Why do people in the DC area hate newer and larger homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lived in a 1940s home for a few years. It was totally redone, but there were drawbacks. It had a lot of piping problems and it could not handle cable tv in some of the rooms, no matter how much we had the wires worked on Comcast said the house was just too old. Quite frankly I don't get this mystique about older homes, cause I sure didn't feel any.

There you have your answer. I think the mystique people mention relates to (some) homes from the 1930s and before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived in a 1940s home for a few years. It was totally redone, but there were drawbacks. It had a lot of piping problems and it could not handle cable tv in some of the rooms, no matter how much we had the wires worked on Comcast said the house was just too old. Quite frankly I don't get this mystique about older homes, cause I sure didn't feel any.

There you have your answer. I think the mystique people mention relates to (some) homes from the 1930s and before.

+1

Huge difference btw 1940 house and 1920 house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like pre-WWII houses. I like the design, I like the layouts, I like the real masonry, I like the beautiful detailing, I like the plaster walls and solid doors. I like the cross ventilation and the placement of windows on all four sides, flooding the house with light. Find me a new house built with real masonry, real plaster and lathe, old growth wood floors and doors, stained wood trim, glass door knobs, little nooks and crannies, built-ins, and lots of windows (no big windowless exterior walls please) and I would happily live in it as long as it was NOT a completely open floor plan.

FYI, many pre-WWII houses are actually quite large - they were built for large families. Maybe not 6000-10,000 sq ft, but personally that size house holds no attraction to me.
I have no need of a house bigger than 3000 sq ft. And unless I'm living in a rowhouse, I don't want my house to be bumping up to the neighbor's, so I'd prefer a smaller house surrounded by a nice sized yard than a bigger house where you can practically reach out the window and touch the house next door.

So there's your answer from me. I don't go around bashing new, big houses, but since you asked why I don't love and covet one, there you go. It has nothing to do with "jealousy" (pffft) and everything to do with my own personal taste. Also, I like the established feel of my pre-war neighborhood. You can't get that feeling in a brand new development - it takes time.

Most older homes in this area lost their period details if they ever had them to begin with.

They haven't lost the exterior walls built of real masonry, or the interior plaster & lathe walls, and probably not the solid doors and the nice door handles and backplates. Or the nice placement of windows. Or the old wood floors.

Much of these features are long gone in older homes...plaster patched, doors replaced, handles gone, wood carpeted over. There wasn't much money in this area when the old homes were built. Most are ugly. The nicer homes are newer and mostly outside DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived in a 1940s home for a few years. It was totally redone, but there were drawbacks. It had a lot of piping problems and it could not handle cable tv in some of the rooms, no matter how much we had the wires worked on Comcast said the house was just too old. Quite frankly I don't get this mystique about older homes, cause I sure didn't feel any.

There you have your answer. I think the mystique people mention relates to (some) homes from the 1930s and before.

+1

Huge difference btw 1940 house and 1920 house.

Definitely. We are in a neighborhood of 1920-1930 homes in Arlington. Much different than the post-war homes that are abundant in some of the other Arlington neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

We saw some of the old 1920's homes in Arlington back when we were shopping for our first single family home. I remember fondly seeing some for 500-600k - this was sometime in 2004.

We walked through a couple but couldn't imagine ourselves living there. Sure it was all brick and looked "cozy", but the houses were small and dark, and generally gave off a cold and damp/musty feeling. The hall ways were narrow, rooms were small, too few and too small bathrooms, ceilings too low, etc. It was generally a really depressing place to be in compared with the big and bright open space of newer construction.

I believe the preference for older homes is largely subjective. I don't believe building materials or construction methods in the 1920 were any superior to modern construction methods - that is, they aren't any more sturdy, durable, or energy efficient. So what's left is aesthetics and general "feel".

[Anonymous]

It's not people "in the DC area"; it's DCUMers who live in DC or the inner suburbs. I think those of us who live in the outer suburbs are just fine with new, large homes.

[Anonymous]

Just like cars, some people think of a house as a roof over their head with a toilet. (car goes a to b)

Other's want more luxuries (rolls royce etc...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not like old houses nor do I like small houses. But I'm from the south, where living in a old or small house usually means you are probably broke.

It's the opposite in this area!!! Go 45 miles outside the city and you'll have a Mansion for what you'd pay for 1,500 square feet close-in.

I love when a Southern inlaw was going in about how her friend just bought a million dollar home while she was standing in the kitchen of my $1.5 million home. I just demurely smiled in the Southern way. Bless her heart for being so ignorant

Sad your home doesn't look like a million dollar home. Maybe your in laws friends home would be 5 million in dc.

Hey Retard, the point is they wouldn't be able to afford a 1/4 of that square footage anywhere remotely close to DC.

At least my friends in their $250k Mansion in the Midwest are smart enough to realize that and joke about it. The Southerner isn't so bright.

The southerner is bright enough to know not to use the word retard.

You, on the other hand, are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We saw some of the old 1920's homes in Arlington back when we were shopping for our first single family home. I remember fondly seeing some for 500-600k - this was sometime in 2004.

We walked through a couple but couldn't imagine ourselves living there. Sure it was all brick and looked "cozy", but the houses were small and dark, and generally gave off a cold and damp/musty feeling. The hall ways were narrow, rooms were small, too few and too small bathrooms, ceilings too low, etc. It was generally a really depressing place to be in compared with the big and bright open space of newer construction.

I believe the preference for older homes is largely subjective. I don't believe building materials or construction methods in the 1920 were any superior to modern construction methods - that is, they aren't any more sturdy, durable, or energy efficient. So what's left is aesthetics and general "feel".

Except that people who don't like drywall will never accept a new construction. Yes, of course it's subjective - some people don't care about walls that feel flimsy and that you can easily punch a hole through and that carry sound. Others are more sensitive to the way things feel and look and sound and desire the solidity of real plaster walls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/

http://www.homedepot.com/b/Storage-Organization-Sheds-Garages-Outdoor-Storage-Sheds/N-5yc1vZbtz2

That's kind of how I feel about it too. Would get claustrophobic. But a tiny house would be adorable for a colony of ferule cats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP to the mold topic - anecdotally, "everyone" (3 families) I know with new houses have had unexpected mold problems, due to shoddy plumbing work. There were otherwise high- end homes too. I don't know how many friends with older houses have had mold problems. Possibly, old houses are constantly being repaired so no one thinks twice of a budding (but fixed) mold problem.

One of the biggest problems in this area is the thick clay soil, which holds water. This allows basements to flood easily, creating mold issues. High humidity in our area is an issue too - mold only is dangerous when it blooms and releases spores. Our daughter was quite asthmatic as a child and allergic to - you guessed it - wet mold! We hired an environmental engineering team to help is mitigate the problem in the house we owned then and gave us advice when we built new. The main things are proper drainage around the house itself to keep water away from the foundation, and proper temperature and humidity control inside the house so that any mold that does occur cannot bloom. We also put UV sterilization lights into the ductwork leading from each unit to kill mold spores. When we build the new house, we put in a separate air exchanger that allows proper airflow in and out.

No house is safe from mold, due to unexpected leaks, etc. You can do much, though, to hedge your bets against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a place where all of the houses date to the 1920s and earlier. These houses have period details, e.g. foyers with sidelights; built-ins in the living areas and bedrooms; wonderful old hardwood floors; funny little rooms and nooks here and there. They sit on 1/4 acre lots surrounded by mature trees and landscaping.

I could never consider living in a new, large home because it would feel cold and un-homey to me. I want a yard that has been gardened for decades, and trees that soar over me. I want plaster walls and interesting built-ins. Yes, I know you can have e.g. built-ins and crown molding in new houses, but the feel of them is altogether different from the feel of a house built in 1920.

No thanks.

strange. Do you commute via horse and buggy?

PP here. I cited my reasons in response to OP's question. Do you actually want to engage in conversation? Because your post is the opposite of conversation.

Not the PP, but I think you stated your case quite well. You have a preference. I live in a new home, but I could just as easily live and love a home that you describe. I can see the appeal. When I see an old house being renovated, I silently pray that they have the sense to restore it, not destroy it.

People here often confuse architectural detail with plumbing, electrical, etc. No one restoring an old home suggests keeping old wiring and plumbing. That's simply not practical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate them so much to the point it becomes some religious or political movement.

'twas a newer and larger home what killed my pa!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We saw some of the old 1920's homes in Arlington back when we were shopping for our first single family home. I remember fondly seeing some for 500-600k - this was sometime in 2004.

We walked through a couple but couldn't imagine ourselves living there. Sure it was all brick and looked "cozy", but the houses were small and dark, and generally gave off a cold and damp/musty feeling. The hall ways were narrow, rooms were small, too few and too small bathrooms, ceilings too low, etc. It was generally a really depressing place to be in compared with the big and bright open space of newer construction.

I believe the preference for older homes is largely subjective. I don't believe building materials or construction methods in the 1920 were any superior to modern construction methods - that is, they aren't any more sturdy, durable, or energy efficient. So what's left is aesthetics and general "feel".

We opened the inside. It's all light. People have done some amazing renovations--even moving staircases while keeping the facade and curb appeal the same.

This is why the comments from the builder that we are all jealous and poor are ridiculous. Many if these tasteful/renovations/additions out back cost more than their shoddy crap.

[Anonymous]

I dont' hate them and would live in one if I could afford it. I do feel frustrated that all the new homes HAVE to be liek 4K sq feet or something ridiculous. Can't they make 2K sq foot homes that cost like 600K or something. I jsut don't get why they all have to be 1 million plus.