Would you tear this historic mansion down to build a Mcmansion? Broyhill mansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The kitchen absolutely needs to be gutted and redone. So do the bathrooms. They are small and have no storage. The carpets and wall paper needs to come out ASAP. The walls need to be painted. Not that it would be cheaper to tear down, but the list of must fixes is pretty long. Not totally shocked that people might tear it down.

Would love to see what the pool looks like.

I showed he house and it is in much more disrepair than the photos depict. It looks like Glebe House before the current owners spent millions to rebuild and renovate the house and gardens. It was worth it for Glebe House because it dates from the 1850s. This house dates from the 1950s and similar houses can be found around the Rock Spring neighborhood, off Little Falls, and in NW Washington, Chevy Chase, and McLean. It was built in the style of the time for wealthy people. After the first family sold it, a lawyer and his family lived there for some years and then it went to a series of charitable/religious organizations and a woman was given a life estate in the house. When she died recently, the owners decided to sell it because of the work needed.

As for the poster asking about MM housing. If you have not seen the site, it is a very steep lot, with the house built at the top of the hill with rolling topography. Sure some MM housing could be built there but it would require expensive retaining walls and re-engineering the dirt significantly. It is only worth doing if expensive townhouses were built there with elevators to accommodate people who would pay $2M (at least) to live in one.

[Anonymous]

OK, fine, so the site is not suitable for MM housing. If the owners just plan to build a new mcmansion, why are the neighbors protesting? I'm confused as to why the demolition of an old house to build something new has become newsworthy. Calling a site historic when it is not makes it seem as though the neighbors are not acting in good faith.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Not historic in any way. I hope a couple of 6-plexes get built there because the neighbors seem insufferable.[/quote]

The buyers seem like they love nothing more than trolling their putative neighbors. From a distance, it's kind of hilarious, but if you actually lived in the neighborhood no doubt you'd have a different reaction. [/quote]

I am not understanding. Let's say that their plan all along was to build MM housing, and so now they're acting on that plan. Why are the neighbors protesting? The elected officials passed MM, and so if these owners get the necessary approvals to build 6-plexes or townhomes, the neighbors should blame the elected officials who allowed MM to happen. Claiming that this house has historic value undercuts the neighbors' credibility because the house quite obviously was not historic.[/quote]

The neighbors saw the notice of demolition posted soon after closing, asked the owner what they were planning to build, owner was evasive and this raised the ire of the neighbors to speak out against MM housing — then owner ran to papers and cried racism.

Honestly, if my neighbor decides to rent out their house as a group home, I might express my displeasure to them even though it is legal. This is a similar effect.
I think they historic nonsense came about when the owner would not answer directly. If they were doing a SFH, they would have waited on demolition until plans approved in case they wanted to use a variance from existing property. But they always planned to subdivide, which is what the neighbors figured out from demo on day one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, fine, so the site is not suitable for MM housing. If the owners just plan to build a new mcmansion, why are the neighbors protesting? I'm confused as to why the demolition of an old house to build something new has become newsworthy. Calling a site historic when it is not makes it seem as though the neighbors are not acting in good faith.

The neighbors saw the notice of demolition posted soon after closing, asked the owner what they were planning to build, owner was evasive and this raised the ire of the neighbors to speak out against MM housing — then owner ran to papers and cried racism.

Honestly, if my neighbor decides to rent out their house as a group home, I might express my displeasure to them even though it is legal. This is a similar effect.
I think they historic nonsense came about when the owner would not answer directly. If they were doing a SFH, they would have waited on demolition until plans approved in case they wanted to use a variance from existing property. But they always planned to subdivide, which is what the neighbors figured out from demo on day one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, fine, so the site is not suitable for MM housing. If the owners just plan to build a new mcmansion, why are the neighbors protesting? I'm confused as to why the demolition of an old house to build something new has become newsworthy. Calling a site historic when it is not makes it seem as though the neighbors are not acting in good faith.

The neighbors saw the notice of demolition posted soon after closing, asked the owner what they were planning to build, owner was evasive and this raised the ire of the neighbors to speak out against MM housing — then owner ran to papers and cried racism.

Honestly, if my neighbor decides to rent out their house as a group home, I might express my displeasure to them even though it is legal. This is a similar effect.
I think they historic nonsense came about when the owner would not answer directly. If they were doing a SFH, they would have waited on demolition until plans approved in case they wanted to use a variance from existing property. But they always planned to subdivide, which is what the neighbors figured out from demo on day one.

Well, it's their property and they'll do whatever they feel like.
The neighbors can bit€h and complain all they want, but all they're doing is wasting a lot of time, mental energy and hand wringing, because the owners will do whatever it is they like, no matter the neighbors "displeasure".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely would. It's not to my taste at all, and I'd want to gut every single room.

Why would you not, then, simply buy a different house? It’s not really my style either but I can see it being amazing with the right decor and a few changes here and there.

Because if it's a big lot, in a location I like, they don't come up that often, and the way things are going, the next opportunity may be considerably more expensive. And despite the wailing on this thread, the house is in crappy shape and there's a good chance it's getting torn down no matter who buys it. Why not me?

[Anonymous]

Jont big af. I personally like it tho 👀

[Anonymous]

I think the new owners wanted to subdivide all along but probably zoning disallows it. They are playing the missing middle card to try and push it through. And frankly we need more mixed housing stock.

BUT This would not really be ‘missing middle’ housing. It would probably end up beingluxury townhouses. Which the neighbors being outraged over is silly. New owners claiming to be altruists I don’t buy. Maybe if they donated it to a halfway house…

[Anonymous]

I lived a few blocks from there in the 1960s, it was a strange conversation piece back then. There was another big old house on a hill that has been tastefully redone now https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4619-27th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22207/12061054_zpid/
they could have done the same with the Broyhill house.

[Anonymous]

Thank god for actual historic districts

[Anonymous]

It’s a house no one wanted so people crying about it being historic? give me a break. No one cared when it was for sale and no one will remember it when it’s torn down. Not everything old is worth keeping

and if I owned the house? I would do whatever it you took to either sell to a developer or build a small multi family building there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So sad that the idiots are wrecking this beautiful place https://www.arlnow.com/2023/04/03/broyhill-mansion-demolition-kicks-off-with-owners-fending-off-vigilante-neighborhood-preservationists/?fbclid=IwAR0C1fRlSDXn7pz-ObMhppNwQ-6AiJ4hJbeAYhW3J02YinMvh0OaW84ahCA.

Sad are busybodies who worry about what people richer than them do with their money. You probably don't even live anywhere near this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, fine, so the site is not suitable for MM housing. If the owners just plan to build a new mcmansion, why are the neighbors protesting? I'm confused as to why the demolition of an old house to build something new has become newsworthy. Calling a site historic when it is not makes it seem as though the neighbors are not acting in good faith.

The neighbors saw the notice of demolition posted soon after closing, asked the owner what they were planning to build, owner was evasive and this raised the ire of the neighbors to speak out against MM housing — then owner ran to papers and cried racism.

Honestly, if my neighbor decides to rent out their house as a group home, I might express my displeasure to them even though it is legal. This is a similar effect.
I think they historic nonsense came about when the owner would not answer directly. If they were doing a SFH, they would have waited on demolition until plans approved in case they wanted to use a variance from existing property. But they always planned to subdivide, which is what the neighbors figured out from demo on day one.

I'd tell me new neighbors to p*ss off. They aren't entitled to a morning wave, let alone an explanation of my plans with my property. If they wanted to control the home and land, they should have bought it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank god for actual historic districts

If this were a historic district this house would have never been built. Certainly wouldn't have been protected by any historic designation.

[Anonymous]

Yes when someone posted on here months ago that it was for sale o said it would be torn down. There’s nothing worth saving about it.