For those who hate teardowns, do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.

If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.

+1

+2

+3. The only thing I dislike is that a teardown turns into a gigantic home that becomes unaffordable for average people.

[Anonymous]

Eh, the new constructions in my neighborhood are around 4,000 square feet with yards. I still think they are way too big, but I guess this goes to show that different people have different preferences.

[Anonymous]

I live in an old house that we are hoping to renovate and add on. In our Arlington neighborhood is about 50% new builds these days. I don’t love the massive houses but what I really hate is cutting down the huge old trees. Our street used to have lots of shade and beautiful old oak trees. The developers clear cut the lots and put in tiny decorative trees. Each individual new house looks five with professional landscaping, but the feel of the whole neighborhood has changed.

[Anonymous]

My house in DC is 100 years old but my house in London is nearly 400 years old!

[Anonymous]

The new houses are soulless and lack charm but they are probably way more comfortable and spacious to live in the my 1940’s center hall colonial.

[Anonymous]

We left a wonderfully charming 1938 Cape Cod for a new build last year. In part because I didn't want to do a Frankenstein renovation on the old house (cosmetically/design wise, but also I didn't want to live through it). That house had its issues, but it was built like a rock. We lived through a hurricane there in our first year and my dad was on the phone reassuring me that the house had seen everything and that I shouldn't be too worried.

I am self-aware about our new build on a tear down lot and of what made way for our new house, and the house is definitely large for us, but there wasn't really a middle ground house that got us the space we needed and didn't involve substantial renovation. FWIW, our new neighborhood seems to have many new builds from each of the last couple of decades, so it's not like ours is the first of its type.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.

If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.

+1

+2

+3. The only thing I dislike is that a teardown turns into a gigantic home that becomes unaffordable for average people.

+4. Our neighborhood was built so that the houses compliment the mature trees in the area. We chose to put an addition on and now have just over 3000 sq. It is plenty for our family of 5. The tear downs are very tall and compete with the trees as well as being poorly designed from an architectural standpoint. OTOH I am married to an architect so I have been well trained to see design now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Europe some houses are centuries old. So they do last forever. Or should be built to do so.

OK, but does every generation just have to live in whatever was built 100 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?

If you're more than about 5'8" tall those old houses are a royal pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?

If you're more than about 5'8" tall those old houses are a royal pain.

Which brings up a good point: old houses don't tend to get torn down because they've worn out, they get torn down because they're functionally obsolete. They no longer serve the function they're needed for, and the cost of modifying them is greater than the cost of tearing them down and starting over. Low ceilings, small rooms, steep stairs, no insulation -- these are things that are hard to fix in an existing house without major renovation. And renovating is more expensive than new construction because you're building a house with a house in the way.

And I'm sorry, it's a myth that houses were built better in the past. Houses are built at all quality levels at all times. Sure, the better-built ones survive. But the best-built houses today are superior to anything that has ever been built, because there are materials and techniques available today that just didn't exist in the past. Read about what's happening with building science, air barriers, vapor barriers, water management, ventilation -- none of that even existed 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?

If you're more than about 5'8" tall those old houses are a royal pain.

Which brings up a good point: old houses don't tend to get torn down because they've worn out, they get torn down because they're functionally obsolete. They no longer serve the function they're needed for, and the cost of modifying them is greater than the cost of tearing them down and starting over. Low ceilings, small rooms, steep stairs, no insulation -- these are things that are hard to fix in an existing house without major renovation. And renovating is more expensive than new construction because you're building a house with a house in the way.

And I'm sorry, it's a myth that houses were built better in the past. Houses are built at all quality levels at all times. Sure, the better-built ones survive. But the best-built houses today are superior to anything that has ever been built, because there are materials and techniques available today that just didn't exist in the past. Read about what's happening with building science, air barriers, vapor barriers, water management, ventilation -- none of that even existed 30 years ago.

This, old houses are crap, just cause some idiot decided to do nice trim work in 1888 doesn't mean it's quality engineering

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty awful to see a sweet functional house purchased with the intention of leveling it. Move to the country if you want more space. The new builds are largely soulless and gentrifying established neighborhoods. Your need for a massive kitchen island is wrecking communities. Not all houses sold as teardowns really are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?

Yes. Yes I do.