Millennials aren't going to buy your ugly mcmansions, silly Boomers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh they will, just not yet. Still too young.

This - obviously - once they stop taking pictures of their food, have a kid and find it harder to go to Iceland for the weekend, they will want what everyone wants. Space and easy access (by car) to the things they need. Walking to meet friends for sushi will be replace by putting the sleeping baby in the car seat and finding a drive through Starbucks.

Matter of time. I am perfectly happy in my house for the next 20 years - I can wait.

36 year old Millennial here. I don't want your McMansion. Not eve a little. I don't want poor design, crap materials, a probable long commute, suburbs with amenities only accessible by driving, or the more conservative politics. I'd like more space for my three (already existing) kids, but I'm not buying a trailer on steroids to satisfy that desire, especially when I'm 56.

Also, I cook 90% of our meals at home. I've taken zero pictures of them.

36 is Gen X, babe.

np. not if she was born in 1980

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 34 and have one kid. No more kids for me (can't imagine paying for 2 daycare slots in DC). My little three person family has no need and no desire for a huge house. We make do with our 1 car and 1600 sq ft "shitshack" in a close-in, historic neighborhood with good public schools. DH and I bought this house in 2011, at the tail end of the recession, for less than $300K; now we have about $250K in equity. I think our situation is a lot better than people 5-10 years younger than us.

A lot of my friends have 1 or 2 kids and probably won't have more. I can't think of any that would ever buy a McMansion. We like being able to walk places. But maybe I'll eat my words in 10 years.

Curious, where did you buy close in with good schools in 2011 for less than 300K? We bought in Upper NW in 2010, but getting something for under $700K was considered a deal (house is now worth around 900K, but smaller than yours). We did look in close-in suburbs all around the city as well. (Maybe you are far from metro? Under a mile was one of our requirements.)

[Anonymous]

Gen Xer here with two middle school kids in McLean VA. My wife and I knocked down our tiny 1960s split level (worth $~750K) and built a new home (now worth ~$1.6 million). The neighborhood we live in has a mix of tear downs and older homes. It's a large home, but we still have a nice backyard and added many upgrades that weren't cheap although I think the haters would still call it a McMansion. However, I don't understand the desire for the alternative. Here's what I mean:

Our old home had a brick exterior, no house wrap, tiny windows, squeaky floors, no drain tile so the basement leaked, no basement vapor barrier so radon was leaking up, and no character. The original kitchen contained asbestos tiles (which was covered up). The energy efficiency of the house was terrible. Why is what I described better than a new home? Sure, we decided to use HardiPlank vs. brick on the outside but that’s a personal design preference but everything else in the new place is superior to the old one. I hear comments from people that our old home used plywood and solid wood beams but the new home uses Advantech OSB and beams. Well, science tells us that the products are structurally equivalent and OSB is stronger in shear values. The new home has a radon system, better drainage, large windows so we don’t need to use as much electricity, sensors that shut off lights to save energy, and is air tight. The floor doesn’t squeak and is less likely to in the long run, our fire alarm is integrated into home security system which makes it a much safer home (e.g., the air conditioner shuts off if a fire is detected). And yes, we now use our gourmet kitchen to cook most of our meals because it’s just much easier and fun (our old kitchen was tiny and it sucked to cook in)! Why is our ‘McMansion’ worse than our old home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh they will, just not yet. Still too young.

This - obviously - once they stop taking pictures of their food, have a kid and find it harder to go to Iceland for the weekend, they will want what everyone wants. Space and easy access (by car) to the things they need. Walking to meet friends for sushi will be replace by putting the sleeping baby in the car seat and finding a drive through Starbucks.

Matter of time. I am perfectly happy in my house for the next 20 years - I can wait.

36 year old Millennial here. I don't want your McMansion. Not eve a little. I don't want poor design, crap materials, a probable long commute, suburbs with amenities only accessible by driving, or the more conservative politics. I'd like more space for my three (already existing) kids, but I'm not buying a trailer on steroids to satisfy that desire, especially when I'm 56.

Also, I cook 90% of our meals at home. I've taken zero pictures of them.

This. Another millennial. I don't want to spend hours a week in my car. It's already challenging to juggle kids and a job without sitting in traffic for two hours a day. It's also hard to stay in shape and sitting in an office and then a car doesn't help. I couldn't care less about walking to get sushi. I don't want a lengthy commute and many others don't as well.

This. Almost millennial here (37). No interest in a long, sedentary commute, a lack of diversity, and the conservative politics that characterized our neighborhood when we briefly lived further out. We ended up buying a SFH in upper NW, which also allowed us more job options--we can have comfortable reverse commutes to MD, or a shorter commute downtown, where I now work. Lots of older millennial families starting to move to our current neighborhood.

The absolute oldest millennials are just turning 35. You are a Gen X. It's cracking me up that no actual millennials are chiming in and just super young Gen Xers. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh they will, just not yet. Still too young.

This - obviously - once they stop taking pictures of their food, have a kid and find it harder to go to Iceland for the weekend, they will want what everyone wants. Space and easy access (by car) to the things they need. Walking to meet friends for sushi will be replace by putting the sleeping baby in the car seat and finding a drive through Starbucks.

Matter of time. I am perfectly happy in my house for the next 20 years - I can wait.

36 year old Millennial here. I don't want your McMansion. Not eve a little. I don't want poor design, crap materials, a probable long commute, suburbs with amenities only accessible by driving, or the more conservative politics. I'd like more space for my three (already existing) kids, but I'm not buying a trailer on steroids to satisfy that desire, especially when I'm 56.

Also, I cook 90% of our meals at home. I've taken zero pictures of them.

36 is Gen X, babe.

np. not if she was born in 1980

Yes, especially if she was born in 1980

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinebeaton/2016/02/29/the-oldest-millennials-just-turned-35-this-is-how-gen-y-ages/#79e00cf62584

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting factoid - Loudoun only has about 60% of the population of DC, yet has over 20% more kids in the school-age years (5-17).

DCUM can always be counted upon to cough up some people who'll swear how they and all their friends would never live in the outer suburbs, but that is exactly where more of the real moms and dads are.

How does that compare to say, Arlington, though? Which is also not an outer suburb, but is historically more favored by the upper middle class (especially its schools) than DC is? Or say City of Falls Church, where the big complaint is that the planners underestimated how many school kids would be generated by new apartments?

The percentage of children 5-17 in Arlington is about the same as in DC and is also low. The difference compared to DC is that parents there tend to send their kids to public schools. The school planning in FCC has been bad on many counts. Failing to accurately predict the student yields from new apartments was probably more excusable than some of their other slip-ups.

In any event, the local jurisdictions with the highest percentages of kids 5-17 are Loudoun, Prince William, and Howard - all outer suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Millennial here currently looking for a home in Loudoun County. I work in Reston, as does my DH and Ashburn is great for us. We are looking in thevery 750k range and a house I had my eye on and wanted to see this weekend is a McMansion and just went under contract after 14 days. DH and I are realizing that we now need to move quicker. Not sure who is snatching up the homes, but someone is. The reason Ashburn appeals to us outside of the easy commute, is there are a lot of young families just like us.

You all should be happy! My tiny tiny shit shack with mold problems in Arlington , one of you bought. You will be living the dream in that home. It will keep you busy with one fun project after the next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here with two middle school kids in McLean VA. My wife and I knocked down our tiny 1960s split level (worth $~750K) and built a new home (now worth ~$1.6 million). The neighborhood we live in has a mix of tear downs and older homes. It's a large home, but we still have a nice backyard and added many upgrades that weren't cheap although I think the haters would still call it a McMansion. However, I don't understand the desire for the alternative. Here's what I mean:

Our old home had a brick exterior, no house wrap, tiny windows, squeaky floors, no drain tile so the basement leaked, no basement vapor barrier so radon was leaking up, and no character. The original kitchen contained asbestos tiles (which was covered up). The energy efficiency of the house was terrible. Why is what I described better than a new home? Sure, we decided to use HardiPlank vs. brick on the outside but that’s a personal design preference but everything else in the new place is superior to the old one. I hear comments from people that our old home used plywood and solid wood beams but the new home uses Advantech OSB and beams. Well, science tells us that the products are structurally equivalent and OSB is stronger in shear values. The new home has a radon system, better drainage, large windows so we don’t need to use as much electricity, sensors that shut off lights to save energy, and is air tight. The floor doesn’t squeak and is less likely to in the long run, our fire alarm is integrated into home security system which makes it a much safer home (e.g., the air conditioner shuts off if a fire is detected). And yes, we now use our gourmet kitchen to cook most of our meals because it’s just much easier and fun (our old kitchen was tiny and it sucked to cook in)! Why is our ‘McMansion’ worse than our old home?

Sounds like you've made some great decisions that, at a minimum, will allow you to enjoy your home more. I suspect that prospect doesn't sit very well with some folks whose mission in life is to bash suburbanites and their homes (when what many of them secretly want most of all is for others to move to the city with our kids to shore up their own schools).

[Anonymous]

Ha. If you think that your spiffy new McMansion won't supply you with project after project...you will be disappointed.

Every house has it's own sh*t.

[Anonymous]

I'm 33 and I accept that there are shitty people in every age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here with two middle school kids in McLean VA. My wife and I knocked down our tiny 1960s split level (worth $~750K) and built a new home (now worth ~$1.6 million). The neighborhood we live in has a mix of tear downs and older homes. It's a large home, but we still have a nice backyard and added many upgrades that weren't cheap although I think the haters would still call it a McMansion. However, I don't understand the desire for the alternative. Here's what I mean:

Our old home had a brick exterior, no house wrap, tiny windows, squeaky floors, no drain tile so the basement leaked, no basement vapor barrier so radon was leaking up, and no character. The original kitchen contained asbestos tiles (which was covered up). The energy efficiency of the house was terrible. Why is what I described better than a new home? Sure, we decided to use HardiPlank vs. brick on the outside but that’s a personal design preference but everything else in the new place is superior to the old one. I hear comments from people that our old home used plywood and solid wood beams but the new home uses Advantech OSB and beams. Well, science tells us that the products are structurally equivalent and OSB is stronger in shear values. The new home has a radon system, better drainage, large windows so we don’t need to use as much electricity, sensors that shut off lights to save energy, and is air tight. The floor doesn’t squeak and is less likely to in the long run, our fire alarm is integrated into home security system which makes it a much safer home (e.g., the air conditioner shuts off if a fire is detected). And yes, we now use our gourmet kitchen to cook most of our meals because it’s just much easier and fun (our old kitchen was tiny and it sucked to cook in)! Why is our ‘McMansion’ worse than our old home?

I agree with almost everything you said, as a current owner of a 1960 split level in Falls Church. The only thing I would nitpit is about the strength of the exterior of the house. In the derecho, we had 2 large, mature oak trees come down onto our house. In both cases, the trees came through the rook and came to rest on the top of the brick wall. The contractors who worked on our house said many other houses had trees cut right through the house as they fell down, and only the older brick homes stopped the trees. Now, that surely doesn't outweigh all the other cons to our house! (And if the tree had torn right through my house, it would have resulted in me getting a new house courtesy of insurance. Ah the trade offs...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha. If you think that your spiffy new McMansion won't supply you with project after project...you will be disappointed.

Every house has it's own sh*t.

Yes, I realize this, but really the electrical was shot, major water problems, insulation problems, the whole house needed an overhaul. I put $0 into it and sold it for 875k and am trading it for the same mortgage and a much shorter commute and space. Made enough on the house that we immediately will sink 100k into the new house for furnishings and any updates we want to do and have a mortgage just under 3k/mo. Again, enjoy! The mold remediation is going to be an absolute joy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sounds like you've made some great decisions that, at a minimum, will allow you to enjoy your home more. I suspect that prospect doesn't sit very well with some folks whose mission in life is to bash suburbanites and their homes (when what many of them secretly want most of all is for others to move to the city with our kids to shore up their own schools).

Don't forget that they desperately want their property values to keep going up up up with no end in sight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha. If you think that your spiffy new McMansion won't supply you with project after project...you will be disappointed.

Every house has it's own sh*t.

My house built in 2003 has had some projects and maintenance, but no where near what the older home I grew up in had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is Gen X who owns the McMansions, I sure don't own a McMansion.

Agree - definitely in our neighborhood anyway. It seems like the tail end of the Gen Xers and possibly the front end of the Millennials who are snatching up the McMansions - not Boomers.

+1

Boomers are selling their teardowns to the builders who pump out McMansions.

Agree too. I am a Gen Xer and have owned McMansions. Boomers either own shit shacks, or nice well designed homes like those in Woodlea Mills.