Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't be ridiculous, McLean and Bethesda are full of houses just like the first one, and no one who lives there commutes to DC for hours. You're stereotyping.

Yep- just like people who live in small spaces don't all use their ovens for storage. It's called context idiot

No, it's called putting up a clean argument without cliches or name-calling. You should try it.

I will try that you fucking idiot

LOL. This made me spit out my beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

soul, charm, cozy etc... these are all made up terms realtors have used to make you believe that the uneven wall or crookedness of old homes is appealing. You drank the koolaide. What history? Most homes have no history unless you are talking about the 1 or 2 out of 1000s that maybe a world leader or founding father lived in.

I'm buying a home in Fairfax County for well less than a million that has a marble hearth that was originally installed in a home owned by General George Patton. Also the magnolia tree out front was grown from a branch removed from a Magnolia tree at Mt. Vernon, and some of the floor rafters were taken from an old warehouse in Alexandria. It's these little historical connections that make older homes compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

soul, charm, cozy etc... these are all made up terms realtors have used to make you believe that the uneven wall or crookedness of old homes is appealing. You drank the koolaide. What history? Most homes have no history unless you are talking about the 1 or 2 out of 1000s that maybe a world leader or founding father lived in.

I'm buying a home in Fairfax County for well less than a million that has a marble hearth that was originally installed in a home owned by General George Patton. Also the magnolia tree out front was grown from a branch removed from a Magnolia tree at Mt. Vernon, and some of the floor rafters were taken from an old warehouse in Alexandria. It's these little historical connections that make older homes compelling.

That sounds gorgeous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

soul, charm, cozy etc... these are all made up terms realtors have used to make you believe that the uneven wall or crookedness of old homes is appealing. You drank the koolaide. What history? Most homes have no history unless you are talking about the 1 or 2 out of 1000s that maybe a world leader or founding father lived in.

I'm buying a home in Fairfax County for well less than a million that has a marble hearth that was originally installed in a home owned by General George Patton. Also the magnolia tree out front was grown from a branch removed from a Magnolia tree at Mt. Vernon, and some of the floor rafters were taken from an old warehouse in Alexandria. It's these little historical connections that make older homes compelling.

That's no different than putting that stuff in a new home. It wasn't in the home originally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

soul, charm, cozy etc... these are all made up terms realtors have used to make you believe that the uneven wall or crookedness of old homes is appealing. You drank the koolaide. What history? Most homes have no history unless you are talking about the 1 or 2 out of 1000s that maybe a world leader or founding father lived in.

I'm buying a home in Fairfax County for well less than a million that has a marble hearth that was originally installed in a home owned by General George Patton. Also the magnolia tree out front was grown from a branch removed from a Magnolia tree at Mt. Vernon, and some of the floor rafters were taken from an old warehouse in Alexandria. It's these little historical connections that make older homes compelling.

That's no different than putting that stuff in a new home. It wasn't in the home originally.

Good point - though that Magnolia tree is now well over 50 years old, and at least one of the oak trees on the property pre-dates the Civil War. The original house was built in the 1920s and has been thoughtfully remodeled several times as each generation of owners decide new ways to make the home have more modern comforts without removing the nicest features of earlier owner's enhancements. Thus, the wood staircase is original whereas the travertine bathrooms and cherry cabinets in the kitchen are clearly much newer. The stone retaining walls and hand dug well on the property are more difficult to date.

While most old houses won't find a place in the national history books, you can't tell me that a four hundred year old Villa in Italy or a 250 year old American farm house has no history. Only a small mind thinks that the only history that is important was written by text book writers.

[Anonymous]

People definitely have their anger misplaced blaming builders. They're in it to make money, not doing it as a charity. Is it unfortunate that these monstrosities are built on tiny lots? Yes, I agree, but ultimately if that's what people want, so be it.

Are all the craftsman style houses sprouting up everywhere in Vienna getting tiresome? Sure, but ultimately that's the market, and if enough people get sick of them builders will have to cut prices to move them.

I'm no fan of a lot of new builds, but ultimately the economics (building a bigger house has higher margins) is what it is, and I can't fault builders.

I think I'm not a huge fan of new builds because I think many are overpriced (not to mention the other reasons mentioned previously), but obviously people don't agree as they're selling. Ultimately the high end of the market is what most homebuilders serve these days, and it makes sense. If/when the market ever cools down, we'll see more modest builds becoming more common. Until then, it is what it is. Markets move like pendulums. Right now the stock market is booming and DC area real estate is expensive (yes, I think it's overpriced and I'm a homeowner), but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Im happy they are building all those McMansions inside the beltway. When the next depression hits they will be easy to convert into row-houses.

[Anonymous]

or condos

[Anonymous]

Oh if I had a pet peeve with new builds it'd have to be new homes that are built on old lots, but the house is setback so far that there's practically zero backyard.

That's probably my #1 pet peeve. They look great from the front w/ a ton of curb appeal, but unless you wanna have a redneck BBQ or party in your front yard, it destroys the backyard.

Again, clearly most people don't care about a backyard and prefer more space inside (since the places are selling), but that's my personal pet peeve with a lot of new builds.

[Anonymous]

^I've seen many of these houses and they have 90% front yard and 10% backyard. Unless the house was/is at a steep discount, it gets crossed off the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh if I had a pet peeve with new builds it'd have to be new homes that are built on old lots, but the house is setback so far that there's practically zero backyard.

That's probably my #1 pet peeve. They look great from the front w/ a ton of curb appeal, but unless you wanna have a redneck BBQ or party in your front yard, it destroys the backyard.

Again, clearly most people don't care about a backyard and prefer more space inside (since the places are selling), but that's my personal pet peeve with a lot of new builds.

This is why we bought a lot and then hired a builder for the house. We wanted an actual yard, and felt that the 3,500 sq ft we got was more than adequate for our needs. If a builder had done a spec house on this lot, it probably would have been nearing 5,000 square feet, with hardly any yard. Instead, we have a nice-sized patio, swing seat, separate fire pit area, and room for the kids to play soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh if I had a pet peeve with new builds it'd have to be new homes that are built on old lots, but the house is setback so far that there's practically zero backyard.

That's probably my #1 pet peeve. They look great from the front w/ a ton of curb appeal, but unless you wanna have a redneck BBQ or party in your front yard, it destroys the backyard.

Again, clearly most people don't care about a backyard and prefer more space inside (since the places are selling), but that's my personal pet peeve with a lot of new builds.

This is why we bought a lot and then hired a builder for the house. We wanted an actual yard, and felt that the 3,500 sq ft we got was more than adequate for our needs. If a builder had done a spec house on this lot, it probably would have been nearing 5,000 square feet, with hardly any yard. Instead, we have a nice-sized patio, swing seat, separate fire pit area, and room for the kids to play soccer.

and lower resale value

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh if I had a pet peeve with new builds it'd have to be new homes that are built on old lots, but the house is setback so far that there's practically zero backyard.

That's probably my #1 pet peeve. They look great from the front w/ a ton of curb appeal, but unless you wanna have a redneck BBQ or party in your front yard, it destroys the backyard.

Again, clearly most people don't care about a backyard and prefer more space inside (since the places are selling), but that's my personal pet peeve with a lot of new builds.

This is why we bought a lot and then hired a builder for the house. We wanted an actual yard, and felt that the 3,500 sq ft we got was more than adequate for our needs. If a builder had done a spec house on this lot, it probably would have been nearing 5,000 square feet, with hardly any yard. Instead, we have a nice-sized patio, swing seat, separate fire pit area, and room for the kids to play soccer.

and lower resale value

So? We expect this to be our forever house, so we're not terribly concerned with that. And even to the extent we are, we overall spent a lot less than it would have cost us to build a bigger house or buy a spec house, so our net profit will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we bought a lot and then hired a builder for the house. We wanted an actual yard, and felt that the 3,500 sq ft we got was more than adequate for our needs. If a builder had done a spec house on this lot, it probably would have been nearing 5,000 square feet, with hardly any yard. Instead, we have a nice-sized patio, swing seat, separate fire pit area, and room for the kids to play soccer.

Smart.. current land prices are nuts imo (compared to 2-3 yrs ago), and we can't justify building a house right now (not to mention builder prices are higher). A friend built a nice house a cpl yrs back, and it'd cost about $400k more (land and builder costs) to do it today. We'll be staying put for a couple more years, and see how things are then.

and lower resale value

The current market, perhaps.. if people start caring about backyards however in the future, maybe not. My wife and I prefer the ~3500 sq ft house w/ a backyard. I'm sure all these hardiplank craftsman homes all over the place will be worth less in the future as well when they're out of style in 10 yrs..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh if I had a pet peeve with new builds it'd have to be new homes that are built on old lots, but the house is setback so far that there's practically zero backyard.

That's probably my #1 pet peeve. They look great from the front w/ a ton of curb appeal, but unless you wanna have a redneck BBQ or party in your front yard, it destroys the backyard.

Again, clearly most people don't care about a backyard and prefer more space inside (since the places are selling), but that's my personal pet peeve with a lot of new builds.

This is why we bought a lot and then hired a builder for the house. We wanted an actual yard, and felt that the 3,500 sq ft we got was more than adequate for our needs. If a builder had done a spec house on this lot, it probably would have been nearing 5,000 square feet, with hardly any yard. Instead, we have a nice-sized patio, swing seat, separate fire pit area, and room for the kids to play soccer.

and lower resale value

This person has built a home to live - not sell.