1920s ‘Modern Bungalows’ Plan Book Now Available
Last month I did a post about a copy of a vintage 1920s plan book that I had recently digitized.
I’ve now made it available in one of two formats: a free PDF download or as a bound soft cover book. Both are available from the self publishing site LuLu. The PDF is free but the printed & bound version is $9.99 plus shipping. I receive less than 50 cents per paid order.
To preview the book, download the free PDF or to order the bound version click here.
Keep in mind this is a scanned version of a 20+ year old photo copy. Preview or download the PDF before ordering the bound copy if you think you might be disappointed. The book is 152 pages.
I’ve treasured the information in this book for over 20 years. If you enjoy bungalows I think you will like this book.
I’ve been looking for info on the brick bungalow style you see everywhere in St Louis. An example would be the one on this Craigslist listing
http://stlouis.craigslist.org/reb/943233846.html
I lived in one of these as as a kid and had always enjoyed seeing how since the 20s and 30s when they were built people have expanded and enhanced them in nice (and some not so nice) ways.
Anyone know who originally designed these?
Keep in mind this is a scanned version of a 20+ year old photo copy.
63101,
.
While Realtors like to throw around the term “bungalow” to describe houses like the one you link to, it’s far from the accepted definition of which the images Steve has shown are excellent examples (most notably in the Craftsman and Arts & Crafts styles, i.e. Greene & Greene). We do have a legacy of wonderful “real” brick bungalows here in St. Louis — on Bellerive and Dover Streets for example — though most around the country are frame (like those above). Though a precise definition of bungalow may be up for some interpretation, Wikipedia has a nice description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow
.
I understand not everyone is a specialist on architectural styles and the term “bungalow” has been so misused that it has almost come to mean any small house, but I think it bears correction. House styles in St. Louis are so eclectic that many elude precise definition besides simply “eclectic” but the most accepted name I have heard to describe the homes that you are interested in are “romantic revival cottages” though I really can’t find any good documentation of that.
Of all of the various homes suburban building types, the bungalow is perhaps the most attractive. Perhaps in part to the connections to the outside that are suggested and actual (in the best examples.)
I still feel like it would be a hard building form to use to build an urban area. Although it would be interesting to see how narrow of a lot a bungalow could fit on and still feel and look like a bungalow.
They’re certainly not as redundant as row houses.
Well I’m not sure about that. Some of the most redundant places I have been are suburban subdivisions, the cousins of the bungalow. (Both technically and aesthetically).
In fact I would say redundancy is variable. Certainly the row housing in Soulard, with almost every lot individually built by a different owner, architect and/or developer, is vastly different than modern row housing in Chesterfield.
In fact it is difficult to build a quality neighborhood of bungalows or row houses today when the mono vision of the large scale developer and architect overwhelms aesthetics and livability, especially for technical, cost saving measures.
I knew you’d respond to that. The suburbs in it’s current form is stupid. Form-based zoning would take us so much farther.