Has the market cooled down drastically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The market SHOULD cool down drastically. The prices people are forced to pay for outdated and even borderline ramshackle housing in this region are downright depressing.

its considered very cheap compare to manhattan townhouse or SF rowhouse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The market SHOULD cool down drastically. The prices people are forced to pay for outdated and even borderline ramshackle housing in this region are downright depressing.

All you have to do is form a band of hardy souls who want to rent two bedroom apartments and skip buying a house. With low demand and more supply, prices should fall. Of course, the demand for two bedroom rental apartments will increase along with the price of rent

You have to live somewhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The market SHOULD cool down drastically. The prices people are forced to pay for outdated and even borderline ramshackle housing in this region are downright depressing.

its considered very cheap compare to manhattan townhouse or SF rowhouse

Fortunately, DC is not Manhattan of SF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The market has definitely changed. We had houses on our street go for close to $1 million 2-3 months ago and now a neighbor has her house for $698k for a month and it's finally under contract.

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3910-Kansas-Ave-NW-20011/home/10034455

Hmm. Maybe the finishes on this place are cheaper than on the $1M places? In any case, Petworth would be a good market to watch as a barometer. It's probably gone up among the most of inside the beltway areas in the last 20 years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people don't understand that every new build is not a mcmansion. The ultra contemporary one linked upthread is not a mcmansion-- it adheres to a consistent architectural style, among many other reasons.

I think the two picture are both mcmansions. The first one blends too many surface material, has a weird "nub" of a roof (read about that on mcmansion hell and now can't stop seeing it!), and something is off with the windows. I don't hate it as much as some others but I think it is still a mcmansion.

The second is classic mcmansion. Shudder.

Unless I missed it, literally no one said the modern home is a mcmansion. Your other statements are accurate.

Actually not really. The second house is garish and monstrous, but not a typical McMansion. Typical McMansions are large cookie-cutter homes built on small lots, often overcrowding the lot. There are two standard types, the gross tear down and rebuild in a small classic neighborhood where the McMansion is the largest, most expensive property in the neighborhood. The other is the classic cookie cutter suburban neighborhood where a parcel of land is divided up into small lots and the biggest house that they can pack onto the lot is built there. The entire neighborhood is built of 4-6 templates and all have the same (often cheap or sub-grade) building materials and all the houses look a like.

The second house may the the mish-mash of architectural styles common to McMansions, but doesn't fit the usual definition. The neighborhood has large lots, the houses are set back and not easily visible to each other and the other nearby homes are also larger homes with multiple difficult looks and materials. They are all large colonials, but again, that's the only similarity. A mixture of exterior materials, clearly a mixture of house layouts and styles.

I strongly disagree with this. The whole point of McMansions is the emphasis on the vulgar, that is size, over other hallmarks of quality: architectural sophistication, craftsmanship, and use of high-quality materials. I, and other sophisticates, find the McLean, Great Falls, and Potomac McMansions as among the worst, for the simple reason that these people could afford better but instead just choose size.

One of the quickest way to identify McMansions are looking for high home square footage combined with low per square foot cost.

Here's another McLean classic:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6319-Old-Dominion-Dr-Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51757323_zpid/?fullpage=true


And another that makes my skin crawl:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1415-Julia-Ave-Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51752257_zpid/?fullpage=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people don't understand that every new build is not a mcmansion. The ultra contemporary one linked upthread is not a mcmansion-- it adheres to a consistent architectural style, among many other reasons.

I think the two picture are both mcmansions. The first one blends too many surface material, has a weird "nub" of a roof (read about that on mcmansion hell and now can't stop seeing it!), and something is off with the windows. I don't hate it as much as some others but I think it is still a mcmansion.

The second is classic mcmansion. Shudder.

Unless I missed it, literally no one said the modern home is a mcmansion. Your other statements are accurate.

Actually not really. The second house is garish and monstrous, but not a typical McMansion. Typical McMansions are large cookie-cutter homes built on small lots, often overcrowding the lot. There are two standard types, the gross tear down and rebuild in a small classic neighborhood where the McMansion is the largest, most expensive property in the neighborhood. The other is the classic cookie cutter suburban neighborhood where a parcel of land is divided up into small lots and the biggest house that they can pack onto the lot is built there. The entire neighborhood is built of 4-6 templates and all have the same (often cheap or sub-grade) building materials and all the houses look a like.

The second house may the the mish-mash of architectural styles common to McMansions, but doesn't fit the usual definition. The neighborhood has large lots, the houses are set back and not easily visible to each other and the other nearby homes are also larger homes with multiple difficult looks and materials. They are all large colonials, but again, that's the only similarity. A mixture of exterior materials, clearly a mixture of house layouts and styles.

I strongly disagree with this. The whole point of McMansions is the emphasis on the vulgar, that is size, over other hallmarks of quality: architectural sophistication, craftsmanship, and use of high-quality materials. I, and other sophisticates, find the McLean, Great Falls, and Potomac McMansions as among the worst, for the simple reason that these people could afford better but instead just choose size.

One of the quickest way to identify McMansions are looking for high home square footage combined with low per square foot cost.

Here's another McLean classic:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6319-Old-Dominion-Dr-Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51757323_zpid/?fullpage=true


And another that makes my skin crawl:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1415-Julia-Ave-Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51752257_zpid/?fullpage=true

My goodness, that second is truly awful. If you're going to spend that kind of money you should probably hire an architect. Looks like something my 8y/o would draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I strongly disagree with this. The whole point of McMansions is the emphasis on the vulgar, that is size, over other hallmarks of quality: architectural sophistication, craftsmanship, and use of high-quality materials. I, and other sophisticates, find the McLean, Great Falls, and Potomac McMansions as among the worst, for the simple reason that these people could afford better but instead just choose size.

Granted, those houses are awful, but self-proclaimed "sophisticates" are the McMansions of human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's cooled off in the sense that people need to come down off their prices. Interest rates are going up. Home pricing needs to reflect that. I think some sellers got really lucking in the spring overpricing their homes. Now it's time to come back down to reality.

Home prices aren't affected by interest rates. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Hahaha! Of course they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people don't understand that every new build is not a mcmansion. The ultra contemporary one linked upthread is not a mcmansion-- it adheres to a consistent architectural style, among many other reasons.

I think the two picture are both mcmansions. The first one blends too many surface material, has a weird "nub" of a roof (read about that on mcmansion hell and now can't stop seeing it!), and something is off with the windows. I don't hate it as much as some others but I think it is still a mcmansion.

The second is classic mcmansion. Shudder.

Unless I missed it, literally no one said the modern home is a mcmansion. Your other statements are accurate.

Actually not really. The second house is garish and monstrous, but not a typical McMansion. Typical McMansions are large cookie-cutter homes built on small lots, often overcrowding the lot. There are two standard types, the gross tear down and rebuild in a small classic neighborhood where the McMansion is the largest, most expensive property in the neighborhood. The other is the classic cookie cutter suburban neighborhood where a parcel of land is divided up into small lots and the biggest house that they can pack onto the lot is built there. The entire neighborhood is built of 4-6 templates and all have the same (often cheap or sub-grade) building materials and all the houses look a like.

The second house may the the mish-mash of architectural styles common to McMansions, but doesn't fit the usual definition. The neighborhood has large lots, the houses are set back and not easily visible to each other and the other nearby homes are also larger homes with multiple difficult looks and materials. They are all large colonials, but again, that's the only similarity. A mixture of exterior materials, clearly a mixture of house layouts and styles.

I strongly disagree with this. The whole point of McMansions is the emphasis on the vulgar, that is size, over other hallmarks of quality: architectural sophistication, craftsmanship, and use of high-quality materials. I, and other sophisticates, find the McLean, Great Falls, and Potomac McMansions as among the worst, for the simple reason that these people could afford better but instead just choose size.

One of the quickest way to identify McMansions are looking for high home square footage combined with low per square foot cost.

Here's another McLean classic:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6319-Old-Dominion-Dr-Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51757323_zpid/?fullpage=true


And another that makes my skin crawl:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1415-Julia-Ave-Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51752257_zpid/?fullpage=true

Yep. Some mcmansions are on teeny lots, some aren't. That's not the only defining characteristic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a silver lining here. If you're heart broken you lost out on this fugly number:


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1430-Waggaman-Cir-Mclean-VA-22101/51752268_zpid/?fullpage=true

What is wrong with this house? It looks bright with natural light coming in, amazing kitchen, spacious. If I had the money I would buy it. Some people are so full of it calling everything ugly..maybe it is people who don't have money that want to call everything that they cannot afford as ugly..maybe you'd prefer this AMAZING QUAINT non McMansion..

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51757545_zpid/67147_rid/500000-900000_price/1870-3366_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/38.976025,-77.105828,38.895909,-77.218266_rect/12_zm/

I'm kidding, I think its ugly..

Being new and large is a sin to a subset of people.

No, there are very few people who dislike mansions or wouldn't want to live in one.

The problem is the McMansions, and the issue is not the fact that they are new. The issue is that they are ugly and cheap looking (because quality was sacrificed for size).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a silver lining here. If you're heart broken you lost out on this fugly number:


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1430-Waggaman-Cir-Mclean-VA-22101/51752268_zpid/?fullpage=true

What is wrong with this house? It looks bright with natural light coming in, amazing kitchen, spacious. If I had the money I would buy it. Some people are so full of it calling everything ugly..maybe it is people who don't have money that want to call everything that they cannot afford as ugly..maybe you'd prefer this AMAZING QUAINT non McMansion..

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Mc-Lean-VA-22101/51757545_zpid/67147_rid/500000-900000_price/1870-3366_mp/globalrelevanceex_sort/38.976025,-77.105828,38.895909,-77.218266_rect/12_zm/

I'm kidding, I think its ugly..

Being new and large is a sin to a subset of people.

No, there are very few people who dislike mansions or wouldn't want to live in one.

The problem is the McMansions, and the issue is not the fact that they are new. The issue is that they are ugly and cheap looking (because quality was sacrificed for size).

No, I do not want a mansion. I'd be embarrassed at the extravagance. I wouldn't want my kids growing up taking such affluence and luxury for granted. And I don't want to have to maintain a house that large.

Christ, I can hardly say this strong enough: Fuck mansions. There are tons of people like me who just want a middle-of-the-road -sized house in a neighborhood with good schools, low crime, and a bearable commute, and these absurd mansions are gobbling up lots of available land. I hope this segment of the market crashes hard.