Is AU Park the next Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are alll these little SFH on decent size lots. Will they all get torn down like Bethesda?

Do you think DC will do anything to prevent mcmansions from getting built? It seems like the current mayor is very pro-construction.

Most of Bethesda has not been torn down and re-built.

Have you been to Edgemoor recently? Very few houses left that were from the original stock build a century ago. It is just a mcmansion hellscape now.

That's totally untrue. I walk through Edgemoor several times a week after dropping my kids at school. I live in a different Bethesda neighborhood but Edgemoor is lovely so I like to walk there. Most of the houses are expanded originals, built between approximately 1925 and 1945. Yes, there are McMansions. But it's hardly most. Maybe 20% at most, which is similar to other areas I walk in (Battery Park, East Bethesda, whatever the neighborhood is behind Beth El). A little higher than the area around Leland Park perhaps. There are also a ton of enormous houses in Edgemoor that are original or, if not original, at least pretty old, like from the 1950s or 1960s. They are generally set further back than the McMansions on much bigger lots and are gracefully proportioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are alll these little SFH on decent size lots. Will they all get torn down like Bethesda?

Do you think DC will do anything to prevent mcmansions from getting built? It seems like the current mayor is very pro-construction.

Most of Bethesda has not been torn down and re-built.

Have you been to Edgemoor recently? Very few houses left that were from the original stock build a century ago. It is just a mcmansion hellscape now.

That's totally untrue. I walk through Edgemoor several times a week after dropping my kids at school. I live in a different Bethesda neighborhood but Edgemoor is lovely so I like to walk there. Most of the houses are expanded originals, built between approximately 1925 and 1945. Yes, there are McMansions. But it's hardly most. Maybe 20% at most, which is similar to other areas I walk in (Battery Park, East Bethesda, whatever the neighborhood is behind Beth El). A little higher than the area around Leland Park perhaps. There are also a ton of enormous houses in Edgemoor that are original or, if not original, at least pretty old, like from the 1950s or 1960s. They are generally set further back than the McMansions on much bigger lots and are gracefully proportioned.

+1. Also, regarding the “McMansions” in Edgemoor — if your definition of McMansion is large home on a smaller lot, then fine, because this is in many cases accurate. Many of these homes are massive and are on 7-10k sq ft lots. However, these aren’t McMansions in the 2000’s Potomac MD and outer suburbs sense of cheap construction, no name architect and builder and bottom of the barrel finishes. Most of the new builds in Edgemoor are quality built homes designed and built by a whose who of DC’s most qualified architects and builders. Just telling it how it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lots in Bethesda are much larger sq feet in general than AU park

“Bethesda” probably encompasses 6 or 8 neighborhoods the size of AU Park so generalizing like that is pretty useless.

NP. Actually, the fact that Bethesda is much larger, yet AU Park has at least as many lots of 5,000 sqft or less makes the generalization more helpful.

[Anonymous]

It is rare to find homes in AU park that aren't maxed out already on the lot occupancy and built to the maximum allowable on the side and rear yard too.

Now where there is often room to add is by going up and the zoning re-write from 2015 allows an extra story (though with the same height limit of I believe 40 feet) so you are seeing some attic conversions/bump ups to add a 3rd usable floor - there are a couple of houses on 42nd Street that have recently done this.

And of course a lot of homes have rear porches that can be enclosed and built over though those often also require some relief.

But some homeowners have received zoning relief, particularly on the lot occupancy, and done major expansions of existing homes but I'm not aware of any new constructions that have applied for and received relief on lot occupancy.

So on balance it is not a neighborhood that is really ripe for a lot of tear downs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is rare to find homes in AU park that aren't maxed out already on the lot occupancy and built to the maximum allowable on the side and rear yard too.

Now where there is often room to add is by going up and the zoning re-write from 2015 allows an extra story (though with the same height limit of I believe 40 feet) so you are seeing some attic conversions/bump ups to add a 3rd usable floor - there are a couple of houses on 42nd Street that have recently done this.

And of course a lot of homes have rear porches that can be enclosed and built over though those often also require some relief.

But some homeowners have received zoning relief, particularly on the lot occupancy, and done major expansions of existing homes but I'm not aware of any new constructions that have applied for and received relief on lot occupancy.

So on balance it is not a neighborhood that is really ripe for a lot of tear downs.

IME, the current batch of AU Park buyers are just about the mania for the area, not the economics of lots and houses.

I think there's some chance in the future that some decrepit houses get demolished and that houses with similar footprints, but much better construction and mechanical systems get built in their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are alll these little SFH on decent size lots. Will they all get torn down like Bethesda?

Do you think DC will do anything to prevent mcmansions from getting built? It seems like the current mayor is very pro-construction.

Most of Bethesda has not been torn down and re-built.

That's about the stupidest thing I have heard today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are alll these little SFH on decent size lots. Will they all get torn down like Bethesda?

Do you think DC will do anything to prevent mcmansions from getting built? It seems like the current mayor is very pro-construction.

Most of Bethesda has not been torn down and re-built.

That's about the stupidest thing I have heard today.

Oops, I missed the "not" in there. The PP is right - most of Bethesda is original housing stock.

[Anonymous]

Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

Yeah but you’re comparing building an entirely new house to renovating an existing one. At that price point you can replace every window in an old house, rip open plaster walls and add modern insulation bats and replace wall with R-11+ drywall, and completely replace every system. And you will end up with better construction than these poorly built McCraftsman and McModernfarmhouses that well heeled yuppie couples can’t get enough of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

Yeah but you’re comparing building an entirely new house to renovating an existing one. At that price point you can replace every window in an old house, rip open plaster walls and add modern insulation bats and replace wall with R-11+ drywall, and completely replace every system. And you will end up with better construction than these poorly built McCraftsman and McModernfarmhouses that well heeled yuppie couples can’t get enough of.

Pshaw! Strawman (McStrawman???) arguments! It matters a lot *what* the particulars of the old houses are. AU Park is full of so-so houses from the 30s to 50s, some of which are poorly maintained. At some point, new energy efficient technologies will out compete these (obvious) retrofits that dazzle you, if they haven’t already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

Yeah but you’re comparing building an entirely new house to renovating an existing one. At that price point you can replace every window in an old house, rip open plaster walls and add modern insulation bats and replace wall with R-11+ drywall, and completely replace every system. And you will end up with better construction than these poorly built McCraftsman and McModernfarmhouses that well heeled yuppie couples can’t get enough of.

Pshaw! Strawman (McStrawman???) arguments! It matters a lot *what* the particulars of the old houses are. AU Park is full of so-so houses from the 30s to 50s, some of which are poorly maintained. At some point, new energy efficient technologies will out compete these (obvious) retrofits that dazzle you, if they haven’t already.

If you're worried about anything other than cost, it's still better for the environment to improve efficiency on an existing house than it is to tear it down and replace it with new construction, even if your new house is LEED Platinum.

[Anonymous]

We have a World War II-era house made of brick in AU Park with radiator heat, new windows, and solar panels, and I'd be shocked if our gas or electric bills were higher than new construction would be. Pepco bill is usually about $12, and our highest winter gas bill is about $100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't build a McMansion on an average AU Park house lot. The old bungalows and center hall colonials in AU Park are pretty crappy, so tearing down & building new regular sized houses is not a terrible idea.

They didn't build great houses in AU Park in the first place IMO. Not of high quality, architecturally boring and bad layouts.

Why can’t you build a McMansion there? I just looked at some brick colonials on 4500 square foot lots. They put McMansions on lots that size in Bethesda.

As a Bethesda resident, you absolutely cannot build a McMansion on a lot that size due to setback and coverage restrictions. I have a 12,500 sq-ft lot and probably the smallest you could build a McMansion is 8000 sq-ft.

[Anonymous]

This mcmansion was built on an 1800 square foot plot!!!

You could fit three of these on a 60x100 plot

https://www.redfin.com/NY/Long-Beach/95-Tennessee-Ave-11561/home/20240752