Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Most add-ons are ramshackle, and do not fit most people; except the family who could only afford ramshackle, which does NOT add ANYTHING to the neighborhood, like it or not.

"Better" is simply "useful". Most add ons are not useful.

[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.

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.

Exactly. And by purchasing the smaller house, they have lost their right to complain, and they know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have open floor plans, energy efficient features, and there's nothing to repair. Are "McMansions" all that bad?

Isn't it obvious OP? The jealousy is not obvious to you? It should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have open floor plans, energy efficient features, and there's nothing to repair. Are "McMansions" all that bad?

Isn't it obvious OP? The jealousy is not obvious to you? It should be.

All of those things are awesome. I'd just rather own an older home that has been updated to have those things.
In my neighborhood people have blown out the back of their older homes- they have space and it looks great from the street.
That however can really break the bank. The new build is the " cheaper" option in most of these scenarios.

[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.

All those things could be achieved by upzoning to allow new townhouses. More tax revenues, younger families, greater demand to support retail. Plus you would have more density that could support transit more kids within walking distance, and more housing closer in for middle class people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have open floor plans, energy efficient features, and there's nothing to repair. Are "McMansions" all that bad?

Isn't it obvious OP? The jealousy is not obvious to you? It should be.

All of those things are awesome. I'd just rather own an older home that has been updated to have those things.
In my neighborhood people have blown out the back of their older homes- they have space and it looks great from the street.
That however can really break the bank. The new build is the " cheaper" option in most of these scenarios.

I am extremely doubtful it looks better from the street. Who is feeding you this BS? It looks more like a bunch of trailers half wittedly added on to an old house. Trailers beget more trailers.

If you ever have billions, which is doubtful, go ahead and buy whatever you want. No one cares. Really, it is going to be alright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All those things could be achieved by upzoning to allow new townhouses. More tax revenues, younger families, greater demand to support retail. Plus you would have more density that could support transit more kids within walking distance, and more housing closer in for middle class people.

That's a different point, and you'd have people in older, smaller homes who also don't welcome new townhouses and greater density. You're just dealing with Venn diagrams of disgruntlement about change.

[Anonymous]

tldr on this thread. I dislike new homes that are built in the hinterlands mcmansion style with illegals who don't know how to hang drywall. Tasteful new construction is fine - I don't care about the style of other peoples homes (open floor plan, contemporary, whatever)...I just appreciate quality design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have open floor plans, energy efficient features, and there's nothing to repair. Are "McMansions" all that bad?

Isn't it obvious OP? The jealousy is not obvious to you? It should be.

All of those things are awesome. I'd just rather own an older home that has been updated to have those things.
In my neighborhood people have blown out the back of their older homes- they have space and it looks great from the street.
That however can really break the bank. The new build is the " cheaper" option in most of these scenarios.

I am extremely doubtful it looks better from the street. Who is feeding you this BS? It looks more like a bunch of trailers half wittedly added on to an old house. Trailers beget more trailers.

If you ever have billions, which is doubtful, go ahead and buy whatever you want. No one cares. Really, it is going to be alright.


Wow- you should talk to someone about this anger. I'm sure your house is very nice. Is it so bad that maybe not everyone is envious of it?
I'd invite you to take a stroll in my area to see some very nice renovations for yourself, but I don't think I would enjoy your company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:tldr on this thread. I dislike new homes that are built in the hinterlands mcmansion style with illegals who don't know how to hang drywall. Tasteful new construction is fine - I don't care about the style of other peoples homes (open floor plan, contemporary, whatever)...I just appreciate quality design.

Agreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have open floor plans, energy efficient features, and there's nothing to repair. Are "McMansions" all that bad?

Isn't it obvious OP? The jealousy is not obvious to you? It should be.

All of those things are awesome. I'd just rather own an older home that has been updated to have those things.
In my neighborhood people have blown out the back of their older homes- they have space and it looks great from the street.
That however can really break the bank. The new build is the " cheaper" option in most of these scenarios.

I am extremely doubtful it looks better from the street. Who is feeding you this BS? It looks more like a bunch of trailers half wittedly added on to an old house. Trailers beget more trailers.

If you ever have billions, which is doubtful, go ahead and buy whatever you want. No one cares. Really, it is going to be alright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What babble. Those that like smaller houses like them today and may like them tomorrow. Same goes for larger homes. The preference for less space is generally a niche preference held by those who prefer to engage in other forms of conspicuous consumption and/or what has been aptly described as conspicuous compassion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What babble. Those that like smaller houses like them today and may like them tomorrow. Same goes for larger homes. The preference for less space is generally a niche preference held by those who prefer to engage in other forms of conspicuous consumption and/or what has been aptly described as conspicuous compassion.

Talk about babble- sheesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most add-ons are ramshackle, and do not fit most people; except the family who could only afford ramshackle, which does NOT add ANYTHING to the neighborhood, like it or not.

"Better" is simply "useful". Most add ons are not useful.

I don't think it's up to you to make that judgment. You don't know what's best for all families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What babble. Those that like smaller houses like them today and may like them tomorrow. Same goes for larger homes. The preference for less space is generally a niche preference held by those who prefer to engage in other forms of conspicuous consumption and/or what has been aptly described as conspicuous compassion.

Talk about babble- sheesh

Weak retort., asshat.