What You Get for ... $775,000

I wouldn't mind summers in Wyoming -- I drove through the state once on the first of August and froze my ass off when we stopped for gas.

don't care for the wyoming house. it's nice and i love the spaciousness, but there's a cartoon western rusticity that grates. plus i'm almost certain i wouldn't care to live in/near cody, WY, so the house itself is beside the point anyway.

both of the others are gorgeous. prefer the woodstock setting (8 acres of woods!), but i'm a west coaster, so alameda sounds great. alameda house does pose obstacles in terms of the dark, woody interior - milo z OTM there. beautiful, but not exactly to my taste . wouldn't want to fuck with it, but nor would i feel entirely trapped by the period and style in deciding how to actually live in it. love the kitchen. then again, love the bath in woodstock. hard to call...

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

would live in these 3 tbh altho the florida one is a little too florida or something

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/23/greathomesanddestinations/20110223wyg_ss.html?ref=greathomesanddestinations

All three of those houses on the original post look kinda give me the creeps, they look like sets for poltergeist films or where Whitley Strieber hung out when he was 'abducted'

these do tend to be exclusively drawn from a pool of:

chicago apartments
upstate newyork hideaways
eccentric tucson terracotta clad bungalows
and porched florida playhouses

Austin house does a good job of balancing Craftsman cottage style with modern. I'd still probably strip all the wood and go lighter, though. (WTF at that place going for almost a half-mil in Austin? Real estate prices jumped since the last time I knew anyone shopping down there, I guess.)
Chicago condo is nice, but the kitchen is out of place.
Florida house is Florida-y.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/03/11/greathomesanddestinations/20120311-WYG.html#1
pretty good one

Vermont is sooooo huge for $1.6 mil. Venice looks like it should be half that. San Antonio looks about right for the price, but I don't like it.

I'm surprised the San Antonio house is as old as it is too.

Venice house is dope

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/12/12/greathomesanddestinations/20131212-GH-WYG.html

this week is like the ur-what-you-get-for in showcasing i) too much wood ii) it looks like they shoot porn there & iii) why can i only realistically imagine this place as the scene of some kind of bloody, domestic Capotian carnage happening

I think the Houston house itself is the best of the three. I don't really like the style of the stuff in it, but sweet solarium. The first one does creep me out a little. I hate vaulted ceiling bedrooms, and it looks more like a lodge than a home.

And the third one is just boring and ugly and I can't even believe it's over 1 million.

That first one has a nice exterior and great location and then goddamn the ugliest fucking interior ever. Those floors look terrible. Sure, wide planks if you want to look vintage but they weren't making floors out of 1x12s.

Houston is a malarial swamp and that interior looks like a modernist McMansion in California. The solarium is a nice idea, except that you could only use it for 3 months/year in Houston.

Fake Spanish colonial is NAGL

i wish to die in the california:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/realestate/650000-homes-in-california-florida-and-montana.html?ref=realestate#

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-property/property-51135473.html