New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway

[Anonymous]

Figured I'd start a new thread instead of derailing the McLean thread.

Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955? Do you really think there's a big market for people who want small brick post-world war ramblers with no insultation, tiny galley kitchens and bathrooms to sustain these neighborhoods.

I cannot afford a $2.8M 6.5-7K square foot home, but I get why they are slowing replacing homes built 70 to 95 YEARS!!! ago. These aren't the solid built large homes you find in some small cities that can be remodeled and stand the test of time. And I'm sorry, but a 1/3-acre lot is not "small" to many people. There is one of these 6.5K sq ft new homes two houses down from ours and the backyard is much large than ours - I wish ours was that big.

I agree that some of these homes look bland and cookie cutter, but I also understand that it's often because the developers are building what is most popular and sells in this area. In the case of our neighbor, they custom built their home and I'm sure people would look at it and still say it's another boring McMansion - but it's fine really and they built it for their taste not mine. I get and agree these homes look out of place in neighborhoods like ours, but I also get that this is going to continue to happen until most of the super old homes are seriously renovated or torn down.

We love our 1950's brick rambler, and will keep doing what we can to make it nicer and keep it well maintained - and at the very least we are seeing our home values rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Figured I'd start a new thread instead of derailing the McLean thread.

Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955? Do you really think there's a big market for people who want small brick post-world war ramblers with no insultation, tiny galley kitchens and bathrooms to sustain these neighborhoods.

I cannot afford a $2.8M 6.5-7K square foot home, but I get why they are slowing replacing homes built 70 to 95 YEARS!!! ago. These aren't the solid built large homes you find in some small cities that can be remodeled and stand the test of time. And I'm sorry, but a 1/3-acre lot is not "small" to many people. There is one of these 6.5K sq ft new homes two houses down from ours and the backyard is much large than ours - I wish ours was that big.

I agree that some of these homes look bland and cookie cutter, but I also understand that it's often because the developers are building what is most popular and sells in this area. In the case of our neighbor, they custom built their home and I'm sure people would look at it and still say it's another boring McMansion - but it's fine really and they built it for their taste not mine. I get and agree these homes look out of place in neighborhoods like ours, but I also get that this is going to continue to happen until most of the super old homes are seriously renovated or torn down.

We love our 1950's brick rambler, and will keep doing what we can to make it nicer and keep it well maintained - and at the very least we are seeing our home values rise.

Yes, especially ones zoned for good schools inside the Beltway. Developers tear those homes down and replace them with larger, modern homes because it is more profitable for developers; it isn't because the market for the existing homes does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Figured I'd start a new thread instead of derailing the McLean thread.

Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955? Do you really think there's a big market for people who want small brick post-world war ramblers with no insultation, tiny galley kitchens and bathrooms to sustain these neighborhoods.

I cannot. It is weird. The realtors in our area seem to want all of the houses in a neighborhood to be exactly the same. We have a large house amongst many smaller homes in the neighborhood. I get the feeling that our realtor really doesn't like it and wants it to be priced the same as all of these older cookie cutter homes, even though it is 2x-3x larger.

It's the "price by neighborhood not by house mentality". Ironic because the realtors they own houses in "desirable area" with "bad" public high schools and send their kids to private schools.

We'll be leaving as soon, as is conveniently available.

It's kind of like the teachers and administrators that work in public schools but send their kids to private schools.

[Anonymous]

Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955?

Because these 6,000sf houses on 7,000sf lots are all out of proportion for the neighborhood/lot size? And it usually means tearing up old landscaping (cutting down beautiful old oak trees)? and the giant modern farmhouses are an eyesore?

I feel like if you want to build a monster house you should have the decency to do it up in 22207 and not come down to 22201 and squeeze one onto a tiny lot.

[Anonymous]

I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

I disagree about maintenance though. A larger house is easier to maintain IMO. You don't have to clean as frequently, and the wear is more distributed. When you clean or do maintenance you have more space to get things done. I'm sure there is some threshold or optimum, like a big yard is a big yard. But small houses you have to clean very often and it's often difficult to keep from tracking back on top of it while you're cleaning.

I agree about the open layout regarding storage, you sort of have to budget for hutches buffet's, display cases and what not. As kids get older a large house isn't as important, because they tend to spend times at activities. It really depends on the number and types of amenities nearby. IMO a good gym nearby goes a long way towards making a small urban house livable as kids get older.

[Anonymous]

We have friends in 6K sq ft new builds/expansions and agree that they feel kind of cavernous inside because not many families with little kids are splashing out on perfect interior design and furnishing (esp. if the house was a financial reach already). Have the 'surprised' people driven through Vienna recently? Eventually every old house in these zip codes will be replaced, and developers are incentivized to build the largest possible house on the lot. We lived in a little brick rambler in Falls Church when we first came to the area and it had not been well-maintained; even if we could live with the basic footprint and just wanted to make some updates, it would have been 100s of thousands just to bring electrical, plumbing, insulation, and exterior grading up to modern standards. The house also had almost no closet space, which isn't something easily remodeled when square footage is already limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have friends in 6K sq ft new builds/expansions and agree that they feel kind of cavernous inside because not many families with little kids are splashing out on perfect interior design and furnishing (esp. if the house was a financial reach already). Have the 'surprised' people driven through Vienna recently? Eventually every old house in these zip codes will be replaced, and developers are incentivized to build the largest possible house on the lot. We lived in a little brick rambler in Falls Church when we first came to the area and it had not been well-maintained; even if we could live with the basic footprint and just wanted to make some updates, it would have been 100s of thousands just to bring electrical, plumbing, insulation, and exterior grading up to modern standards. The house also had almost no closet space, which isn't something easily remodeled when square footage is already limited.

You just made the case why those smaller, older homes are being torn down. The economics don't justify redoing those smaller houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have friends in 6K sq ft new builds/expansions and agree that they feel kind of cavernous inside because not many families with little kids are splashing out on perfect interior design and furnishing (esp. if the house was a financial reach already). Have the 'surprised' people driven through Vienna recently? Eventually every old house in these zip codes will be replaced, and developers are incentivized to build the largest possible house on the lot. We lived in a little brick rambler in Falls Church when we first came to the area and it had not been well-maintained; even if we could live with the basic footprint and just wanted to make some updates, it would have been 100s of thousands just to bring electrical, plumbing, insulation, and exterior grading up to modern standards. The house also had almost no closet space, which isn't something easily remodeled when square footage is already limited.

You just made the case why those smaller, older homes are being torn down. The economics don't justify redoing those smaller houses.

Yes, I was agreeing with OP

[Anonymous]

Lots of civil service folks have jobs on 123. They can't afford and do not want a $2M house. They do want a short commute to work. Some of the older houses in 22101 and adjacent N Arlington get moves into as-is and do not get torn down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.

What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.

I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.

The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.

What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.

I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.

The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous

I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.

[Anonymous]

The Floridification of everything. Mar-A-Lago face included with purchase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955?

Because these 6,000sf houses on 7,000sf lots are all out of proportion for the neighborhood/lot size? And it usually means tearing up old landscaping (cutting down beautiful old oak trees)? and the giant modern farmhouses are an eyesore?

I feel like if you want to build a monster house you should have the decency to do it up in 22207 and not come down to 22201 and squeeze one onto a tiny lot.

And let’s not forget that these monstrosities also disrupt sloping and grading and often cause drainage issues for surrounding properties.