Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the type of house that gets published in architecture and "Home" magazines as inspiration. The thing is most of those houses do a bit of media and advertising to help pay costs. It's partly sponsored and used by architects to sell their services. The "FU Money" emanating from this article is palpable. Good for OP - it's amazing, but boy sometimes the shit you read from tech folk is so detached from the regula…
Well.. it depends. I'm not making any uncharitable assumptions about the author's intentions. The entire article could say "I bought a house near Vancouver" and you'd be expecting the person to be extremely well-off, because it'll cost $1.5m anyway. It's obviously a little disingenuous to call it a "modern home in the woods" because it's definitely not a humble bungalow, but whatever. I just find it a little silly to…
Why would a "modern home" in the woods need to be a humble bungalow?
He hasn't termed it affordable or DIY. It could be a $100k tiny house and someone living in their car would gripe. This sort of thing seems to happen every time someone writes for their audience and an adjacent audience finds it; just doesn't seem like a very charitable reading of their intentions.
It's more expensive than I could afford, but I liked reading about the process and seeing what they built. I also enjoy reading about tiny houses, people living in their vans, $100m mansions, chateau conversions, anything.
I liked Architectural Digest's tour of JJ Redick's apartment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDNGVmHxn4 He has all that money yet the kids still fight about Lego, and neither kid can be convinced to sleep on the top bunk. And then their patio is near-unusable due to construction noise.