House Porn - which would you rather have?

[Anonymous]

1. Too much decor for a house. I have a castle in France. I know.

2. More period-looking, but a bit dark, and too expensive for what it is. DC isn't worth these prices.

[Anonymous]

They both need updating. The second one was last renovated in 1998.

[Anonymous]

I can't get past the fact that the garage doors on #1 open onto grass... (you can even see tire tracks through the grass in one picture)

[Anonymous]

#2 from the outside looks like it could be in the English countryside. I have a thing against being confronted by a staircase upon walking in the front door, and even though this one is slightly off to the side, I still I hate that.

Putting that issue aside, with a bit of redecorating I could make this work for my family.

#1 stretches too far to the sides - I'd prefer it went up, rather than out. Why yes, I AM fat-shaming that house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1. Too much decor for a house. I have a castle in France. I know.

2. More period-looking, but a bit dark, and too expensive for what it is. DC isn't worth these prices.

What does your castle in France have to do with these DC houses? How tiresome.

[Anonymous]

The outsides of both houses are vastly superior to the insides. I like the carriage house garage thing on #1. That leaves about 20K sq.ft. to hate. #2 is very ordinary. Who in their right mind would pay that kind of money for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#2 from the outside looks like it could be in the English countryside. I have a thing against being confronted by a staircase upon walking in the front door, and even though this one is slightly off to the side, I still I hate that.

Putting that issue aside, with a bit of redecorating I could make this work for my family.

#1 stretches too far to the sides - I'd prefer it went up, rather than out. Why yes, I AM fat-shaming that house.

Agree 💯on the staircase.

[Anonymous]

No question- #2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:23,000 sf?? No thank you. What a waste of resources. Even if l was loaded, the effort put in by other people maintaining my house would bother me.

2nd one is also too big but not disturbingly so.

Interesting. When I looked at number one all I thought about was all the people who would constantly be in and around the house for upkeep and maintenance. Never a day without people around, horrible.

The second home isn't far behind. Last renovation was done in 1998 so we're talking 26 years old at best.

[Anonymous]

Where are you seeing that the last renovation of house #2 was 1998? That has come up a few times and is incorrect, the current owners did extensive renovations.

[Anonymous]

Second one! I would never ever want a house as big as the first one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. Too much decor for a house. I have a castle in France. I know.

2. More period-looking, but a bit dark, and too expensive for what it is. DC isn't worth these prices.

What does your castle in France have to do with these DC houses? How tiresome.

I have seen a mention of a French castle/chateau a few times here. I think that PP may have an allergy that gets triggered if he/she/they doesn't mention it every few weeks.

[Anonymous]

I like the #2 but I’m not wealthy enough for either and if I were maybe the size of the first wouldn’t affect me in a way where I worry about managing it.

[Anonymous]

2 for sure. 1 has some cool parts but there is so, so much I would have to redo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a story about the first one. They sound fun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/paradise-on-the-potomac-every-inch-of-couples-estate-built-for-living-lavishly/2015/04/29/94099928-ce46-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html

Didn't even need to read the article to know the owners of #1 were Italian, lol.