Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Amen to that. It's laughable when so many people are overly concerned about their paper wealth. Yes you factor in value and costs to your current house, but if you're counting on it as your piggybank, you're probably doing it wrong. I can't stand people who are overly obsessed with their property value and are worried if prices go down. If you can't stomach a 30% drop in real estate, you're overweight or too levered.

[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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the impact on the community is that someone new moves in who will be paying higher taxes than the prior residents, then perhaps the anger is misplaced. Unless the new house isn't code or doesn't satisfy the zoning requirements, you should put a lid on it.

+1000

Nothing the old house owners say will convince me that "they could have a new house, but don't want one". They need to give it up and MYOB. The old house owners can't touch the new house owners - they hate that! Instead, the old house owners need to stop whining and be grateful the new house owners are carrying the taxes for the community.

Haven't the old house owners heard? NEVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

[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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

How did they "destroy" value, as opposed to just not maximizing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the impact on the community is that someone new moves in who will be paying higher taxes than the prior residents, then perhaps the anger is misplaced. Unless the new house isn't code or doesn't satisfy the zoning requirements, you should put a lid on it.

+1000

Nothing the old house owners say will convince me that "they could have a new house, but don't want one". They need to give it up and MYOB. The old house owners can't touch the new house owners - they hate that! Instead, the old house owners need to stop whining and be grateful the new house owners are carrying the taxes for the community.

Haven't the old house owners heard? NEVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the impact on the community is that someone new moves in who will be paying higher taxes than the prior residents, then perhaps the anger is misplaced. Unless the new house isn't code or doesn't satisfy the zoning requirements, you should put a lid on it.

+1000

Nothing the old house owners say will convince me that "they could have a new house, but don't want one". They need to give it up and MYOB. The old house owners can't touch the new house owners - they hate that! Instead, the old house owners need to stop whining and be grateful the new house owners are carrying the taxes for the community.

Haven't the old house owners heard? NEVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

I'm thrilled that they pay taxes, but don't get it twisted - the people who owned the older home before the market blew up are the ones who come out on top of this scenario. If gauche yuppies want to pay a premium and get exactly no equity in their investment- have at it! Your taxes pay for my kids education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the impact on the community is that someone new moves in who will be paying higher taxes than the prior residents, then perhaps the anger is misplaced. Unless the new house isn't code or doesn't satisfy the zoning requirements, you should put a lid on it.

+1000

Nothing the old house owners say will convince me that "they could have a new house, but don't want one". They need to give it up and MYOB. The old house owners can't touch the new house owners - they hate that! Instead, the old house owners need to stop whining and be grateful the new house owners are carrying the taxes for the community.

Haven't the old house owners heard? NEVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

I'm thrilled that they pay taxes, but don't get it twisted - the people who owned the older home before the market blew up are the ones who come out on top of this scenario. If gauche yuppies want to pay a premium and get exactly no equity in their investment- have at it! Your taxes pay for my kids education.

Sort of, not really. But nice job trying to spin it.

Do you assume everyone's money is tied up in their houses, like yours? How far has that chip on your shoulder gotten you? Far enough to not see past what your neighbor is or is not doing? Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

How did they "destroy" value, as opposed to just not maximizing it?

+1

No kidding. What a paranoid idiot. Everyone laughs at him (he thinks they are laughing with him, so let him).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

How did they "destroy" value, as opposed to just not maximizing it?

Another owner may add an addition on the back but it would've been better to build a house that was the same size as the new builds in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the impact on the community is that someone new moves in who will be paying higher taxes than the prior residents, then perhaps the anger is misplaced. Unless the new house isn't code or doesn't satisfy the zoning requirements, you should put a lid on it.

+1000

Nothing the old house owners say will convince me that "they could have a new house, but don't want one". They need to give it up and MYOB. The old house owners can't touch the new house owners - they hate that! Instead, the old house owners need to stop whining and be grateful the new house owners are carrying the taxes for the community.

Haven't the old house owners heard? NEVER look a gift horse in the mouth.

I'm thrilled that they pay taxes, but don't get it twisted - the people who owned the older home before the market blew up are the ones who come out on top of this scenario. If gauche yuppies want to pay a premium and get exactly no equity in their investment- have at it! Your taxes pay for my kids education.

Sort of, not really. But nice job trying to spin it.

Do you assume everyone's money is tied up in their houses, like yours? How far has that chip on your shoulder gotten you? Far enough to not see past what your neighbor is or is not doing? Probably not.

Oh, sad your plastic house hasn't appreciated as much as you'd hoped? Sucks doesn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm thrilled that they pay taxes, but don't get it twisted - the people who owned the older home before the market blew up are the ones who come out on top of this scenario. If gauche yuppies want to pay a premium and get exactly no equity in their investment- have at it! Your taxes pay for my kids education.

Who's getting it twisted? That's just another reason to thank the "gauche yuppies" for helping those who own the older homes in close-in neighborhoods.

It comes down to whether you want to look on the bright side (more tax revenues, equity appreciation, younger families, additional amenities in nearby commercial areas) or be a sourpuss (higher taxes, lamenting the loss of the "old neighborhood," and complaining about what someone else chose to build on their own property). Assuming you can't prevent the redevelopment (and kvetching on an anonymous forum doesn't really have much impact on anyone's behavior), it seems like it would be healthier to focus on the positives.

I also wouldn't worry too much about the "gauche yuppies" who "get exactly no equity on their investment," because most likely they are rolling over equity appreciation from other investments into the new builds AND seeing the new builds appreciate as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

How did they "destroy" value, as opposed to just not maximizing it?

Another owner may add an addition on the back but it would've been better to build a house that was the same size as the new builds in the neighborhood.

There's no such thing as "better". Every family decides what's better for them. If a 5,000 sqft house doesn't work for a particular family, it doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm thrilled that they pay taxes, but don't get it twisted - the people who owned the older home before the market blew up are the ones who come out on top of this scenario. If gauche yuppies want to pay a premium and get exactly no equity in their investment- have at it! Your taxes pay for my kids education.

Who's getting it twisted? That's just another reason to thank the "gauche yuppies" for helping those who own the older homes in close-in neighborhoods.

It comes down to whether you want to look on the bright side (more tax revenues, equity appreciation, younger families, additional amenities in nearby commercial areas) or be a sourpuss (higher taxes, lamenting the loss of the "old neighborhood," and complaining about what someone else chose to build on their own property). Assuming you can't prevent the redevelopment (and kvetching on an anonymous forum doesn't really have much impact on anyone's behavior), it seems like it would be healthier to focus on the positives.

I also wouldn't worry too much about the "gauche yuppies" who "get exactly no equity on their investment," because most likely they are rolling over equity appreciation from other investments into the new builds AND seeing the new builds appreciate as well.

+10000

"Yes, but didn't you hear? There is only one poster who thinks this. And "she" is "all over" DCUM!" EGADS!!!

BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

How did they "destroy" value, as opposed to just not maximizing it?

Another owner may add an addition on the back but it would've been better to build a house that was the same size as the new builds in the neighborhood.

There's no such thing as "better". Every family decides what's better for them. If a 5,000 sqft house doesn't work for a particular family, it doesn't work.

People will one day look at the home and say... "Wow what a lovely home that a family cherished and grew their family in. And look! They have a wonderful outdoor space! Gosh, all of these terrible homes from the early 2000's have no green space. I really wish people at that time hadn't built over sized monstrosities"
Of course that will be decades from now, because it is their forever home- that they built to work for their family now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Land is expensive - building (even building well), is cheap by comparison.

If you build 3500 SF when you could have built 5,000, it is highly likely that you destroyed value.

How did they "destroy" value, as opposed to just not maximizing it?

Another owner may add an addition on the back but it would've been better to build a house that was the same size as the new builds in the neighborhood.

For us personally, why would it have been better? We looked a lot of larger spec houses before deciding to build, and rejected all of them because they just didn't suit our lifestyle. We would have been paying more money (and thus having a tighter budget) to get a bunch of space we wouldn't really use and not have the backyard we needed for our preferred lifestyle. I understand the importance of home value (hence why wouldn't have spent a lot of money to build something totally bizarre we'd struggle to sell later), but we made a decision that maximized the overall *utility* (rather than just financial value) for us. When this house someday sells, I expect it will sell for less than what the larger surrounding houses do. But there will always be people who want to live in the area but are just barely priced out, and will gladly take a slightly smaller house to do that.