For those who hate teardowns, do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

[Anonymous]

https://www.compass.com/listing/3000-44th-place-northwest-washington-dc-20016/988657981602592457/

Even this house is going to be partially torn down. 3 or 4 years old and will be modified. Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.compass.com/listing/3000-44th-place-northwest-washington-dc-20016/988657981602592457/

Even this house is going to be partially torn down. 3 or 4 years old and will be modified. Crazy.

This house is right next door and owned and sold by the same people as the one above. I hear this one is being torn down and the larger one is being expanded.

https://www.estately.com/listings/info/3010-44th-place-nw

Wow.

[Anonymous]

I hate the majority of new builds. They are often way too big, have no yard, and are crappy quality. The kitchens usually have Viking appliances to lure people in but the cabinets are crap, the bathrooms usually have cheap fixtures, they usually use carpet over wood in the bedrooms etc yet they charge well over $2 million for these. I would much prefer an older home that has been renovated and expanded a bit.

[Anonymous]

I am the worst. I live in a newly built house on a small lot but I wish all the trees stay at where they are in my neighborhood so I can enjoy a leafy street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

I don't understand this mindset. It's not factually true either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate the majority of new builds. They are often way too big, have no yard, and are crappy quality. The kitchens usually have Viking appliances to lure people in but the cabinets are crap, the bathrooms usually have cheap fixtures, they usually use carpet over wood in the bedrooms etc yet they charge well over $2 million for these. I would much prefer an older home that has been renovated and expanded a bit.

But the people on DCUM criticize any kitchen that's more than 5 years old. So why should people buy super-expensive cabinets, if they will just be ripped out in 5-10 years? Same question for bathroom fixtures.

[Anonymous]

My house is nearing 100 at the bones and has centuries more in it if it’s left alone.

[Anonymous]

With proper care, yes they could last for centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Does anyone really want to live in a house built in the 1700's or 1800's?

If you're more than about 5'8" tall those old houses are a royal pain.

I grew up in an” stone 1814 house in Pennsylvania. The ceilings were wonderfully high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

If you’re depreciating your house over 27 years, you bought a truly cheap house that was built to crumble in three decades. Wonder what could be done about builders who rip people off like this.

My house is 110 years old and going strong.

[Anonymous]

I only hate teardowns that are replaced with a mcmansion. I'd rather they build a small apartment or condo building that covers the same squarefootage. But that is mostly illegal, so I just hate the mcmansion.

There are some apartment buildings nearby that had this happen, but they all predate zoning and back when america was much freer (see the NIMBY movement)

[Anonymous]

There is so much bad information in this thread. Essentially any home will last if maintained. 1980s houses last perfectly fine if maintained. 1880s homes fall apart if not maintained. Most tear downs are of homes that either weren't maintained and were left to rot, or are homes that are not workable for the desires of the property owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the majority of new builds. They are often way too big, have no yard, and are crappy quality. The kitchens usually have Viking appliances to lure people in but the cabinets are crap, the bathrooms usually have cheap fixtures, they usually use carpet over wood in the bedrooms etc yet they charge well over $2 million for these. I would much prefer an older home that has been renovated and expanded a bit.

But the people on DCUM criticize any kitchen that's more than 5 years old. So why should people buy super-expensive cabinets, if they will just be ripped out in 5-10 years? Same question for bathroom fixtures.

People who makes decorating choices based on the opinions expressed by anonymous randos on the internet are idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

You must sell new builds. Absolutely nobody else thinks this financially and eco ally wasteful way.