Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, you really had to contort yourself there, didn't you.

Not a bit. PP was making a silly argument that at some future date, "people" will look around and prefer smaller to larger homes because of the extra green space.

Utter bullshit. Some people prefer smaller homes now, and will prefer them in the future. Others prefer larger homes now, and will prefer them in the future.

In general, "people" prefer additional space to living in cramped quarters. Some of those who prefer less space prefer to spend their money on other things like restaurants and travel, and others just like patting themselves on the back 24/7 for "living small." If you don't understand that, that's your problem.

3,500 sq ft is "cramped" for a family of four? Please tell me you hear how that sounds.

The 12:43 post doesn't refer to 3,500 square feet homes, old or new.

If you follow this particular tangent back (which is hard since some of the earlier conversation was removed from replies), it derives from the post from the person who built a 3,500 sq ft house because they didn't want to but a 5,000 sq ft house with no yard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

To a considerable extent that is true. My issue is not with the folks in the older homes venting, but with the reactions of local govts. In the case of the townhomes, the local govts defer to the resistance to change. In the case of the McMansions, they do not. Now to some extent that is because it is more difficult legally, to stop the McMansions, which are usually by right. but I think it is also because of a bias towards the detached single family home. Bottom line, the combination of townhomes being illegal in such neighborhoods, and McMansions being legal, tends to bias the outcome towards much larger houses than a free market would deliver. In that context its hard for me to be unsympathetic to folks complaining about large new builds, especially when the response to them is usually some variant on free market ideology ("you don"t earn enough, so suck it up")

So you want an asterisk next to every post defending new builds that indicates that new builds occur within the context of existing zoning laws, which reflect political judgments and restrict certain types of development, and are not the product of an unfettered free market.*

*OK - will this suffice?

Mostly I want folks defending new builds avoid A. Talking about the right to build what they want on their property, or similar free market rhetoric B. Implying that people with less money should "suck it up" - basically if someone makes an aesthetic critique about new builds, respond on aesthetic grounds (as someone did above, showing a poorly designed add on) rather than ad hominems about the SES of the person they are addressing C. Don't use the existing demand/market for large new builds as evidence for preference for space, since it is very likely that in the absence of market restrictions there would be far more townhomes built in close in areas, esp those with good transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

To a considerable extent that is true. My issue is not with the folks in the older homes venting, but with the reactions of local govts. In the case of the townhomes, the local govts defer to the resistance to change. In the case of the McMansions, they do not. Now to some extent that is because it is more difficult legally, to stop the McMansions, which are usually by right. but I think it is also because of a bias towards the detached single family home. Bottom line, the combination of townhomes being illegal in such neighborhoods, and McMansions being legal, tends to bias the outcome towards much larger houses than a free market would deliver. In that context its hard for me to be unsympathetic to folks complaining about large new builds, especially when the response to them is usually some variant on free market ideology ("you don"t earn enough, so suck it up")

So you want an asterisk next to every post defending new builds that indicates that new builds occur within the context of existing zoning laws, which reflect political judgments and restrict certain types of development, and are not the product of an unfettered free market.*

*OK - will this suffice?

Mostly I want folks defending new builds avoid A. Talking about the right to build what they want on their property, or similar free market rhetoric B. Implying that people with less money should "suck it up" - basically if someone makes an aesthetic critique about new builds, respond on aesthetic grounds (as someone did above, showing a poorly designed add on) rather than ad hominems about the SES of the person they are addressing C. Don't use the existing demand/market for large new builds as evidence for preference for space, since it is very likely that in the absence of market restrictions there would be far more townhomes built in close in areas, esp those with good transit.

Well, we don't always get what we want - whether it's the type of housing we think should be more readily available or the terms of discourse on the internet.

If someone defends their right to build a house that is consistent with existing zoning laws, they aren't saying that it's the highest and best use of their property, but only a permissible one that may well enhance the value given the existing zoning.

Plenty of people have defending the aesthetics and quality of new builds, but those who dislike new builds typically respond by posting random pictures of the worst new builds to attack them.

[Anonymous]

... Or they just post that everyone is jealous of them because they are insecure and delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... Or they just post that everyone is jealous of them because they are insecure and delusional.

In defense of this, Larry the Loser exists in most turn over neighborhoods - and BOY is he mad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

To a considerable extent that is true. My issue is not with the folks in the older homes venting, but with the reactions of local govts. In the case of the townhomes, the local govts defer to the resistance to change. In the case of the McMansions, they do not. Now to some extent that is because it is more difficult legally, to stop the McMansions, which are usually by right. but I think it is also because of a bias towards the detached single family home. Bottom line, the combination of townhomes being illegal in such neighborhoods, and McMansions being legal, tends to bias the outcome towards much larger houses than a free market would deliver. In that context its hard for me to be unsympathetic to folks complaining about large new builds, especially when the response to them is usually some variant on free market ideology ("you don"t earn enough, so suck it up")

So you want an asterisk next to every post defending new builds that indicates that new builds occur within the context of existing zoning laws, which reflect political judgments and restrict certain types of development, and are not the product of an unfettered free market.*

*OK - will this suffice?

Mostly I want folks defending new builds avoid A. Talking about the right to build what they want on their property, or similar free market rhetoric B. Implying that people with less money should "suck it up" - basically if someone makes an aesthetic critique about new builds, respond on aesthetic grounds (as someone did above, showing a poorly designed add on) rather than ad hominems about the SES of the person they are addressing C. Don't use the existing demand/market for large new builds as evidence for preference for space, since it is very likely that in the absence of market restrictions there would be far more townhomes built in close in areas, esp those with good transit.

Well, we don't always get what we want - whether it's the type of housing we think should be more readily available or the terms of discourse on the internet.

If someone defends their right to build a house that is consistent with existing zoning laws, they aren't saying that it's the highest and best use of their property, but only a permissible one that may well enhance the value given the existing zoning.

Plenty of people have defending the aesthetics and quality of new builds, but those who dislike new builds typically respond by posting random pictures of the worst new builds to attack them.

+1

Because they have too much time on their hands, and wonder why other people have more than they.

[Anonymous]

I was looking on Redfin in arlington ( cause it's fun). I looked to see SFH that had been listed for the longest. There are a couple of shacks ( someone please make an offer and or these homes out of there misery) and the rest are homes over a million. Most are new but a few are older that have been renovated to do extent. All are large. Obviously expensive homes take time to sell, but if we are talking about what people want, it seems people would love to see some more modest homes, close in, at a lower price point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, we don't always get what we want - whether it's the type of housing we think should be more readily available or the terms of discourse on the internet.

If someone defends their right to build a house that is consistent with existing zoning laws, they aren't saying that it's the highest and best use of their property, but only a permissible one that may well enhance the value given the existing zoning.

Plenty of people have defending the aesthetics and quality of new builds, but those who dislike new builds typically respond by posting random pictures of the worst new builds to attack them.

No we don't. I don't get the discourse on the internet I want, and I doubt you will get the discourse you want either. I will continue point out the contradictions I see. You and yours are free to use ad hominems as you please, at least within the TOU of this particular site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, we don't always get what we want - whether it's the type of housing we think should be more readily available or the terms of discourse on the internet.

If someone defends their right to build a house that is consistent with existing zoning laws, they aren't saying that it's the highest and best use of their property, but only a permissible one that may well enhance the value given the existing zoning.

Plenty of people have defending the aesthetics and quality of new builds, but those who dislike new builds typically respond by posting random pictures of the worst new builds to attack them.

No we don't. I don't get the discourse on the internet I want, and I doubt you will get the discourse you want either. I will continue point out the contradictions I see. You and yours are free to use ad hominems as you please, at least within the TOU of this particular site.

Houses people. Houses.

[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

Some people actually buy a home to LIVE IN, not as an investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was looking on Redfin in arlington ( cause it's fun). I looked to see SFH that had been listed for the longest. There are a couple of shacks ( someone please make an offer and or these homes out of there misery) and the rest are homes over a million. Most are new but a few are older that have been renovated to do extent. All are large. Obviously expensive homes take time to sell, but if we are talking about what people want, it seems people would love to see some more modest homes, close in, at a lower price point.

Everyone wants to pay beer prices for champagne. that was a stupid argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was looking on Redfin in arlington ( cause it's fun). I looked to see SFH that had been listed for the longest. There are a couple of shacks ( someone please make an offer and or these homes out of there misery) and the rest are homes over a million. Most are new but a few are older that have been renovated to do extent. All are large. Obviously expensive homes take time to sell, but if we are talking about what people want, it seems people would love to see some more modest homes, close in, at a lower price point.

+1

We are real estate junkies and follow the market.

Modestly-sized and priced homes get snatched up in days. $1.25M+ can take weeks or months.

Maybe the county should limit the number of builder tear downs per year.

[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.

and lower resale value

Some people actually buy a home to LIVE IN, not as an investment.

That is the difference between a builder spec house and an owner build/renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, we don't always get what we want - whether it's the type of housing we think should be more readily available or the terms of discourse on the internet.

If someone defends their right to build a house that is consistent with existing zoning laws, they aren't saying that it's the highest and best use of their property, but only a permissible one that may well enhance the value given the existing zoning.

Plenty of people have defending the aesthetics and quality of new builds, but those who dislike new builds typically respond by posting random pictures of the worst new builds to attack them.

No we don't. I don't get the discourse on the internet I want, and I doubt you will get the discourse you want either. I will continue point out the contradictions I see. You and yours are free to use ad hominems as you please, at least within the TOU of this particular site.

Houses people. Houses.

Seriously. And I don't recall using any "ad hominems" here, even though "You and yours" is rather nasty and sounds a bit like "your ilk."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking on Redfin in arlington ( cause it's fun). I looked to see SFH that had been listed for the longest. There are a couple of shacks ( someone please make an offer and or these homes out of there misery) and the rest are homes over a million. Most are new but a few are older that have been renovated to do extent. All are large. Obviously expensive homes take time to sell, but if we are talking about what people want, it seems people would love to see some more modest homes, close in, at a lower price point.

+1

We are real estate junkies and follow the market.

Modestly-sized and priced homes get snatched up in days. $1.25M+ can take weeks or months.

Maybe the county should limit the number of builder tear downs per year.

Time is money, right? Presumably the sellers/builders weigh the longer amount of time it typically takes to sell more expensive properties against the opportunity for greater profits.