Daybreak Architecture – Row Homes

Some of the more distinctive homes in Daybreak can be found on the West side of Founders Village . These homes feature tall, narrow façades that seem to represent the entire spectrum of colors often found in a box of crayola crayons. These façades, like many other homes in Daybreak, feature fiber-cement siding relying on color and trim to differentiate an otherwise homogeneous row of dwellings. I toured some of the model homes when Golden Medallion Homes first opened them to the public. Inside you can still find a surprisingly open floor plan that features a kitchen and living room on the main floor. This feature more than any other differentiates these row homes with the historic row houses of the past.

Row houses were built by even the earliest European colonies. As early as 1630 European settlers in Virginia were building small groups of attached houses that closely replicated designs used since medieval times. Later, during the eighteenth century, towns along the eastern seaboard prospered and land value increased steadily.

Out of necessity, many builders made the most of land purchased by building row houses that could be accommodated easily by a small narrow lot. At this time row houses became a standard home for many families living within an urban setting. During this time, most of these homes were designed in a Federal style with architectural details being borrowed from Greek architecture. During this time many row houses were built using wood as the sole construction material. This was later corrected as many fires devastated whole streets of homes because of the material and proximity.

Commonly referred to in the Western United States as town homes, both attached and detached versions exist. Famous examples of row homes are in most major cities, but a few stand out particularly in the public eye. The “painted ladies” of San Francisco are a perfect example. In historic Philadelphia , almost the entire city is populated with various types of row houses that were built as early as colonial times. Most of these row homes are primarily red brick in construction, with stone and marble accent. There are even a few examples that are built of solid granite, such as Mayfair in Northeast Philadelphia . The Daybreak row home models are colorful, modern examples of a style that reaches back to medieval Europe . In my opinion they are an aesthetically pleasing way to successfully integrate density into our community and are a welcome addition into Founders Village and Eastlake.

The Salt Lake Parade of Homes

The Salt Lake Parade of Homes officially opens this weekend and four of the thirty homes are in Daybreak. I have always enjoyed attending the parade of homes because you can find so many great ideas for when you remodel or build a home. Of course, if you talk to a friend of mine that attended the parade last year, then you will hear a little depression in the tone he uses to explain how great the homes were. He gets depressed because he compares these fully-upgraded homes to his humble abode. My suggestion: do not go unless you are truly looking to buy or are looking for ideas.

Daybreak has participated in the parade in the past, but the “star” home has never been located in Daybreak. The “star” home is the 10,000 square ft mansion that has luxury amenities and a great room so big that you could play basketball in it and fit 20 to 30 spectators. However, the Daybreak homes do provide a breath of fresh air when compared to the rest of the homes in the parade. First and foremost they do not feature a beige stucco exterior. In contrast they feature classic architecture with reasonable space defined for human scale. Massive two-story entryways that dominate the facade are not found in Daybreak.

Daybreak is a community that will let you do very little to the outside of your home. HOA restrictions are fairly strict. However, the inside of your Daybreak home is where personal style can really be displayed. Whether you want leopard print wallpaper or distinctly traditional decoration in your front room is completely within your discretion. So pop into a few of the homes featured in the Parade of Homes. While most of the exteriors look the same I have found that the interiors are finely decorated by interior designers who do not utilize a mass production style equal to the exterior. These interiors are well worth the time and expense.

Housing Density and NIMBYs

Housing density has been and will remain the most common disagreement with regards to new development in existing towns. The politics surrounding this issue can be fierce with strong emotions on all sides. The battle over density usually starts when a developer purchases land with plans to build medium to high-density residential. One resident will hear about the pending project and will rally the troops. This person is usually referred to as a NIMBY which stands for Not In My Back Yard. This neighborhood watchdog will then broadcast the message that an evil developer is trying to profit with a new development and does not care about its impact on the surrounding community.

This was the case with Daybreak and many other new urban communities across the nation. The question that I would like to ask most NIMBYs is this: how did you inform yourself about the topic of density and its effects? Some of them call on first-hand experience. The neighbors near many developments complain about the traffic that the development is causing. Of course while the infrastructure that will accompany the development is only starting these neighbors pass judgment by what they see immediately. This short-term, subjectivity should not be taken as fact, but many NIMBY’s present it as fact. Many NIMBYs that I have talked to use the words “its just common sense” all too often when trying to explain their information source. While I feel that common sense is a valid tool that cannot be underestimated, I also feel that it is sometimes confused with myth.

These myths are traditional in my opinion. Passed down through the generations and are added to with each new generation. The history of where these myths started reaches back as far as the 1800s. The US started as an agricultural nation and transitioned into an industrial nation with factories and mass production. This transition was accompanied by waves of immigration from Europe. Each new wave contained different ethnic groups that were overtly discriminated against. This discrimination clustered these immigrants into densely populated areas with the least desirable jobs. This segregation along socio-economic status lines resulted in the materialization of many of the myths that are associated with density.

Fast forward to the age of suburbia that started after World War II. Being enabled to travel long distances via automobile, people could more economically live in the suburbs and further segregate themselves. Zoning use ordinances specified separation of land use and from then on commercial could no longer coexist with residential. In many cases this meant separation of density as well. Fast forward again to the 70s and 80s where the government decided to build “project housing” which not only segregated people of lower socio-economic status, but actually concentrated them. Many of these were an immediate failure with rampant crime and social problems. The images created by these projects reverberated with further intensity in the media particularly in movies and television. The “inner city” was a dangerous crime ridden area only suitable for those “other” people. All of these events perpetuated the myths of density with a simple philosophy: guilty by association.

So what is the real story behind density? The best way to answer this question is to address the myths often cited by NIMBYs one at a time.

Myth: Density will lower the value of my home. Many things can lower the value of a home, but density is not by itself one of them. In fact researchers have conducted many studies on single-family housing that is located in proximity to dense residential developments. The conclusion of these studies is that there is not a significant difference in the appreciation rate of those single family homes located in close proximity to high residential developments and those single-family homes located further away. In fact the percentage of appreciation is 2.9 versus 2.7 percent. This is not a significant difference. However, if you have an apartment building located next to your home that is 5 stories tall, over 30 years old, the grass is browning, windows are broken, loud music is blaring from the windows, and the paint is literally peeling like a sunburn, then this will obviously lower the value of your home. Of course, if a single family residence was in the same state, then it would lower the value of your home as well.

Another myth is that dense housing will create more traffic. Obviously if you add more cars to an area you will have more traffic. However, research has proven that higher density housing decreases traffic per person. Single family detached homes average 10 car trips a day. Compare that to the 6.3 car trips per day made by people living in townhomes and condominiums. Density is also needed for public transportation to be feasible. The Mid-Jordan TRAX line would not extend to South Jordan at all if not for the density that will make up the Daybreak Town Center. This mode of transportation will bring an additional choice for transportation that is likely to be used considering gas prices. Daybreak further mitigates traffic by having most necessities within walking distance which encourages the two-legged commute.

The most prominent myth about density is that it creates crime. This claim is absolutely false. Numerous studies have been conducted and the conclusion is that per population, crime is the same in higher density housing as it is in single family housing. The perception of crime is perpetuated when the observer holds an entire apartment complex to the same standard as one single family home. So when three juveniles from the same complex commit a crime and the police show up at the apartment complex three times in one year, it is considered “crime ridden.” On the other hand if the police show up for a juvenile in a single family residence this is considered an “anomaly.” Crime research indicates that crimes increase in accordance with certain socioeconomic indicators such as education attainment, unemployment (particularly of males), and the poverty rate.

The final main myth is that dense residential housing is unattractive and is only desired by lower-income households. Considering the changing demographics and preferences of consumers, this assumption is not based in reality. This market appeals to empty-nester and first-time home buyers tremendously. As with anything in real estate it is all about location, location, location. You can buy a single-family home in some locations for half of the price of a town home in south Jordan. Considering that the average income earner in Utah currently cannot purchase high-density housing in many areas, I would have to say that it is not just the poor that are moving into condos and townhomes. If the housing has a good design and is well maintained it will attract quality residents who care about and participate in their community.

So who is winning this battle, the NIMBYs or the New Urbanists? The New Urbanists have the clear lead, but this depends greatly on where you live. In North Dakota and Oklahoma , the NIMBYs are holding their ground. If you live in Utah , Colorado , Texas , Florida , or California on the other hand, the New Urbanists are definitely ahead of the game. Since its inception in the early 80s, New Urbanism has grown at a phenomenal rate in most states. Locally, more and more new urban developments are popping up. They are called by different names such as smart growth or transit oriented developments, but they are the same with respect to density.

In fact, South Jordan will shortly be surrounded by these developments. With the Herriman Towne Center , Daybreak, Jordan River , and other future communities coming to light, New Urbanism will also be the future of development locally. A number of strong forces demand this density. Energy costs demand homes that are more efficient, smaller, easier to take care of, and closer to the necessities of life. Businesses now want to locate their operations in communities that are vibrant, walkable, and have transit nearby. Density is the vehicle that has to be used to accomplish these attributes. The government wants density as it allows for less expenditure on infrastructure per tax payer. Finally, people are demanding more density and they are voting with their feet. The success of dense New Urban communities speaks volumes about this demand.

Density will have its place in the future of South Jordan, but if not planned correctly it can cause problems. Density cannot be thrown in a community in a half hazard manner in order for the developer to make a buck. Instead it should be planned and integrated correctly according to transect planning and community needs. These new developments must feature good designs that are sensitive to the context of the surrounding community. These designs and features must be maintained by a community organization such as a HOA. I can see why many NIMBYs are opposed to housing density, but assumptions should not be made based on false associations of the past. To those NIMBYs who will fight till their last breath any development that has more density that 2 units per acre consider if your beliefs about density are actually true. Also consider if your energy might be better spent ensuring that these developments are integrated properly instead of trying to ban them all together. Density is here to stay. Instead of a battle of how many units per acre, we need to ensure that these units are built, maintained, and located in a fashion that will enhance the community for all of us.

Daybreak Village Center

The plans for Daybreak seem to have been in a constant state of flux. Village centers that once appeared on old maps cannot be seen on the new maps. The timing for the village center has also changed. "We would like to have a retail village center built and occupied by the summer of 2005." indicated one executive in an interview when Daybreak was just getting started. If he only knew what the Boyer company had in mind for South Jordan. The change in timing was most likely in response to The District development. New businesses in Daybreak would not be able to compete in the shadow of this retail giant. The timetable was pushed even further back as of late. The good news is that the first phase of the Village Center will arrive this summer. This phase includes the Kennecott Corporate Center. The first part of the 45-acre village center that will include 100,000 square feet of retail and restaurants, an additional 60,000 square feet of office space and between 475 and 525 high-density multi-family residential housing units. The second phase, which will arrive anywhere between the fall of this year to the summer of 2009, will consist of the anchor grocery store and assortment of shops that address everyday necessities. You can see the general layout in the picture below: Finally, the third phase will be the afore mentioned high-density residential buildings and more commercial. This residential area will probably be the most controversial part of Daybreak because of its density. However, it is this density that will enable Daybreak to become the new urban town that Kennecott has envisioned. As I said before the execution of the details in this new addition to Daybreak will be critical. Kennecott has to solve a major dilemma. They need to make the transition from a relatively low density neighborhood to a high density village center utterly seamless. Kennecott had better put all the necessary talent and thought needed into this venture or they might endanger the vision that they have worked so hard to create. This area is being closely watched by many citizens especially those who live on Topcrest. Citizens will always refer back to this part of Daybreak if this is handled improperly. Possibly saying, "Oh no, not another Topcrest."

Kennecott Land indicated, "On the commercial side, there will be seven individual buildings as a start, there will be more than that ultimately" The character of the buildings is different than what I had imagined. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the architecture in daybreak with the exception of the visitor's center. After looking at the Emmigration Market in the Harvard/Yale area (the area that Daybreak is modeled after) I found some similarities in the design. However, if you look at the traditional main streets in the towns of Utah you will find two to three story buildings made of brick. While I'm sure that costs and efficiency are factors in the design decisions I do not think that the illustrations distributed so far resemble anything traditional in Utah.

One building that is definitely not traditional is the Kennecott Corporate Building. It is impressive as a class A office building with LEED Certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), but I feel that it is out of scale with its surroundings. The building would be better suited in the town center. (Of course I may feel differently once the village center is built out) I do have to give credit to the contractors who designed the building. The systems in the building, solar panels, parking, all seem to be designed well. As Kennecott brags, "they are truly state of the art."

"The village center has a very high emphasis on architecture, interesting buildings, interesting locations. It's not about creating the most efficient, cost effective box. We set out to create a place and the architecture was driven by that goal. The office was intended to complement the surrounding area as opposed to changing it."

I agree and disagree with this statement. As I said before I do not think that some of the designs indicated in the renderings fit into the current community. However, there have been many new urbanist communities that through traditionalism have become what they fear the most: homogeneous. Several communities in Canada come to mind. Sure all of the homes as individual units are impressive, but if you put them all together you are inundated with the homogeneous architecture. Variety is needed, but this could be the equivalent of a jazzy saxophone soloist in the middle of the Utah Symphony.

Another aspect of the town center that concerns me are the town/row homes that will be built next to the roundabout as you enter Daybreak. These will be the first up-close buildings that many people will see when they enter Daybreak. From what I can see right now, these buildings look to be urban contemporary similar to the new Garbett row homes in North Shore Village. Is this the first thing you want people to see upon entering our neighborhood? No, not really. Even though it seems to be part of the Village Center it is technically on the edge of Daybreak where everything else is classical architecture from early last century. Modern will simply not present a cohesive design, even if it is "Daybreak-ish." In my opinion variety is good, but this part needs to have the flavor of Founders and Eastlake combined.

One part of the plan that I am truly looking forward to is the urban park that is mentioned here:

“Within the Main Street plan, we are designing an urban park that provides elements such as seating, pop jet fountains, an outdoor fire pit, sun shades and music,” says Kaufman. “Above all, the Village Center is positioned between great neighborhood parks, Oquirrh Lake and a variety of area trails.

Additionally, all of the greenery on top of the buildings is welcome in my book. It is rare that you see that level of detail for buildings in Utah. From what I understand, this greenery will not only make the buildings look better, but will also reduce the heat island effect caused by large buildings and concrete. It might even help conserve energy and thus reduce utility bills.

Daybreak's village center will make or break the community in my opinion. The sheer expense, the entire village center will cost $150 million, along with the fact that it will be in immediate competition with The District from the start make this Village Center a "must win" endeavor for Kennecott. The plans and time tables for Daybreak are always changing. Plans are never perfect and a little adaptability is crucial, but these changes will create the heart of Daybreak and therefore must be free of major defects.

Daybreak Village 3: North Shore

The Daybreak community is about to grow yet again. North Shore is the newest edition to the Daybreak master plan making three villages total. With two new builders, Ivory Homes and Garbett Homes, a large push is being made to finish the 22 homes that will serve as models for the "grand opening" slated for June 28th. I usually do not need to drive on the South Jordan Parkway so when I did take that route a few weeks ago I was surprised with the sheer amount of building going on. Buildings seemed to have popped out of nowhere in only a couple of weeks. Of course, with the slowdown in the housing market I'm sure that contractors were not hard to find.

The new homes of North Shore seem to be an eclectic mix of traditional and urban contemporary designs. I was fairly shocked when I saw pictures of the new row homes that Garbett Homes intends to build. These modern boxy buildings seem to belong more in the marmalade district of Salt Lake City than in Daybreak. While I respect the modern style, I do not have a strong taste for it to say the least. However, these town homes will be integrated into the denser sections of North Shore. It seems Kennecott Land has decided that as density increases traditional style will decrease. I do see some advantages in the cost of building such homes. Perhaps this advantage is the reason why some homes will be offered at a price that will be difficult for other communities to match. Many of these condos or town homes will be offered from the "low 100s" to "mid 100s."

With these prices the old adage of "you get what you pay for" keeps ringing in my mind. This ringing stops abruptly however when I see the actual square footage of these units. With sizes ranging from 650 square feet to 1180 square feet I think Kennecott Land has decided to make housing more affordable by making it smaller. This is the right way to go in my opinion. Skimp on the space, but do not skimp on the quality. The prices in North Shore are fairly reasonable compared to Eastlake and even Founders Village. The effects of this new village are many and will need to be discussed in a later post.

In the grand scheme that is Daybreak, North Shore will bring a large amount of units at a density that has not yet been seen in this new urbanist community. In fact, Kennecott recently changed their projections for the total number of homes to be located within Daybreak. The number initially started at 13,600. This number has since increased to 20,000, almost a 50 percent increase. The recent planning maps for Daybreak show an increase in density in those properties East of Oquirrh Lake. Why did this change come about? I can only speculate, but I will be researching this issue in the future. One thing is for certain, North Shore has signaled a change in direction for future development at Daybreak.

Renting In Daybreak

In an earlier post I talked about how apartments are an integral part of new urban communities. In my opinion if they are integrated properly into a community they can bring diversity and allow people that could not otherwise afford to buy a home a chance to live in Daybreak. How do Daybreak residents feel about apartments being built? According to a Daybreak Daily website poll most Daybreak residents do not like the idea. In fact, 62.5% of the 115 respondents indicated that they were not happy with the decision to build apartments in Daybreak. (May 13) They are not alone. Most owners of single-family homes or condos in the United States do not want to live near rental housing. They see them as high-crime areas that put extraordinary burdens on local schools and civil services. However this has been proven completely false. Numerous studies conducted by Harvard, NYU, and numerous government entities prove that these claims are false. Per unit crime in apartments is almost equal to that of single family homes. As for property values, "Between 1987 and 1995, single-family houses located within 300 feet of apartment communities appreciated at roughly the same rate as those not near an apartment property, 3.12 percent compared to 3.19 percent."

On the other hand I feel that there is something to be said about the habits that tend to be exhibited by renters. People frequently moving in and out result in noise and create an environment of impermanence and of a transitory lifestyle. Property managers report a higher incidence of rule violations by tenants. Examples include noise disturbances, illegal parking and overburdening of the Association recreational facilities. These rules are broken because many tenants are ignorant of these community restrictions. Rental occupancies tend to be shorter than owner occupancies and do not facilitate long-term relationships among neighbors. Resident owners are more likely to carefully maintain exclusive use common areas than are tenants. However, most of these negative attributes apply to homes and condos that are rented out. These are properties that are integrated into the community with the purpose of being owner occupied. The condos and homes in Daybreak that are being leased are more likely to exhibit these problems. With the proper planning the negative impacts can be minimized.

From what I understand Kennecott intends to build many apartments in or within close proximity to the village center. This is good planning, but the devil is in the details. How exactly will they integrate it with the predominant architecture in Daybreak? Exactly how close will these apartments be to single family homes? I would not want to walk out of my front door and stare at a massive facade of a 5 story concrete apartment building. Kennecott Land seems to have a penchant for surprising stake holders by withholding details until the last minute. I would urge them to be a little more forthcoming with residents. Especially those on Topcrest.

Many aspects of the community hinge on the successful integration of higher density housing. Take TRAX for example. You cannot justify having a line run into daybreak without a certain amount of residents in the immediate area of the stations. This calls for density. To truly be a walkable community a development must have a higher density for all essentials to be in close proximity to all homes in a community. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to build these apartments now. It is good timing that they are ready to build the village center and apartments right when the market for rental properties has become much more attractive and commercial entities are still expanding. In all practicality I feel that these apartments can be a great addition to the community if they are done properly. I just hope the planners use the successful attributes of other new urban communities.

Daybreak Architecture - Georgian Revival

One of the homes that I like best in Daybreak takes the neo-traditional form of the Georgian Revival style. This style became popular in the U.S. during the period of 1880 to 1930. Commonly known as colonial revival, this style was an imitation of English, Dutch, and French homes. The English Georgian homes were named for the three English Kings George, who ruled form 1714 to 1820. Georgian revival homes are characterized by the following features:

• Two to two and a half stories
• Usually made of red brick, but often in clapboard
  
• Symmetrical windows across the front usually in odd numbers of 5 with 3 and 7 being less common
• Gabled roof (Hipped in larger models)
• Dormers set on the roof directly above windows below
• Inside rooms were two deep, a double-pile plan
• Ornamentation above windows and doorways as well as cornices and quoins.
• Formal and symmetrical facade.

Of course the examples of this style in Daybreak are not exact copies. In fact, the Georgian homes built during the revival lacked the exact detail of their older counterparts. Many sources suggest that this was due to the quality of the renderings and drawings of what the homes were supposed to look like. These home gained better detail in concert with improvements in photography. I think that I like this style of home because of its use of masonry. Brick is a beautiful medium from which to construct a house. Of course the porch that was added on the front is not a regular feature of Georgian revival homes. However, I don't think that it dismantles the style at all. A few of these homes are located in Founder's Village, but a couple can also be found in Eastlake. Unlike the American foursquare these homes served the upper class more than the middle class during the early part of the 1900s. From a design standpoint this style of home truly adds grace and variety to Daybreak architecture.

Big Box - New Urbanism Style

Big box stores. You know, the large, free-standing, rectangular, generally single-floor structures built on a concrete slab. Many people hate these massive conglomerations of retail space and others love them. The formula has been standard for quite some time now. Build the box by a large freeway or shopping district and put 20 acres of parking around it. People will drive to the store. This formula is about to change. I doubt that big box stores are going away, but the way they do business will change. The last frontier for big box stores who have already conquered the suburbs and rural areas are city centers. Walmart, target, borders, home depot, and many others have redesigned their stores and strategy to meet this new market. These new retail locations blend in more with the urban environment and are almost always more than one story. They have trimmed down a bit too. Instead of the gigantic 200,000 sq. foot stores you will find medium box size stores from 60,000 to 100,000 sq feet. The storefronts are near the sidewalk and the parking is either underneath or in back.

While these stores can suit city centers, they can also serve new urbanism neighborhoods and communities. Companies who traditionally use big box stores realize that they need to change the architecture of their stores to match the surrounding community. This realization has come from numerous attempts of these companies trying to locate their stores in these communities only to get shot down by local residents. Walmart wanted to put a box in Kentlands, but the residents would not stand for it. Usually stores like Walmart would just go to a nearby plot of land or outside location to open the store and enjoy the same customer base. In my opinion, Walmart is already employing this activity with two of their stores being built within a short driving distance of Daybreak. However, Kennecott has a strangle hold on all of the land on the West Bench. It will be up to them if they want a Walmart on their land. If big box stores want in on future developments on the West side of Salt Lake County they will have to play by Kennecott's rules. Now if we can only get Kennecott to stick to their guns.

Big box stores have already been mentioned by Kennecott in their plans for Daybreak. From what I understand these stores will be located in the main town center and not in the village centers. When these new stores are built what will they look like? Big box retailers have already opened alternative designs in other cities across the US. I have included a few pictures in this post that I have found on the web. Many of these stores, in addition to the structural features already mentioned, will have apartment lofts above the main store front. This will further the mixed-use tradition of new urban communities. The overall design of many of these stores can make them as aesthetically pleasing as their previous stores are ugly. Well, maybe not that pleasing, but close. New Urban News did a piece on how big box stores can blend in to a new urban community. They found that it can be done by wrapping the outside of the box with new urban structures. This has been done in Belmar Colorado by Continuum Partners.

The idea is to simply hide the gray wall exterior of the big box stores by surrounding them with buildings that are architecturally appealing. These can be mom & pop shops, restaurants, town homes and condos, etc. There are difficult problems to over come with logistics, code, and space utilization, but these "wrapper buildings" stand on their own economically. People want them and developers rent or sell them at a profit. The buildings are so small that they can usually only facilitate mom & pop stores instead of national chain stores.

In an earlier post I urged you to buy local and not shop at big box stores. I stand by this. If you have a local independent merchant support them first. However, big box stores are not going to go away. The efficiency with which they operate delivers the prices that customers want. The market will force them to adapt, but they will still be here for years to come. If they are going to be a part of our community, then they had better fit in with the community.

Daybreak Architecture - American Foursquare

"I love the architecture." - This is one of the most cited reasons that visitors proclaim when they are asked what they like about Daybreak. This answer is sensible considering that Daybreak homes are nothing like homes being built in the rest of Salt Lake Valley. The cookie-cutter stucco wonders have been prolific, riding the wave of the Utah housing boom. Most of these homes vary only slightly in color, style, and placement. Essentially they have almost become a homogeneous commodity that is predictably priced by two factors: size and location. Homes that do not fall into this category tend to be much older. These homes reside on the east side of Salt Lake City and Sugarhouse and were models from which Daybreak was inspired. Kennecott has calculated this factor and promoted it in a mass of billboards, radio ads, and other media. Home buyers have definitely responded by purchasing over 1200 homes in Daybreak in the last few years.

While many people admire the architecture of Daybreak, many visitors (even some homeowners) cannot identify the style of architecture of the homes that they adore so much. In this and many following posts I will analyze the architecture that makes Daybreak a unique community.

The style of home that seems to appear the most in advertisements and on most streets, (especially in Founders Village) is the American Foursquare (AF). This style is one of the few styles that can be considered distinctive American architecture. While this style comes in many varieties and can have a gamut of features, all AFs share a list of common features:

• Square box shape
• Symmetrical placement of windows and other features
• 2 ½ Stories with a full basement
• Centered dormer on top
• Full width porch with simple columns
• Low, pyramidal hipped roof

The AF was the antithesis and reaction to the extremely ornate Victorian homes and other revival styles popular in the late 1800s. The AF style started to gain traction in the mid 1890s and lasted until the 1930s. The design exploits every square foot of space and can be built efficiently as many of the materials can be measured to a uniform length. The elements of the AF were so easy to create that entire AF homes could be ordered from a Sears Roebuck catalog. The materials were turned out (in numbered pieces) and shipped to the home site where they were easily assembled. These features and the fact that the AF fit well on narrow land lots fared well with the American middle-class budget.

As with any home style features were borrowed from styles that were popular in the past. Craftsman, Prairie, and Greek Revival elements can all be identified in the basic AF style. AF houses were built using a variety of materials including brick, rock, and wood. Using these materials, AF houses were built to last and they did; few cities and towns across the nation lack at least a few good examples of AF houses. If you walk down the streets in Salt Lake City, especially in Sugarhouse, you can see many old, fine examples from the original era. This distinctive architectural style definitely belongs in Daybreak. Maybe now you will hear someone use the term American Foursquare instead of “the big yellow box on the corner.”