Why do people in the DC area hate newer and larger homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

Okay, so maybe 4ft I don't know. That is the house. It is hard to tell, but in the last picture (# 30) you can see how close it is to the back fence.

http://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/2724-1st-St-S-22204/home/52389921

holy crap. that is ugly.

but 721 N Edgewood on the scroll below shows a very tasteful, size-appropriate 4,000sq foot home/renovation. I think people don't have a problem with these...it's the massive ugly ones.

PP here. Yes I agree.

[Anonymous]

The set back is only that small if this is an old house that predates the current codes. Arlington requires a minimum setback of 25 feet on a non-corner lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The set back is only that small if this is an old house that predates the current codes. Arlington requires a minimum setback of 25 feet on a non-corner lot.

Well, it is a corner lot and a new house. Did you look at the picture? But do you mean 25 feet from the back of the house do the fence? That is certainly not the case for that house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

That is just not true. If you have children or animals, they are going in all the rooms. (Assume you wouldn't want 5000 sf for just one or two people without children.) Even if you close off certain rooms, the rooms need to be dusted, windows washed, curtains taken down and laundered, etc. unless you are willing to live in a dusty, gross home. I lived in a 5 Br sf house in Utah because there literally is nothing smaller to rent or buy. Good thing the cost of living is cheap there so I could hire a service to come in and clean. Your toilet paper analogy is wrong, although we also had to buy more hand towels and bathmats for all the bathrooms we didn't need. Too much house can be a pain and expense to run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can one build a new house with the character and feel of old nice homes from 100 years ago? That is, solid construction with good current standards but with the feel of old houses (eg molding, architecturally correct dimensions, etc)? Wouldn't that be the best of all worlds?

Yes of course. But it's not efficient or cost effective to individualize which is why you won't see developers doing it. You can do it on your own but the process can be very expensive and time consuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:jealousy - plain and simple.

jealous that newer homes have open floor plans, are well insulated, have 2 car garages, real basements, large closets, cook top vents that vent OUT, new plumbing, efficient windows and HVAC....

By the way, I don't live in a newer home because I want to live inside the beltway and cannot afford a new home in Bethesda or Chevy Chase....so I live in a tiny, drafty house "with charm"

You can have these things in an old house too. You just have to pay for them. Our house was built in 1918 and renovated by the previous owners who put in new windows (which must gave cost a fortune be pause they went with wood frames and leaded inserts to maintain the look of the house), a big addition with walk in closets, a gorgeous kitchen which opens on to the dining room, and a new HVAC system. We're planning to finish the basement at some point so I guess the next owners after us will be even more fortunate

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the responses here, but I really just don't like big new houses--it has nothing to do with budget. Whenever we think about moving out of state, I zero in on the most expensive neighborhoods with the tiniest houses. If the city only has big new houses, or the historical districts have really crappy schools, I generally cross it off the list. One exception: I could probably do a newer house if it was in a really pretty area--like in the foothills or on a lake or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

Okay, so maybe 4ft I don't know. That is the house. It is hard to tell, but in the last picture (# 30) you can see how close it is to the back fence.

http://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/2724-1st-St-S-22204/home/52389921

holy crap. that is ugly.

but 721 N Edgewood on the scroll below shows a very tasteful, size-appropriate 4,000sq foot home/renovation. I think people don't have a problem with these...it's the massive ugly ones.

PP here. Yes I agree.

more tasteful yes, size appropriate for the neighborhood, questionable... pictures don't really show the context, and it looks like it's neighbors are just as big and pretty much cover the entire lot as well...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

That is just not true. If you have children or animals, they are going in all the rooms. (Assume you wouldn't want 5000 sf for just one or two people without children.) Even if you close off certain rooms, the rooms need to be dusted, windows washed, curtains taken down and laundered, etc. unless you are willing to live in a dusty, gross home. I lived in a 5 Br sf house in Utah because there literally is nothing smaller to rent or buy. Good thing the cost of living is cheap there so I could hire a service to come in and clean. Your toilet paper analogy is wrong, although we also had to buy more hand towels and bathmats for all the bathrooms we didn't need. Too much house can be a pain and expense to run.

Why would you put curtains up? Why is your home so dusty? We don't have these issues and the cleaning people don't focus on the other rooms more than once a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

That is just not true. If you have children or animals, they are going in all the rooms. (Assume you wouldn't want 5000 sf for just one or two people without children.) Even if you close off certain rooms, the rooms need to be dusted, windows washed, curtains taken down and laundered, etc. unless you are willing to live in a dusty, gross home. I lived in a 5 Br sf house in Utah because there literally is nothing smaller to rent or buy. Good thing the cost of living is cheap there so I could hire a service to come in and clean. Your toilet paper analogy is wrong, although we also had to buy more hand towels and bathmats for all the bathrooms we didn't need. Too much house can be a pain and expense to run.

Why would you put curtains up? Why is your home so dusty? We don't have these issues and the cleaning people don't focus on the other rooms more than once a month.

You are missing the point. I don't want to pay people to clean rooms I don't use often or at all. Your priorities are obviously different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

That is just not true. If you have children or animals, they are going in all the rooms. (Assume you wouldn't want 5000 sf for just one or two people without children.) Even if you close off certain rooms, the rooms need to be dusted, windows washed, curtains taken down and laundered, etc. unless you are willing to live in a dusty, gross home. I lived in a 5 Br sf house in Utah because there literally is nothing smaller to rent or buy. Good thing the cost of living is cheap there so I could hire a service to come in and clean. Your toilet paper analogy is wrong, although we also had to buy more hand towels and bathmats for all the bathrooms we didn't need. Too much house can be a pain and expense to run.

Why would you put curtains up? Why is your home so dusty? We don't have these issues and the cleaning people don't focus on the other rooms more than once a month.

You are missing the point. I don't want to pay people to clean rooms I don't use often or at all. Your priorities are obviously different.

Umm you still need to clean your house regardless of it's size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can one build a new house with the character and feel of old nice homes from 100 years ago? That is, solid construction with good current standards but with the feel of old houses (eg molding, architecturally correct dimensions, etc)? Wouldn't that be the best of all worlds?

Yes of course. But it's not efficient or cost effective to individualize which is why you won't see developers doing it. You can do it on your own but the process can be very expensive and time consuming.

w

To me, that is good enough reason to not be attracted to new homes. Interestingly, developments in the 1930s (but not after that), while definitely not as nice as, say, Georgetown, did have these type of architecturally interesting elements. Looks like cookie-cutter 80 years ago was, in general, nicer than cookie-cutter now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can one build a new house with the character and feel of old nice homes from 100 years ago? That is, solid construction with good current standards but with the feel of old houses (eg molding, architecturally correct dimensions, etc)? Wouldn't that be the best of all worlds?

Yes of course. But it's not efficient or cost effective to individualize which is why you won't see developers doing it. You can do it on your own but the process can be very expensive and time consuming.

w

To me, that is good enough reason to not be attracted to new homes. Interestingly, developments in the 1930s (but not after that), while definitely not as nice as, say, Georgetown, did have these type of architecturally interesting elements. Looks like cookie-cutter 80 years ago was, in general, nicer than cookie-cutter now.

so you like old McMansions not the new ones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the responses here, but I really just don't like big new houses--it has nothing to do with budget. Whenever we think about moving out of state, I zero in on the most expensive neighborhoods with the tiniest houses. If the city only has big new houses, or the historical districts have really crappy schools, I generally cross it off the list. One exception: I could probably do a newer house if it was in a really pretty area--like in the foothills or on a lake or something.

I replied earlier, and I knew there had to be more people out there like me. I do not covet a large home - I just don't. I'm not jealous in any way of those who have them. Yes, in THIS area, I cannot afford large and/or close-in. But even given the option in other areas, it isn't what I want. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The costs to build a 2000sf and a 6000sf are not that much more. Why would you build a small home on land worth 4 to 600k and sell for 600k. I used to think 3000sf was big until i lived in 5000sf. Don't hate what you haven't experienced.

Some of us HAVE experienced. I grew up in a LCOL area. All the houses are huge. I don't want to clean 5K square feet. I mean I get why they do it financially. I guess I just find it frustrating. And I do think a 5K sq foot house looks ridiculous on a tiny lot. There is a new home by me and I think there is 2 feet from the back of the house to the back fence. It feels so claustrophobic to me!

setback requirements will never allow 2 feet form the rear of the house to the back fence.

If you have a larger home you tend to not dirty up more than a smaller home because it is either spread out or you are cleaning only the rooms heavily in use (kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms).

It's like saying you use more toilet paper because you have more toilets. This idea doesn't make sense because the use of the toilets would be the same unless you have the runs or are sick.

That is just not true. If you have children or animals, they are going in all the rooms. (Assume you wouldn't want 5000 sf for just one or two people without children.) Even if you close off certain rooms, the rooms need to be dusted, windows washed, curtains taken down and laundered, etc. unless you are willing to live in a dusty, gross home. I lived in a 5 Br sf house in Utah because there literally is nothing smaller to rent or buy. Good thing the cost of living is cheap there so I could hire a service to come in and clean. Your toilet paper analogy is wrong, although we also had to buy more hand towels and bathmats for all the bathrooms we didn't need. Too much house can be a pain and expense to run.

Why would you put curtains up? Why is your home so dusty? We don't have these issues and the cleaning people don't focus on the other rooms more than once a month.

You are missing the point. I don't want to pay people to clean rooms I don't use often or at all. Your priorities are obviously different.

Umm you still need to clean your house regardless of it's size.

God, are you people really this thick? If you live in a one bedroom apartment, you can clean your kitchen in five minutes with a damp paper towel. If you have five bedrooms, four bathrooms, two living areas, and a laundry room, it's going to take a lot more work. That is one of many reasons that some people prefer to live in smaller spaces. I like to do other things with my time and money other than care for a big house. I can't speak for anyone else.