicle.
I frankly see this as a non-problem and am completely unwilling to do anything to “combat” it. The environment never figures into my purchasing decisions or my actions.
That picture could have almost been taken in the Portland West Hills. The only thing missing is the Subaru Outback parked next to the Lexus. The Outback has evolved into a virtually “classless” automobile out here. You’re as likely to see one parked in the driveway of a multi-million dollar home as you are in a SE Portland working class neighborhood (if such a thing exists anymore). The only thing that changes is the age of the Outback. Also familiar is the home valuation- not much different from any of our older, close-in established neighborhoods.
Because we’re further out (Suburbia literally ends at my back fence line), you’re more likely to see larger SUV’s in the driveway, along with a eurojapanese upscale sedan and, of course, the required 4WD pickup.
The “his & hers” car thing has always fascinated me. I have never understood having two of the exact same thing. Perhaps my need for variety is higher. And I can see that these aren’t *exactly* alike, so perhaps they are a year or three off from each other.
When I was a kid there was a family on the street behind us. I could see their garage from our kitchen window. They had a pair of 66 Cutlasses (a 4 door hardtop and a Vista Cruiser) that were even the exact same color. They always backed their cars into the garage so looking at the open garage was like seeing double. It always looked so strange to me.
I guess if you find something that works why change? Though I can see having the sedan and wagon version of the same car back in the day when that was a thing.
Dunno about you, but my car is my car and my wife’s car is her car. It’s not a shared family fleet. If both drivers want the same thing in their daily driver, why on earth would/should one compromise for the sake of arbitrary variety?
Beautiful home, the beige and grey amorphous blobs do nothing for it.
Amorphous blobs? And what would you prefer the homeowner owns? An F-150? The RX 350 is stone reliable, luxurious, fairly powerful and has cachet and great resale value. The successful homeowners here obviously understand this. Quality and value are always in fashion.
Why do you jump to the conclusion that I’d prefer a F-150 in their place?
Wait…. you guys are talking about a F150 like it’s a bad thing…
Not at all. The F150 is a great truck, but it’s not a vehicle for everyone. My point was that the Lexus RX is not some generic blob, but a fine, premium SUV, that has set a high bar in that class for years. There is a reason it’s the most popular Lexus, with over 100,000 sold year after year.
Well, in terms of generic blob, the 1998 introduction of the Lexus RX basically created the mold for the modern CUV, and the formula really hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. Stylistically, half the vehicles sold nowadays are styled after and look like the Lexus RX (massive spindle grills aside), so it’s about as generic as you can get.
If Ford slapped some wood-grain vinyl on the Escape and renamed it “Country Squire” ….
If Chevy put a set of white walls on the Equinox and renamed it “Nomad”…..
If Chief Pontiac rose from the dead on Halloween and replaced Aztec with the word “Safari”…….
If Ransom Olds himself appeared, and tore off the plasticized bogus-chrome ‘Silhouette’ label, and screwed in a bone fide nameplate saying “Custom Cruiser,” “Vista Cruiser,” or “Fiesta”……
……. would we be more comfortable with these vehicles in the driveways ……..?…?…………
How about if anybody offered one painted an actual color? Modern car lots are depressing sea of bland.
Even the nominally available red and blue offerings are usually so toned down that they qualify more as “color-tinted grey” than colored.
I think a large part of that is fashion though. People seem to really like silver and black and gray. I realised a little while ago that almost my entire family has silver or gray cars: me, my mother, my father, my sister, my brother-in-law, his father, his mother. The driveways of family gatherings are very monochromatic. Now, two of those cars were bought used by me and so the colour wasn’t really a choice. One was a dealer demo so, again, not really a choice. But the others? Specifically chosen, even though there were oranges and reds and vivid blues available on each car.
At least one of the cars is a cool greenish gray that changes depending on the light. But yeah, people think it looks smart or elegant so they go for those colours.
Years ago, my wife remarked about how much more she liked her Suburban compared to the Caprice Wagon that preceded it. I generated penalty points by voicing my opinion that “that truck is nothing more than a Kingswood Estate with 4WD. Hell, they haven’t even changed the motor.” She wasn’t amused.
Out here in the LA coastal suburbs, those RX’s are most at home in the Torrance Costco parking lot. As for the homes they might be parked in front of, maybe a two million dollar Mediterranean in Palos Verdes.
Hello from R.I. and happy holidays. Do you still live in New England?
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is another vehicle that transcends class lines…it’s essentially neutral as far as making a statement.
Brick front with siding on the sides seems a lot more common in St Louis than Cincinnati…I was told once that after WWII the bricklayers/mason’s union in St Louis was weaker than other trades and their ability to push builders to sell veneer all around was limited. Don’t know how true that was but it made for a good story.
I’m also struck by regional differences in brick color…lots of brown brick and tan, almost “blonde” brick in Cincinnati, lots more red brick in St Louis (the only places I’ve lived). There also must have been a brick salesman who got in good with the Catholic Archdiocese in Cincinnati at some point…LOTS of light colored brick Catholic schools around here…
I’ve heard the Jeep Wrangler really has no demographic. It’s bought by the rich, poor, middle class, men, women, young, old, students, retirees, urban, rural, and everyone in between. I assume that’s one reason the Jeep brand is so valuable.
I wonder how much of the brick color variations in brick are due to the local building materials available, and how much is due to regional preferences? Bricks are going to be expensive to ship around, and if the materials around aren’t really good for making certain colors then I wouldn’t expect to see too many buildings like that around.
Typical brick color for local Catholic schools…
And another