I see this point of view. But then I ponder how it implies that our regulations regarding aesthetics are then driving up the cost of a home, verses allowing the market to decide whether it wants to build a snout-house or not. If snout-houses are more affordable, is it a worthy trade-off to the perceived aesthetic concerns? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with regulations that build a safer home (i.e., improved building codes) but are there requirements (like banning snout-houses) that ironically, indirectly make it more difficult for a planner to live in the town they work?
Here on the Front Range, builders have been slowly chipping away at one town's codes for requiring a %age of brick-stone on the envelope. This saves a few $ for the builders up front, but greatly increases maintenance costs for the owner. Which often leads to deferred maintenance and then overall reduced property values. Meaning: whose costs? A few $ up front can be carried on the mortgage and amortized over time. Much better IMHO to have a quality product up front. Builders always adjust.
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.
Working in housing\community development, I try to encourage mixed-income developments for a number of reasons. I also try to encourage "green" developments, such as developing near transit, where possible. Of course the best I can do is encourage, not require. I take the bus to work every day (something I'm proud about considering that my metro is very auto oriented). However, there is definitely a lack of affordable housing in my immediate area. It's a cool neighborhood, but the rents aren't worth it so I'll probably be moving to someone more affordable, less desirable in the fall.
Going back to snout-houses, for front loaded homes, they theoretically allow more home (non-garage area) to be built on a given lot than what can be built with a non snout-house since space isn't eaten up by putting the garage behind the front face of the house. Someone who wants a front loaded 2K SF of home on a 5K SF lot will find that the snout-house has more area that can be built behind the garage for part of home's the square footage. There's potentially more value for the square footage dollar (and less driveway to pour).
Do I think snout-house look less appealing? Yes. I'm not sure if the general public cares as much though, especially if it potentially reduces the cost per square foot to buy. And whenever I'm shoveling the extra 300 square feet of snow on my driveway in January (admittedly snow may be a thing of the past in Colorado) that a person with a snout-house doesn't, the snout-house somehow gets more appealing to me.