So tired of the crappy housing stock in the DMV combined with skyrocketing prices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same. Spouse is now fully remote and I'm only in the office 2x a week so I'm moving back to the Baltimore area (Ruxton/Roland Park/Homeland) where $1mm goes a long way.

Homes in North Baltimore are drastically nicer than anywhere in the DMV between $500,000 and $1M. There is no neighborhood around here as nice as Roland Park and Homeland.

Hmm maybe Chevy Chase but you're right. Baltimore City had homes built for the rich and you can tell.

Perfect example of what I’m talking about. You would get a 2 br shack anywhere within 15 miles of DC if you were lucky but you can get a pre-War colonial with a kitchen like this in Homewood, Baltimore.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/313-Broadmoor-Rd-21212/home/11152665

This is what $1.2M gets you in a 7/10 ES/MS district in Baltimore City, in the nicest SFH neighborhood in the city. This house would be $5M+ in NW DC.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/218-Ridgewood-Rd-21210/home/11163794

Who needs 8 bedrooms?! I feel like our house is a little too big and it’s half the size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same. Spouse is now fully remote and I'm only in the office 2x a week so I'm moving back to the Baltimore area (Ruxton/Roland Park/Homeland) where $1mm goes a long way.

Homes in North Baltimore are drastically nicer than anywhere in the DMV between $500,000 and $1M. There is no neighborhood around here as nice as Roland Park and Homeland.

Hmm maybe Chevy Chase but you're right. Baltimore City had homes built for the rich and you can tell.

Perfect example of what I’m talking about. You would get a 2 br shack anywhere within 15 miles of DC if you were lucky but you can get a pre-War colonial with a kitchen like this in Homewood, Baltimore.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/313-Broadmoor-Rd-21212/home/11152665

This is what $1.2M gets you in a 7/10 ES/MS district in Baltimore City, in the nicest SFH neighborhood in the city. This house would be $5M+ in NW DC.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/218-Ridgewood-Rd-21210/home/11163794

Who needs 8 bedrooms?! I feel like our house is a little too big and it’s half the size.

Are there really no houses like that around DC? Or just the current inventory (which is super low)?

I don’t really get the posts that are like look at this amazing house you can get in Baltimore for the same price as a DC shack. well yeah it’s DC vs Baltimore. For that price you can also get a mediocre 2 bedroom apartment in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same. Spouse is now fully remote and I'm only in the office 2x a week so I'm moving back to the Baltimore area (Ruxton/Roland Park/Homeland) where $1mm goes a long way.

Homes in North Baltimore are drastically nicer than anywhere in the DMV between $500,000 and $1M. There is no neighborhood around here as nice as Roland Park and Homeland.

Hmm maybe Chevy Chase but you're right. Baltimore City had homes built for the rich and you can tell.

Perfect example of what I’m talking about. You would get a 2 br shack anywhere within 15 miles of DC if you were lucky but you can get a pre-War colonial with a kitchen like this in Homewood, Baltimore.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/313-Broadmoor-Rd-21212/home/11152665

This is what $1.2M gets you in a 7/10 ES/MS district in Baltimore City, in the nicest SFH neighborhood in the city. This house would be $5M+ in NW DC.


The point is even if you had lots of money to buy a beautiful home, these historic style homes found in Baltimore are few and far between in the DC suburbs. Sounds like people are frustrated by the style of the homes
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/218-Ridgewood-Rd-21210/home/11163794

Who needs 8 bedrooms?! I feel like our house is a little too big and it’s half the size.

Are there really no houses like that around DC? Or just the current inventory (which is super low)?

I don’t really get the posts that are like look at this amazing house you can get in Baltimore for the same price as a DC shack. well yeah it’s DC vs Baltimore. For that price you can also get a mediocre 2 bedroom apartment in NYC.

[Anonymous]

The point is even if you had lots of money to buy a beautiful home outside of DC, these historic style homes found in Baltimore are few and far between in the DC suburbs. Sounds like people are frustrated by the style of the homes and the quality of builder materials in this area. Baltimore is used as comparison bewcause it’s close by and provides an example of tastefully done renovations (not all of them but there are plenty)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point is even if you had lots of money to buy a beautiful home outside of DC, these historic style homes found in Baltimore are few and far between in the DC suburbs. Sounds like people are frustrated by the style of the homes and the quality of builder materials in this area. Baltimore is used as comparison bewcause it’s close by and provides an example of tastefully done renovations (not all of them but there are plenty)

. Right. The better houses are in the city. Not cheap though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- sorry, I realized I failed to include the link!

https://bungalowsandcottages.com/properties/listing/crmls/AR22260198/Monrovia/216-Monroe-Place

That is a stinking cute house.

It is, but look at the house next door. Boring bungalow. Most of CA suburbs homes are boring bungalows. I used to live in Socal for 25 years. I lived in a few of the boring bungalows, and one really cute spanish bungalow.

There are a few homes in the DC burbs that have nice architecture, but like I said before, they tend to be victorians that are money pits.

Yeah, the notion that this is typical of all homes in SoCal seems misplaced.

pp here.. exactly. The vast vast majority of homes in CA are boring bungalows or two story boxes.

Southern California has more natural beauty than DMV. Right around LA you have hills, mountains, and of course the beach. You can have tract homes set in cookie-cutter neighborhoods that would be blah here but there at least are set against more scenic backdrops.

Lololol! Have you ever been to LA? I lived there until college and I would NOT say Southern California is beautiful, especially not LA.

Northern CA? Yes 💯. SoCal? Lololol! You’re watching way too many movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- sorry, I realized I failed to include the link!

https://bungalowsandcottages.com/properties/listing/crmls/AR22260198/Monrovia/216-Monroe-Place

That is a stinking cute house.

It is, but look at the house next door. Boring bungalow. Most of CA suburbs homes are boring bungalows. I used to live in Socal for 25 years. I lived in a few of the boring bungalows, and one really cute spanish bungalow.

There are a few homes in the DC burbs that have nice architecture, but like I said before, they tend to be victorians that are money pits.

Yeah, the notion that this is typical of all homes in SoCal seems misplaced.

pp here.. exactly. The vast vast majority of homes in CA are boring bungalows or two story boxes.

Southern California has more natural beauty than DMV. Right around LA you have hills, mountains, and of course the beach. You can have tract homes set in cookie-cutter neighborhoods that would be blah here but there at least are set against more scenic backdrops.

Lololol! Have you ever been to LA? I lived there until college and I would NOT say Southern California is beautiful, especially not LA.

Northern CA? Yes 💯. SoCal? Lololol! You’re watching way too many movies.

I wouldn't want to live in Southern California, but you must be tripping. Lots of LA city is not pretty, but the nicest parts of SoCal are amazing. There is nothing comparable around here. I mean, come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- sorry, I realized I failed to include the link!

https://bungalowsandcottages.com/properties/listing/crmls/AR22260198/Monrovia/216-Monroe-Place

That is a stinking cute house.

It is, but look at the house next door. Boring bungalow. Most of CA suburbs homes are boring bungalows. I used to live in Socal for 25 years. I lived in a few of the boring bungalows, and one really cute spanish bungalow.

There are a few homes in the DC burbs that have nice architecture, but like I said before, they tend to be victorians that are money pits.

Yeah, the notion that this is typical of all homes in SoCal seems misplaced.

pp here.. exactly. The vast vast majority of homes in CA are boring bungalows or two story boxes.

Southern California has more natural beauty than DMV. Right around LA you have hills, mountains, and of course the beach. You can have tract homes set in cookie-cutter neighborhoods that would be blah here but there at least are set against more scenic backdrops.

Lololol! Have you ever been to LA? I lived there until college and I would NOT say Southern California is beautiful, especially not LA.

Northern CA? Yes 💯. SoCal? Lololol! You’re watching way too many movies.

I wouldn't want to live in Southern California, but you must be tripping. Lots of LA city is not pretty, but the nicest parts of SoCal are amazing. There is nothing comparable around here. I mean, come on.

+1. I lived all over CA for over a decade. You can't tell me the SoCal coastline isn't beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Wow, most of DCUM is bad, but this thread really sets a new low for self-indulgent self-pitying.

DC was a relatively small city/metro area until the Depression (ie, wasn't one of the 15 largest cities in the country until the New Deal and WWII mobilization). So much of the housing here was built either during the Depression and WWII (when resources were scarce and the clientele was middle class govt workers) or after the war. And the fact is MOST postwar suburban housing in the US (please don't tell me about Brad Pitt's mansion in Malibu...) is pretty drab. Honestly, people here are are pining for NY but some of the dated 1960s housing stock in the lesser parts of Westchester and Long Island and NJ looks locations for a bad Mad Men spinoff (although i will admit the NJ housing in the Sopranos was incredibly classy). Do people move to the San Fernando Valley or Lakewood for the charming architecture? I'm not sure why the OP so dislikes split levels - they're actually efficiently designed, and mid-century design has been in vogue for about a decade -- but they're pretty commonplace across the nation.

Yes, you can look at prewar suburbs in one-percenter suburbs like Bronxville or Oyster Bay or the Upper Merion and say "why don't houses in Chantilly have the same charm - that's so unfair to me!" but it's a completely inapt comparison. If you look at DC's prewar luxury homes in Forest Hills or Foxhall or Chevy Chase Village, you'll see comparable houses.

Whining that one's dollar can buy so much more in Baltimore or Shady Side or Shaker Heights or Grosse Pointe than in DC is just silly. Obviously prices are depressed there because of economic or other challenges (yeah, I want the housing costs of metro Cleveland but the professional and cultural offerings of greater DC too -- pls make it happen). Furthermore, comparing the sales prices alone isn't useful because those lower-priced old suburbs generally have much higher property tax rates to provide the services that their residents expect (notwithstanding lower home values).

Ironically, many people who come to DC find that the original prewar housing stock -- the 19th century townhouses of the original city, the 20th century row houses in the outlying parts of the city -- to be not just charming but distinctive. I thought it was a triusm that all taste is subjective, but apparently not on DCUM.

Real estate everywhere involves trade offs, including location, size, age and that ineffable category of charm/appeal. OP thinks they (or all DMV residents) are uniquely vexed in facing that tradeoff -- they're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same. Spouse is now fully remote and I'm only in the office 2x a week so I'm moving back to the Baltimore area (Ruxton/Roland Park/Homeland) where $1mm goes a long way.

Homes in North Baltimore are drastically nicer than anywhere in the DMV between $500,000 and $1M. There is no neighborhood around here as nice as Roland Park and Homeland.

Hmm maybe Chevy Chase but you're right. Baltimore City had homes built for the rich and you can tell.

Perfect example of what I’m talking about. You would get a 2 br shack anywhere within 15 miles of DC if you were lucky but you can get a pre-War colonial with a kitchen like this in Homewood, Baltimore.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/313-Broadmoor-Rd-21212/home/11152665

This is what $1.2M gets you in a 7/10 ES/MS district in Baltimore City, in the nicest SFH neighborhood in the city. This house would be $5M+ in NW DC.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/218-Ridgewood-Rd-21210/home/11163794

Who needs 8 bedrooms?! I feel like our house is a little too big and it’s half the size.

Gorgeous home! It will cost more than 1.2 to build a home like this today. Buyer got a good deal! BUT... can you really live there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, most of DCUM is bad, but this thread really sets a new low for self-indulgent self-pitying.

DC was a relatively small city/metro area until the Depression (ie, wasn't one of the 15 largest cities in the country until the New Deal and WWII mobilization). So much of the housing here was built either during the Depression and WWII (when resources were scarce and the clientele was middle class govt workers) or after the war. And the fact is MOST postwar suburban housing in the US (please don't tell me about Brad Pitt's mansion in Malibu...) is pretty drab. Honestly, people here are are pining for NY but some of the dated 1960s housing stock in the lesser parts of Westchester and Long Island and NJ looks locations for a bad Mad Men spinoff (although i will admit the NJ housing in the Sopranos was incredibly classy). Do people move to the San Fernando Valley or Lakewood for the charming architecture? I'm not sure why the OP so dislikes split levels - they're actually efficiently designed, and mid-century design has been in vogue for about a decade -- but they're pretty commonplace across the nation.

Yes, you can look at prewar suburbs in one-percenter suburbs like Bronxville or Oyster Bay or the Upper Merion and say "why don't houses in Chantilly have the same charm - that's so unfair to me!" but it's a completely inapt comparison. If you look at DC's prewar luxury homes in Forest Hills or Foxhall or Chevy Chase Village, you'll see comparable houses.

Whining that one's dollar can buy so much more in Baltimore or Shady Side or Shaker Heights or Grosse Pointe than in DC is just silly. Obviously prices are depressed there because of economic or other challenges (yeah, I want the housing costs of metro Cleveland but the professional and cultural offerings of greater DC too -- pls make it happen). Furthermore, comparing the sales prices alone isn't useful because those lower-priced old suburbs generally have much higher property tax rates to provide the services that their residents expect (notwithstanding lower home values).

Ironically, many people who come to DC find that the original prewar housing stock -- the 19th century townhouses of the original city, the 20th century row houses in the outlying parts of the city -- to be not just charming but distinctive. I thought it was a triusm that all taste is subjective, but apparently not on DCUM.

Real estate everywhere involves trade offs, including location, size, age and that ineffable category of charm/appeal. OP thinks they (or all DMV residents) are uniquely vexed in facing that tradeoff -- they're not.

+1 I can’t imagine people moving away from the DMV and telling their friends it was because they couldn’t find an attractive looking house and that the whole region is hideous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, most of DCUM is bad, but this thread really sets a new low for self-indulgent self-pitying.

DC was a relatively small city/metro area until the Depression (ie, wasn't one of the 15 largest cities in the country until the New Deal and WWII mobilization). So much of the housing here was built either during the Depression and WWII (when resources were scarce and the clientele was middle class govt workers) or after the war. And the fact is MOST postwar suburban housing in the US (please don't tell me about Brad Pitt's mansion in Malibu...) is pretty drab. Honestly, people here are are pining for NY but some of the dated 1960s housing stock in the lesser parts of Westchester and Long Island and NJ looks locations for a bad Mad Men spinoff (although i will admit the NJ housing in the Sopranos was incredibly classy). Do people move to the San Fernando Valley or Lakewood for the charming architecture? I'm not sure why the OP so dislikes split levels - they're actually efficiently designed, and mid-century design has been in vogue for about a decade -- but they're pretty commonplace across the nation.

Yes, you can look at prewar suburbs in one-percenter suburbs like Bronxville or Oyster Bay or the Upper Merion and say "why don't houses in Chantilly have the same charm - that's so unfair to me!" but it's a completely inapt comparison. If you look at DC's prewar luxury homes in Forest Hills or Foxhall or Chevy Chase Village, you'll see comparable houses.

Whining that one's dollar can buy so much more in Baltimore or Shady Side or Shaker Heights or Grosse Pointe than in DC is just silly. Obviously prices are depressed there because of economic or other challenges (yeah, I want the housing costs of metro Cleveland but the professional and cultural offerings of greater DC too -- pls make it happen). Furthermore, comparing the sales prices alone isn't useful because those lower-priced old suburbs generally have much higher property tax rates to provide the services that their residents expect (notwithstanding lower home values).

Ironically, many people who come to DC find that the original prewar housing stock -- the 19th century townhouses of the original city, the 20th century row houses in the outlying parts of the city -- to be not just charming but distinctive. I thought it was a triusm that all taste is subjective, but apparently not on DCUM.

Real estate everywhere involves trade offs, including location, size, age and that ineffable category of charm/appeal. OP thinks they (or all DMV residents) are uniquely vexed in facing that tradeoff -- they're not.

+1 I can’t imagine people moving away from the DMV and telling their friends it was because they couldn’t find an attractive looking house and that the whole region is hideous.

Unless you have a $3 million plus budget, it really is hard to find curb appeal and character here. Lots in DC proper, Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and a few homes on the VA side in that range but if you’re looking outside DC for under that, it’s slim pickings. Lots of drab, cheap builds in the style of the moment from every decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, most of DCUM is bad, but this thread really sets a new low for self-indulgent self-pitying.

DC was a relatively small city/metro area until the Depression (ie, wasn't one of the 15 largest cities in the country until the New Deal and WWII mobilization). So much of the housing here was built either during the Depression and WWII (when resources were scarce and the clientele was middle class govt workers) or after the war. And the fact is MOST postwar suburban housing in the US (please don't tell me about Brad Pitt's mansion in Malibu...) is pretty drab. Honestly, people here are are pining for NY but some of the dated 1960s housing stock in the lesser parts of Westchester and Long Island and NJ looks locations for a bad Mad Men spinoff (although i will admit the NJ housing in the Sopranos was incredibly classy). Do people move to the San Fernando Valley or Lakewood for the charming architecture? I'm not sure why the OP so dislikes split levels - they're actually efficiently designed, and mid-century design has been in vogue for about a decade -- but they're pretty commonplace across the nation.

Yes, you can look at prewar suburbs in one-percenter suburbs like Bronxville or Oyster Bay or the Upper Merion and say "why don't houses in Chantilly have the same charm - that's so unfair to me!" but it's a completely inapt comparison. If you look at DC's prewar luxury homes in Forest Hills or Foxhall or Chevy Chase Village, you'll see comparable houses.

Whining that one's dollar can buy so much more in Baltimore or Shady Side or Shaker Heights or Grosse Pointe than in DC is just silly. Obviously prices are depressed there because of economic or other challenges (yeah, I want the housing costs of metro Cleveland but the professional and cultural offerings of greater DC too -- pls make it happen). Furthermore, comparing the sales prices alone isn't useful because those lower-priced old suburbs generally have much higher property tax rates to provide the services that their residents expect (notwithstanding lower home values).

Ironically, many people who come to DC find that the original prewar housing stock -- the 19th century townhouses of the original city, the 20th century row houses in the outlying parts of the city -- to be not just charming but distinctive. I thought it was a triusm that all taste is subjective, but apparently not on DCUM.

Real estate everywhere involves trade offs, including location, size, age and that ineffable category of charm/appeal. OP thinks they (or all DMV residents) are uniquely vexed in facing that tradeoff -- they're not.

And the fact is that in MANY parts of the country, MOST of the housing stock in the suburbs is NOT ugly postwar housing. In MOST parts of the Northeast, MOST of the housing stock is not only NOT ugly postwar housing; it is also organized around a bona fide town center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, most of DCUM is bad, but this thread really sets a new low for self-indulgent self-pitying.

DC was a relatively small city/metro area until the Depression (ie, wasn't one of the 15 largest cities in the country until the New Deal and WWII mobilization). So much of the housing here was built either during the Depression and WWII (when resources were scarce and the clientele was middle class govt workers) or after the war. And the fact is MOST postwar suburban housing in the US (please don't tell me about Brad Pitt's mansion in Malibu...) is pretty drab. Honestly, people here are are pining for NY but some of the dated 1960s housing stock in the lesser parts of Westchester and Long Island and NJ looks locations for a bad Mad Men spinoff (although i will admit the NJ housing in the Sopranos was incredibly classy). Do people move to the San Fernando Valley or Lakewood for the charming architecture? I'm not sure why the OP so dislikes split levels - they're actually efficiently designed, and mid-century design has been in vogue for about a decade -- but they're pretty commonplace across the nation.

Yes, you can look at prewar suburbs in one-percenter suburbs like Bronxville or Oyster Bay or the Upper Merion and say "why don't houses in Chantilly have the same charm - that's so unfair to me!" but it's a completely inapt comparison. If you look at DC's prewar luxury homes in Forest Hills or Foxhall or Chevy Chase Village, you'll see comparable houses.

Whining that one's dollar can buy so much more in Baltimore or Shady Side or Shaker Heights or Grosse Pointe than in DC is just silly. Obviously prices are depressed there because of economic or other challenges (yeah, I want the housing costs of metro Cleveland but the professional and cultural offerings of greater DC too -- pls make it happen). Furthermore, comparing the sales prices alone isn't useful because those lower-priced old suburbs generally have much higher property tax rates to provide the services that their residents expect (notwithstanding lower home values).

Ironically, many people who come to DC find that the original prewar housing stock -- the 19th century townhouses of the original city, the 20th century row houses in the outlying parts of the city -- to be not just charming but distinctive. I thought it was a triusm that all taste is subjective, but apparently not on DCUM.

Real estate everywhere involves trade offs, including location, size, age and that ineffable category of charm/appeal. OP thinks they (or all DMV residents) are uniquely vexed in facing that tradeoff -- they're not.

+1 I can’t imagine people moving away from the DMV and telling their friends it was because they couldn’t find an attractive looking house and that the whole region is hideous.

Unless you have a $3 million plus budget, it really is hard to find curb appeal and character here. Lots in DC proper, Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and a few homes on the VA side in that range but if you’re looking outside DC for under that, it’s slim pickings. Lots of drab, cheap builds in the style of the moment from every decade.

This sounds like a very extreme point of view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, most of DCUM is bad, but this thread really sets a new low for self-indulgent self-pitying.

DC was a relatively small city/metro area until the Depression (ie, wasn't one of the 15 largest cities in the country until the New Deal and WWII mobilization). So much of the housing here was built either during the Depression and WWII (when resources were scarce and the clientele was middle class govt workers) or after the war. And the fact is MOST postwar suburban housing in the US (please don't tell me about Brad Pitt's mansion in Malibu...) is pretty drab. Honestly, people here are are pining for NY but some of the dated 1960s housing stock in the lesser parts of Westchester and Long Island and NJ looks locations for a bad Mad Men spinoff (although i will admit the NJ housing in the Sopranos was incredibly classy). Do people move to the San Fernando Valley or Lakewood for the charming architecture? I'm not sure why the OP so dislikes split levels - they're actually efficiently designed, and mid-century design has been in vogue for about a decade -- but they're pretty commonplace across the nation.

Yes, you can look at prewar suburbs in one-percenter suburbs like Bronxville or Oyster Bay or the Upper Merion and say "why don't houses in Chantilly have the same charm - that's so unfair to me!" but it's a completely inapt comparison. If you look at DC's prewar luxury homes in Forest Hills or Foxhall or Chevy Chase Village, you'll see comparable houses.

Whining that one's dollar can buy so much more in Baltimore or Shady Side or Shaker Heights or Grosse Pointe than in DC is just silly. Obviously prices are depressed there because of economic or other challenges (yeah, I want the housing costs of metro Cleveland but the professional and cultural offerings of greater DC too -- pls make it happen). Furthermore, comparing the sales prices alone isn't useful because those lower-priced old suburbs generally have much higher property tax rates to provide the services that their residents expect (notwithstanding lower home values).

Ironically, many people who come to DC find that the original prewar housing stock -- the 19th century townhouses of the original city, the 20th century row houses in the outlying parts of the city -- to be not just charming but distinctive. I thought it was a triusm that all taste is subjective, but apparently not on DCUM.

Real estate everywhere involves trade offs, including location, size, age and that ineffable category of charm/appeal. OP thinks they (or all DMV residents) are uniquely vexed in facing that tradeoff -- they're not.

And the fact is that in MANY parts of the country, MOST of the housing stock in the suburbs is NOT ugly postwar housing. In MOST parts of the Northeast, MOST of the housing stock is not only NOT ugly postwar housing; it is also organized around a bona fide town center.

I’m from upstate NY and LOL-ed at the use of the word “most” here. Yes, older New England towns maybe. But there’s suburban and exurban sprawl (and a lot of straight up rural housing) in New England too, and the Dutch didn’t operate on the town common model of the English so most of upstate NY certainly doesn’t have this.