Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you've lived in newer construction, you are less willing to live in an old house. But if all you've ever lived in is old constrution, you think it's fine and settle for it.

+1

That, and the "I see dead people" factor.

Worked the opposite for me. Grew up in Historical homes. Bought a new home as an adult, I thought it was going to be something it wasn't. Now Im selling it to buy an 1800's stone farmhouse with a stone barn and slave quarters. I like new construction within and an old foundation and design.

[Anonymous]

Because they creak when the wind blows.

I find most new houses cheaply made. The materials last 5 years and need to be replaced. Older stuff just seems to last longer. Of course there has always been shoddy construction. I think houses constructed during "booms" (DC in the 1940's) were not so well built. Houses built in the 1930s however, seem to be very well built - by craftsmen who took time and cared about their work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

If your standard of home soul is that this home needs to have been around for a while, then any new home - whether a custom build with an award-winning architect or a cookie-cutter subdivision unit - has no soul. There is no remedy for that but time, and it's unfair to hold that against new homes.

Ummm... Yes. That is exactly what I will do. Because that is my preference and taste.
It's totally ok to want a new home. Don't feel insecure about that. There are many things to recommend a new home. You new build people need to calm down and be ok that some people would not make the same choice. It doesn't invalidate your preference. I have family that has built the most gorgeous custom home. You would think it's a historic Reno- really breath taking. It's still just missing something.

I actually don't have a dog in this fight as I live in an older home about which I have no strong feelings. I am just pointing out that the standard of soul=must have housed a few generations has nothing to do with aesthetics or build quality, which is typically what people have against new homes. The argument of "it's not old enough" cannot be helped with looks or quality of construction. It's not a "you new build people" thing. It's a logic thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Brick is still around but commands a premium
http://www.kw.com/homes-for-sale/22101/VA/MCLEAN/6713-WEAVER-AVENUE/3yd-MRIS-FX8539556.html

wow those houses are ugly

I love how there's a tiny rambler as the next door neighbor in both pictures.

I didn't notice that until you pointed it out! I like the second one, but would expect it in a neighborhood with similar houses.

We saw this house. Very nicely designed and laid out, much nicer than the average spec build - the builder is an architect. (Though I question the choice of plastic water supply pipes, are all spec builds using them instead of copper now? Ugh.)

All of those ramblers near downtown McLean will eventually be town town.

No on uses copper, PVC now has a tract record of being superior.

Nope. Cheaper, but not better.

pex is superior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they creak when the wind blows.

I find most new houses cheaply made. The materials last 5 years and need to be replaced. Older stuff just seems to last longer. Of course there has always been shoddy construction. I think houses constructed during "booms" (DC in the 1940's) were not so well built. Houses built in the 1930s however, seem to be very well built - by craftsmen who took time and cared about their work.

That's siding on a new home vs crap joists of an old home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you've lived in newer construction, you are less willing to live in an old house. But if all you've ever lived in is old constrution, you think it's fine and settle for it.

+1

That, and the "I see dead people" factor.

Worked the opposite for me. Grew up in Historical homes. Bought a new home as an adult, I thought it was going to be something it wasn't. Now Im selling it to buy an 1800's stone farmhouse with a stone barn and slave quarters. I like new construction within and an old foundation and design.

Now that's what I'm talking about!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

If your standard of home soul is that this home needs to have been around for a while, then any new home - whether a custom build with an award-winning architect or a cookie-cutter subdivision unit - has no soul. There is no remedy for that but time, and it's unfair to hold that against new homes.

Ummm... Yes. That is exactly what I will do. Because that is my preference and taste.
It's totally ok to want a new home. Don't feel insecure about that. There are many things to recommend a new home. You new build people need to calm down and be ok that some people would not make the same choice. It doesn't invalidate your preference. I have family that has built the most gorgeous custom home. You would think it's a historic Reno- really breath taking. It's still just missing something.

I actually don't have a dog in this fight as I live in an older home about which I have no strong feelings. I am just pointing out that the standard of soul=must have housed a few generations has nothing to do with aesthetics or build quality, which is typically what people have against new homes. The argument of "it's not old enough" cannot be helped with looks or quality of construction. It's not a "you new build people" thing. It's a logic thing.

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

[Anonymous]

I am an architect and I just want to clarify a few things:

- the new builds people on here are talking about are in most cases extremely well constructed and energy efficient. The giant behemoth often uses less energy than much smaller '40's house.

- the ugliness is often not the architects fault. Often we will draw something proportionally correct only to have the developer change everything until it's a whitetrash monstrosity

- I personally believe neighbors should live and let live. Worry about your own house/yard and MYOB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an architect and I just want to clarify a few things:

- the new builds people on here are talking about are in most cases extremely well constructed and energy efficient. The giant behemoth often uses less energy than much smaller '40's house.

- the ugliness is often not the architects fault. Often we will draw something proportionally correct only to have the developer change everything until it's a whitetrash monstrosity

- I personally believe neighbors should live and let live. Worry about your own house/yard and MYOB

That's easy to say until the developer has cut down a 200 year old tree to cram two enormous homes where once there was one. Blocking neighbors sunlight and killing their gardens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an architect and I just want to clarify a few things:

- the new builds people on here are talking about are in most cases extremely well constructed and energy efficient. The giant behemoth often uses less energy than much smaller '40's house.

- the ugliness is often not the architects fault. Often we will draw something proportionally correct only to have the developer change everything until it's a whitetrash monstrosity

- I personally believe neighbors should live and let live. Worry about your own house/yard and MYOB

Sweet lord! Would you please post some pics... What was drawn and what was built.
I would love to see that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

No, I don't think people who choose older homes follow their emotions any more than people who prefer new choose logic. It's a preference, no more, no less. One is not any better or worse or another.

I find my sense of logic disturbed only when "soulless" is taken to mean unattractive or lacking in construction quality, and then it turns out it simply means "not old enough". Aesthetics or construction quality can be debated as they are somewhat objective standards. The soul defined as age is not related to either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

^^Agreed. New construction and flips are tasteless and lack character in the DC area. I actually believe that the green designs and asthetic coming out of the Pacific Northwest will be the next big design wave (like arts and crafts or MCM). It's so functional, beautiful and conducive to living in this century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they creak when the wind blows.

I find most new houses cheaply made. The materials last 5 years and need to be replaced. Older stuff just seems to last longer. Of course there has always been shoddy construction. I think houses constructed during "booms" (DC in the 1940's) were not so well built. Houses built in the 1930s however, seem to be very well built - by craftsmen who took time and cared about their work.

No they weren't. There were enough shoddily build houses in the 1930s. But because only the well-built ones survive today, they mislead you into thinking that everything built in that time was like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

No, I don't think people who choose older homes follow their emotions any more than people who prefer new choose logic. It's a preference, no more, no less. One is not any better or worse or another.

I find my sense of logic disturbed only when "soulless" is taken to mean unattractive or lacking in construction quality, and then it turns out it simply means "not old enough". Aesthetics or construction quality can be debated as they are somewhat objective standards. The soul defined as age is not related to either.

Ok- so we are making the same argument. You're saying soul is an intrinsic value. That's what I am saying. New construction can be well done and beautiful and not speak to people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

Don't see anything wrong with these poorly selected examples.