In defense of tear-downs in neighborhoods of elegant old homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

Absolutely, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

Small in DCUMland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these 40s-80s are the low quality tract homes of the poors, very rarely are there any worth saving but those are probably Mansions of the wealthy of yesteryear

Pre-40s homes are solid. You can move interior walls if you want and easily upgrade the windows. Exterior real brick and interior plaster with real wood trim.

Yes. There is no particle board, drywall, or foam insulation to outgas; they are framed with hard, old-growth wood. While new houses are more insulated and energy efficient, you are also trapping in the air with outgassing that way. Older houses "breathe" more which some like.

[Anonymous]

Tearing down an elegant older home and replacing it with a builder spec McMansion should be a crime. Most builders use draftsmen and not architects to design a home so most are just copies of some other plan that gets modified and usually in a bad way. Corners are cut on materials such as hollow doors, cheap or no molding, cheap cabinets the list goes on. Some times when you stand out front you see ridiculous roof lines, windows that aren’t compatible and brick/siding combinations that don’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

Thats not a justification. The reason is it's cheaper often to tear down and rebuild vs. do a full replacement of electrical, plumbing, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these 40s-80s are the low quality tract homes of the poors, very rarely are there any worth saving but those are probably Mansions of the wealthy of yesteryear

Pre-40s homes are solid. You can move interior walls if you want and easily upgrade the windows. Exterior real brick and interior plaster with real wood trim.

Yes. There is no particle board, drywall, or foam insulation to outgas; they are framed with hard, old-growth wood. While new houses are more insulated and energy efficient, you are also trapping in the air with outgassing that way. Older houses "breathe" more which some like.

We built an expensive home in a Hurricane area and it is built like a brick sh— house. It is solid! But, when we are gone for a week and come back you can tell the home hasn’t breathed even though the HVAC is running. New homes need fresh air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

There are homes in Europe that are hundreds of years old and in excellent shape made with quality materials. Imagine if Italy started tearing down their historic homes for modern farm houses.

Would be more affordable and less smelly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

We have 8000sf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

We have 8000sf

I’m sure this was meant as a brag, but it’s a total turnoff.

[Anonymous]

Someone just tore down a house at the corner of Nevada and Rittenhouse and built an absolutely enormous new house but it looks fine. The lot is big enough and the house is big and boxy but basically inoffensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

Small in DCUMland.

Not too many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

We have 8000sf

How many units?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thats not a justification. The reason is it's cheaper often to tear down and rebuild vs. do a full replacement of electrical, plumbing, etc.

Plus, many people (those who can afford a new home, not I!) prefer the tall ceilings that a new home provides. It then becomes more economical to build new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

Why do you need 3000 ft.² though? That’s enormous. Unless you have many children and in-laws living with you that seems extreme.

We have 8000sf

How many units?

Speaking of "units".......