In defense of tear-downs in neighborhoods of elegant old homes

[Anonymous]

As someone who renovated and lives in a 1940s house, I get that fixer uppers aren’t for everyone. But I agree, the new builds these days are just hideous. I don’t love some of the 2000s-2010s McMansions, but at least they look like houses. A lot of the stuff I see going up near me in Arlington looks like a warehouse or storage center or something. I really hate the industrial/modern look, it doesn’t even look like a home.

Why don’t builders make center hall colonials anymore? Those were the best in my opinion. You could still make it large, but just with better aesthetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who renovated and lives in a 1940s house, I get that fixer uppers aren’t for everyone. But I agree, the new builds these days are just hideous. I don’t love some of the 2000s-2010s McMansions, but at least they look like houses. A lot of the stuff I see going up near me in Arlington looks like a warehouse or storage center or something. I really hate the industrial/modern look, it doesn’t even look like a home.

Why don’t builders make center hall colonials anymore? Those were the best in my opinion. You could still make it large, but just with better aesthetics.

And I’ll add that I hate all the houses with garages as the ground level where you have to climb a huge staircase to get to the front door. They look even more like a monstrosity next to the original homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

What suburban cookie-cutter, brick front vinyl siding, cul de sac hell hole do you live in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

What suburban cookie-cutter, brick front vinyl siding, cul de sac hell hole do you live in?

Ha, +1 million. To the PP that doesn’t want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old, I feel sad for you.

[Anonymous]

Materials in new homes is not necessarily better at all. Really depends on what is being replaced with what.

[Anonymous]

All of these 40s-80s are the low quality tract homes of the poors, very rarely are there any worth saving but those are probably Mansions of the wealthy of yesteryear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Europe would like a word...

[Anonymous]

zoning exacerbates this. It's efficient to have multiple floors on the same foundation, and infill restrictions mean that building up for square footage wins out over building low and broad (in R90 in Montgomery County, you're limited to 30% infill in 15k sq. ft. lots or less, and 20% in 15k+ lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

There are homes in Europe that are hundreds of years old and in excellent shape made with quality materials. Imagine if Italy started tearing down their historic homes for modern farm houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who renovated and lives in a 1940s house, I get that fixer uppers aren’t for everyone. But I agree, the new builds these days are just hideous. I don’t love some of the 2000s-2010s McMansions, but at least they look like houses. A lot of the stuff I see going up near me in Arlington looks like a warehouse or storage center or something. I really hate the industrial/modern look, it doesn’t even look like a home.

Why don’t builders make center hall colonials anymore? Those were the best in my opinion. You could still make it large, but just with better aesthetics.

And I’ll add that I hate all the houses with garages as the ground level where you have to climb a huge staircase to get to the front door. They look even more like a monstrosity next to the original homes.

I really dislike these – and I live in a 2015 McMansion (we neither built it nor bought it new) with an ugly front-load garage. But the huge front staircases are just yuck. They definitely feel like they’re looming over everything around it and I just get tired and annoyed thinking about lugging crap up all of those stairs.

[Anonymous]

I hate most of what is being built today. The materials suck and the styles are ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of these 40s-80s are the low quality tract homes of the poors, very rarely are there any worth saving but those are probably Mansions of the wealthy of yesteryear

Pre-40s homes are solid. You can move interior walls if you want and easily upgrade the windows. Exterior real brick and interior plaster with real wood trim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Given the ensuring popularity of historic areas as destinations and real estate fantasies, I'd think most people would take the older over the newer.

I do appreciate the advantages of a newer property in terms of HVAC and fixtures, but a well-maintained older property should have nearly the same if not exactly the same advantages too.

[Anonymous]

And get off my lawn, too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these 40s-80s are the low quality tract homes of the poors, very rarely are there any worth saving but those are probably Mansions of the wealthy of yesteryear

Pre-40s homes are solid. You can move interior walls if you want and easily upgrade the windows. Exterior real brick and interior plaster with real wood trim.

We are currently renovating a 1930s house. About 2000 sq ft. I'm a little worried that it's stupid given what we paid for basically the land (way too much $$$), but I think there is a market for houses this size. We intend to keep it as a rental.