Best and worst - neighborhoods with significant infill housing construction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lyon Village is the worst. It was built as a "village" of modest homes and dense streets. The McMansions have completely destroyed the scale there.

I agree. I bought a house in LV in 2008 and I am so pissed at what is being done to our neighborhood and how the h*ll the homeowner's association isn't doing something!

Lyon Village doesn't have a homeowner's association. There's a civic association, but that has no regulatory authority. If you had put your outrage on the back burner and taken a moment to see what could be done rather than indulge in self-righteous tantrums, you'd know that Arlington County establishes the rules for what can be built. A lot of what goes up is built by right. People seeking exceptions need to go through a process that, at its most visible, results in those yellow signs going up on telephone poles and lampposts.

FTR, I hate Mickey Simpson and his misproportioned, boilerplate houses, but it's not the LCVA's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lyon Village is the worst. It was built as a "village" of modest homes and dense streets. The McMansions have completely destroyed the scale there.

I agree. I bought a house in LV in 2008 and I am so pissed at what is being done to our neighborhood and how the h*ll the homeowner's association isn't doing something!

Lyon Village doesn't have a homeowner's association. There's a civic association, but that has no regulatory authority. If you had put your outrage on the back burner and taken a moment to see what could be done rather than indulge in self-righteous tantrums, you'd know that Arlington County establishes the rules for what can be built. A lot of what goes up is built by right. People seeking exceptions need to go through a process that, at its most visible, results in those yellow signs going up on telephone poles and lampposts.

FTR, I hate Mickey Simpson and his misproportioned, boilerplate houses, but it's not the LCVA's fault.

No insults to the association, but why shouldn't they be leading up a committee to address this? We've been approached by neighbors seeking permits, but they are for the minor additions out the back, etc. They are not for the houses being completely mowed down and replaced by something 4 times the original size---with mixed media--siding, brick and faux stone. Arlington County should not be advocating/allowing the complete demolition of historic properties or the scale of homes they are allowing on these teeny, tiny lots. It looks ridiculous and it will be destroying everyone's property values in the future.

[Anonymous]

No insults to the association, but why shouldn't they be leading up a committee to address this? We've been approached by neighbors seeking permits, but they are for the minor additions out the back, etc. They are not for the houses being completely mowed down and replaced by something 4 times the original size---with mixed media--siding, brick and faux stone. Arlington County should not be advocating/allowing the complete demolition of historic properties or the scale of homes they are allowing on these teeny, tiny lots. It looks ridiculous and it will be destroying everyone's property values in the future.

Why aren't you doing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No insults to the association, but why shouldn't they be leading up a committee to address this? We've been approached by neighbors seeking permits, but they are for the minor additions out the back, etc. They are not for the houses being completely mowed down and replaced by something 4 times the original size---with mixed media--siding, brick and faux stone. Arlington County should not be advocating/allowing the complete demolition of historic properties or the scale of homes they are allowing on these teeny, tiny lots. It looks ridiculous and it will be destroying everyone's property values in the future.

Why aren't you doing this?

I know. I need to! I have been swamped and haven't had time, but apparently I need to step it up before it looks like I am living in a circa 2000 suburban neighborhood instead of the historic 1920-30s tree-lined one I signed up for.

It's been a snowball effect over the last 6 months that caught me off guard. Every block I jog by something I find another empty lot with the framework of another huge mcmansion.

[Anonymous]

I have to confess that I really like the Mickey Simpson homes. I'm not sure I'd like the bigger ones in some neighborhoods where the lots are small, but the neo-Bungalows (or whatever they are) look cool to me.

Not trying to be snarky, but it may be that one's receptivity to some of these houses has some relationship to one's ability to afford them. And, yes, I know that some people can afford a 7,000 SFH and prefer to live in a 1,200 rowhouse or a 2,000 SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to confess that I really like the Mickey Simpson homes. I'm not sure I'd like the bigger ones in some neighborhoods where the lots are small, but the neo-Bungalows (or whatever they are) look cool to me.

Not trying to be snarky, but it may be that one's receptivity to some of these houses has some relationship to one's ability to afford them. And, yes, I know that some people can afford a 7,000 SFH and prefer to live in a 1,200 rowhouse or a 2,000 SFH.

I don't object to all new construction, but I think the Mickey Simpson houses are really poorly designed. I hate the Fauxgallow with the front porch that's too narrow to be used, I hate the massive expanse of roof facing the street, I hate the way dirt is piled against the foundation of the house in order to fudge the technical height of the building. Big and new doesn't have to = ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to confess that I really like the Mickey Simpson homes. I'm not sure I'd like the bigger ones in some neighborhoods where the lots are small, but the neo-Bungalows (or whatever they are) look cool to me.

Not trying to be snarky, but it may be that one's receptivity to some of these houses has some relationship to one's ability to afford them. And, yes, I know that some people can afford a 7,000 SFH and prefer to live in a 1,200 rowhouse or a 2,000 SFH.

I am the one in an uproar and I actually like some of Mickey's homes too. There is one I especially covet. Some of the original ones he did blend in and I did go in one once on an open house and really liked how they did the inside. However, many of the new ones are not being built by Mickey Simpson and they are truly hideous. They are challenging the lot size more and more. Check out the one at the corner of N.Barton that is on its way to completion...some the front door touches the sidewalk and the back door touches the back fence...not to mention the two poor houses on either side that are now covered in shade.

I own a couple homes so it's definitely not my ability to afford one that is why I am not receptive to all of these new McMansions---it is from a purely asthetic reason. They do not look natural and some are downright ugly. They are completely changing the character of the neighborhood.

I like older homes as well. One of the things that drew me to the neighborhood was that it wasn't a 'cookie cutter' neighborhood. Every home was different--but also good solid construction--in proportion to the lot under nice old trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No insults to the association, but why shouldn't they be leading up a committee to address this? We've been approached by neighbors seeking permits, but they are for the minor additions out the back, etc. They are not for the houses being completely mowed down and replaced by something 4 times the original size---with mixed media--siding, brick and faux stone. Arlington County should not be advocating/allowing the complete demolition of historic properties or the scale of homes they are allowing on these teeny, tiny lots. It looks ridiculous and it will be destroying everyone's property values in the future.

Why aren't you doing this?

I know. I need to! I have been swamped and haven't had time, but apparently I need to step it up before it looks like I am living in a circa 2000 suburban neighborhood instead of the historic 1920-30s tree-lined one I signed up for.It's been a snowball effect over the last 6 months that caught me off guard. Every block I jog by something I find another empty lot with the framework of another huge mcmansion.

this is my biggest problem with it...

[Anonymous]

the big homes on small lots are good for busy families who don't want to do alot of yardwork. Everyone complains about a big home next to a small one. Maybe it's the small ones that need to be bigger not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the big homes on small lots are good for busy families who don't want to do alot of yardwork. Everyone complains about a big home next to a small one. Maybe it's the small ones that need to be bigger not the other way around.

Even with the small homes there is very little yard left. You could run a mower (or hire someone to run it) and be done in 5 minutes.

A TH or penthouse condo is a good option for those buying a SFH that don't want a yard....which you will bascially have if you build these enormous homes side-by-side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to confess that I really like the Mickey Simpson homes. I'm not sure I'd like the bigger ones in some neighborhoods where the lots are small, but the neo-Bungalows (or whatever they are) look cool to me.

Not trying to be snarky, but it may be that one's receptivity to some of these houses has some relationship to one's ability to afford them. And, yes, I know that some people can afford a 7,000 SFH and prefer to live in a 1,200 rowhouse or a 2,000 SFH.

Oh yes- the size of somebody's home tells you how much $ they have

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to confess that I really like the Mickey Simpson homes. I'm not sure I'd like the bigger ones in some neighborhoods where the lots are small, but the neo-Bungalows (or whatever they are) look cool to me.

Not trying to be snarky, but it may be that one's receptivity to some of these houses has some relationship to one's ability to afford them. And, yes, I know that some people can afford a 7,000 SFH and prefer to live in a 1,200 rowhouse or a 2,000 SFH.

Oh yes- the size of somebody's home tells you how much $ they have

Just saying that some people have different reactions to things they can't afford than others. It's the human nature of some individuals to disparage things they can't afford as a form of rationalization/self-protection, while others take it more readily in stride. It's the same reason why some folks feast on the trials and tribulations of the rich and famous.

But it's not worth a snark fest. It goes without saying that a small house in DC or Arlington may cost as much, if not more, than a larger property in Fairfax or Loudoun. Hide all yours under the pillow if you want.

[Anonymous]

How did you know that's where I keep it?

I guess that's the downside of density, but stop looking in my window!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did you know that's where I keep it?

I guess that's the downside of density, but stop looking in my window!

I bury mine in the backyard.

[Anonymous]

What about the lot coverage restrictions in Arlington? How can they fill the lots so thoroughly?

I agree with the person who said Franklin Park is a nice example. There is not a cookie cutter look to the neighborhood, and some of the builders do really lovely work. But it does help that the lots are generally quite large. A McMansion almost invariably looks much worse on a small lot.