Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

Remember to pull out those pots and pans out before preheating the oven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

Remember to pull out those pots and pans out before preheating the oven.

Remember to download a podcast for your hours long commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

Remember to pull out those pots and pans out before preheating the oven.

Remember to download a podcast for your hours long commute.

Or two

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

Remember to pull out those pots and pans out before preheating the oven.

Remember to download a podcast for your hours long commute.

Or two

+ 100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

Lol. You forgot to add: and 40 lb overweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 9:22 - people get petty and spin a lot when they get frustrated about what they can't have. I could not imagine spending my life that way - how miserable.

No amount of "grabbing your neighbors" is going to change that.

Given that there are people who DO have money, who buy townhouses in Georgetown, and condos in Logan Circle, etc, why do you assume that everyone who does or does not have money who dislikes McMansions secretly wants to live in one? I mean I know its a nice pat response whenever someone knocks one, but does it matter that its actually not true?

I think they just say that because they know they bought a big 'ole ugly house and are embarrassed. Trying to shift the focus off the fact that they have bad taste.

People can spend their money on many options - swanky urban area, renovated historic home, oversized McMansion. It's not the money - it's what you do with it.

Uh huh. And maybe well-to-do types who buy in a "swanky urban area" like Logan Circle and still dump on "McMansions" are trying to shift the focus from their own decision to buy in neighborhoods suited to closeted lawyers who arrange late-afternoon hook-ups at sleazy hotels.

Wow, you are really a piece of work.

Don't even bother. These people are so deluded about good taste and wealth it is no use. Trying to get through to them would completely shatter their world view and sense of self worth. Let them be in their tacky homes. It makes no difference to the rest of us. But make no mistake - we see you, and we are looking down on you.

There is no "we" or "us." There's just you, a little person who uses plurals to seek safety in numbers, as if your opinion isn't good enough to stand on its own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 9:22 - people get petty and spin a lot when they get frustrated about what they can't have. I could not imagine spending my life that way - how miserable.

No amount of "grabbing your neighbors" is going to change that.

Given that there are people who DO have money, who buy townhouses in Georgetown, and condos in Logan Circle, etc, why do you assume that everyone who does or does not have money who dislikes McMansions secretly wants to live in one? I mean I know its a nice pat response whenever someone knocks one, but does it matter that its actually not true?

I think they just say that because they know they bought a big 'ole ugly house and are embarrassed. Trying to shift the focus off the fact that they have bad taste.

People can spend their money on many options - swanky urban area, renovated historic home, oversized McMansion. It's not the money - it's what you do with it.

Uh huh. And maybe well-to-do types who buy in a "swanky urban area" like Logan Circle and still dump on "McMansions" are trying to shift the focus from their own decision to buy in neighborhoods suited to closeted lawyers who arrange late-afternoon hook-ups at sleazy hotels.

Wow, you are really a piece of work.

Don't even bother. These people are so deluded about good taste and wealth it is no use. Trying to get through to them would completely shatter their world view and sense of self worth. Let them be in their tacky homes. It makes no difference to the rest of us. But make no mistake - we see you, and we are looking down on you.

There is no "we" or "us." There's just you, a little person who uses plurals to seek safety in numbers, as if your opinion isn't good enough to stand on its own.

There is me too, and I am different from the PP you responded to.. Ask Jeff if you do not believe me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

I guess the universities with schools of architecture need to add schools of cosmetology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@ 9:22 - people get petty and spin a lot when they get frustrated about what they can't have. I could not imagine spending my life that way - how miserable.

No amount of "grabbing your neighbors" is going to change that.

Given that there are people who DO have money, who buy townhouses in Georgetown, and condos in Logan Circle, etc, why do you assume that everyone who does or does not have money who dislikes McMansions secretly wants to live in one? I mean I know its a nice pat response whenever someone knocks one, but does it matter that its actually not true?

I think they just say that because they know they bought a big 'ole ugly house and are embarrassed. Trying to shift the focus off the fact that they have bad taste.

People can spend their money on many options - swanky urban area, renovated historic home, oversized McMansion. It's not the money - it's what you do with it.

Uh huh. And maybe well-to-do types who buy in a "swanky urban area" like Logan Circle and still dump on "McMansions" are trying to shift the focus from their own decision to buy in neighborhoods suited to closeted lawyers who arrange late-afternoon hook-ups at sleazy hotels.

Wow, you are really a piece of work.

Don't even bother. These people are so deluded about good taste and wealth it is no use. Trying to get through to them would completely shatter their world view and sense of self worth. Let them be in their tacky homes. It makes no difference to the rest of us. But make no mistake - we see you, and we are looking down on you.

There is no "we" or "us." There's just you, a little person who uses plurals to seek safety in numbers, as if your opinion isn't good enough to stand on its own.

There is me too, and I am different from the PP you responded to.. Ask Jeff if you do not believe me.

"I am he as you are he are you are me and we are all together...

See how they run like pigs from a gun see how they fly...I'm crying."

Seriously, if raising your hand on an anonymous forum to join some other douchebags gives you a sense of solidarity, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the ppl we know with large homes that carry large mortgages are in financial trouble. They have nothing saved and holding on to the idea that their home is their retirement. They have the house, but their retirement accts are lacking.

You have the wrong friends. Everyone I know with a new house has it bought and paid for. Vacation houses (these are SFHs, NOT condos or THs) bought and paid for, also.

Your friends are "living" (not living) wrong.

You are out of touch with reality. You are rich, and most people are not. Most people who own a home have a mortgage. Most people do not own multiple homes outright. Come down off your fucking ivory tower, you insufferable snob.

Good thing you are not angry.

I'm not angry. It just shocks me that people are really this clueless. And people in DC wonder why they call it the Beltway Bubble. Get out of it more and you might understand the world a bit better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

Lol. You forgot to add: and 40 lb overweight.

Right, yes. And pasty from a lack of sunlight or fresh air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Seriously, if raising your hand on an anonymous forum to join some other douchebags gives you a sense of solidarity, go for it.

No one said that. They just responded to your falsehood, is all. Nice rhetorical trick you've got there, you lie, and then when called on it, turn the fact that someone bothered to call you on it into a hook to discuss their psychology.

I guess its knowing tricks like that that rakes in the big bucks in this town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

Lol. You forgot to add: and 40 lb overweight.

Right, yes. And pasty from a lack of sunlight or fresh air.

We are talking about the folks in the McMansions, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

I guess the universities with schools of architecture need to add schools of cosmetology.

Oh, and those of you babbling on and on about taste in design and architecture all received degrees in these fields? I doubt it. Attorneys or PhDs or political machine scumbag consultants/lobbyists is more like it. You all have no more "taste" when it comes to design or architecture than you do anything else. You don't exactly see the creative class of America flocking in droves to DC, now do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

Lol. You forgot to add: and 40 lb overweight.

Right, yes. And pasty from a lack of sunlight or fresh air.

We are talking about the folks in the McMansions, right?

No. We are talking about every single douchebag on this thread who thinks that they have a single solitary clue about "aesthetics." Look around. Outside of museums filled with other people's work and a few decent theaters, DC is not exactly known for its funky, creative vibe or its arts scene. It's known for pudgy, middle-aged, over-educated wonks who've lost touch with reality and ladder-climbing 20-somethings fresh out of undergrad who are just waiting to sell their souls to the devil for cash. All of you crack me up. It's literally hilarious to watch you all protest so much about your wealth, class and taste, as if people who actually have those things give a shit about convincing DCUM.