New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.

What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.

I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.

The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous

I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.

This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.

Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.

This is obviously untrue because of the many people who choose to pay a premium for smaller homes in dense, urban neighborhoods. If everyone really preferred bigger and newer, then why would anyone ever spend $3.5 million on a row house in the city? Look at the cost of NYC, Tokyo, or Hong Kong real estate. Lots of wealthy people choosing to live in homes with less square footage than your average midwest suburban ranch house.

Also, as any wealthy person who lives in a small urban home knows, paying people to create custom built ins and organization systems is worth way more than whatever an extra 1000 sq ft out in the burbs would cost you. It looks better, it's more convenient, and it leads to a better lifestyle. The big suburban homes often make things big with the assumption that people will just fill them up with crap. That is a poor person's habit. If you have the money, you can be smart and selective about what you keep in your home, and you can afford to have it perfectly curated.

This is a bad example to use and undermines your argument. Those are some of the highest real estate values in the world. Location and proximity to work/entertainment has always driven prices higher regardless of the size of the property (high-rise, apartment, condo, townhome, SFH, etc).

People move further out from the urban center because they can get more for less.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone is upset that tear downs happen. It's the cookie cutter aspect. If everyone was building a unique, well thought out custom home people would not be upset.

But oddly "custom" homes all look awful and the same? I don't have money to build a custom home so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Take some of the custom homes in 22207. People spend so much money building a custom home yet it still looks like a cookie cutter home. Maybe they are using the builder to design and not architects? It is like they are too scared to fully commit to modern so they end up with a hodge podge.

You also often end up with homes awkwardly situated on the lot, no curb appeal whatsoever.

Yes I'm jealous of the size, but if I had that much money maybe I would build a large Victorian with a wrap around porch, turret, cute well thought out garden, or something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is upset that tear downs happen. It's the cookie cutter aspect. If everyone was building a unique, well thought out custom home people would not be upset.

But oddly "custom" homes all look awful and the same? I don't have money to build a custom home so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Take some of the custom homes in 22207. People spend so much money building a custom home yet it still looks like a cookie cutter home. Maybe they are using the builder to design and not architects? It is like they are too scared to fully commit to modern so they end up with a hodge podge.

You also often end up with homes awkwardly situated on the lot, no curb appeal whatsoever.

Yes I'm jealous of the size, but if I had that much money maybe I would build a large Victorian with a wrap around porch, turret, cute well thought out garden, or something like that.

And all those post WWII ramblers and ranches were not cookie cutter

[Anonymous]

The post WWII houses were built for affordability.

These new builds are built for the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is upset that tear downs happen. It's the cookie cutter aspect. If everyone was building a unique, well thought out custom home people would not be upset.

But oddly "custom" homes all look awful and the same? I don't have money to build a custom home so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Take some of the custom homes in 22207. People spend so much money building a custom home yet it still looks like a cookie cutter home. Maybe they are using the builder to design and not architects? It is like they are too scared to fully commit to modern so they end up with a hodge podge.

You also often end up with homes awkwardly situated on the lot, no curb appeal whatsoever.

Yes I'm jealous of the size, but if I had that much money maybe I would build a large Victorian with a wrap around porch, turret, cute well thought out garden, or something like that.

Much of it comes down to building codes and permitting that accentuate neighborhood stratification. EG the Developers run the permitting offices. Who do you think you are building that in a non-elite zone. Gah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955?

Because these 6,000sf houses on 7,000sf lots are all out of proportion for the neighborhood/lot size? And it usually means tearing up old landscaping (cutting down beautiful old oak trees)? and the giant modern farmhouses are an eyesore?

I feel like if you want to build a monster house you should have the decency to do it up in 22207 and not come down to 22201 and squeeze one onto a tiny lot.

This. The homes' windows facing into single family 1940s post WWII brick colonials.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP that it's not reasonable to expect that these older homes would stay forever. I live in a 1952 house that we bought for its charm and location in a close-in suburb of DC. But I know that our next home will be something newer. I miss having high ceilings and a good layout, even though our house is very charming and handsome.

The ideal, in my opinion, would be new-builds that are approximately 3000 to 4000 square feet, and built with very high-quality materials.

There are 2 new-builds on our street of houses built in the 1950's. One of the new-builds is custom, and fits in nicely in the neighborhood, as it was well-designed and is a slight bit subtle. The other one is 7000 square feet of space, on a lot that is approximately 8000 square feet. The house looks like a small apartment building. If it were just a bit more subtle, then it would look so much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.

What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.

I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.

The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous

I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.

This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.

Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.

.

Unpopular opinion here, but I really dont’ want a super big house. We added on to our rambler and now have 3000 sq feet and that seems perfect. With tweens and teens, I don’t want a house that they can get lost in. They still need monitoring, not a roommate situation where they have their own suite. Being a little physically on top of each other means we have more interactions than you do in a cavernous new build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.

My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.

Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.

We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.

I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.

Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.

What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.

I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.

The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous

I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.

This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.

Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.

.

Unpopular opinion here, but I really dont’ want a super big house. We added on to our rambler and now have 3000 sq feet and that seems perfect. With tweens and teens, I don’t want a house that they can get lost in. They still need monitoring, not a roommate situation where they have their own suite. Being a little physically on top of each other means we have more interactions than you do in a cavernous new build.

3k sq ft still seems like a lot, does that include basement space?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is upset that tear downs happen. It's the cookie cutter aspect. If everyone was building a unique, well thought out custom home people would not be upset.

But oddly "custom" homes all look awful and the same? I don't have money to build a custom home so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Take some of the custom homes in 22207. People spend so much money building a custom home yet it still looks like a cookie cutter home. Maybe they are using the builder to design and not architects? It is like they are too scared to fully commit to modern so they end up with a hodge podge.

You also often end up with homes awkwardly situated on the lot, no curb appeal whatsoever.

Yes I'm jealous of the size, but if I had that much money maybe I would build a large Victorian with a wrap around porch, turret, cute well thought out garden, or something like that.

And all those post WWII ramblers and ranches were not cookie cutter

Most of the Arlington homes built from the 30s through the mid-50s were colonials. The 50s-era colonials were more bare bones than the fancier and bigger 1930s-era colonials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The post WWII houses were built for affordability.

These new builds are built for the opposite.

Yep, seems like. But new builds are also built for maximizing profit, hence really larger than needed square footage. If I were to build a custom home I doubt I'd want anything more than 6K sq.ft, it's huge for me, but in some places it's not "economical" to build a place like this because new builds are pushing 10k sq.ft to maximize builder's profits and make it worth the price for the buyer. I do wish smaller new construction homes in areas with huge builds were a thing too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is upset that tear downs happen. It's the cookie cutter aspect. If everyone was building a unique, well thought out custom home people would not be upset.

But oddly "custom" homes all look awful and the same? I don't have money to build a custom home so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Take some of the custom homes in 22207. People spend so much money building a custom home yet it still looks like a cookie cutter home. Maybe they are using the builder to design and not architects? It is like they are too scared to fully commit to modern so they end up with a hodge podge.

You also often end up with homes awkwardly situated on the lot, no curb appeal whatsoever.

Yes I'm jealous of the size, but if I had that much money maybe I would build a large Victorian with a wrap around porch, turret, cute well thought out garden, or something like that.

And all those post WWII ramblers and ranches were not cookie cutter

Most of the Arlington homes built from the 30s through the mid-50s were colonials. The 50s-era colonials were more bare bones than the fancier and bigger 1930s-era colonials.

There are very few areas with cute original homes in NOVA, mostly around Alexandria and a little bit around Falls Church and in more rural like areas with very large lots where a cute small farmhouse may look very appealing with the woodsy and rolling hills terrain. Arlington unfortunately has mostly ugly and somewhat utilitarian construction despite its location. Woodsy hilly parts of it sometimes make up for ugly construction, plus people remodeling and rebuilding.

[Anonymous]

My out-of-state friends visit and I can see them feeling a little underwhelmed by my 3500 square foot home (over 3 floors) in one of the area's prettiest neighborhoods, full of 1950 homes. I'm underwhemed by their 6K square foot houses with proximity to shopping malls and unattractive cities. To each his own. The only thing I'd change is my 8' ceilings.

Someone knocked down one of the older houses in our neighborhood a couple of years ago and constructed a much larger home. But it's tastefully done and if you'd never been to our neighborhood, you might think it had been there for decades. So I have no complaints. They have matching Broncos in the circle drive, and I keep expecting matching golden retrievers to come bounding out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My out-of-state friends visit and I can see them feeling a little underwhelmed by my 3500 square foot home (over 3 floors) in one of the area's prettiest neighborhoods, full of 1950 homes. I'm underwhemed by their 6K square foot houses with proximity to shopping malls and unattractive cities. To each his own. The only thing I'd change is my 8' ceilings.

Someone knocked down one of the older houses in our neighborhood a couple of years ago and constructed a much larger home. But it's tastefully done and if you'd never been to our neighborhood, you might think it had been there for decades. So I have no complaints. They have matching Broncos in the circle drive, and I keep expecting matching golden retrievers to come bounding out.

American Dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone is upset that tear downs happen. It's the cookie cutter aspect. If everyone was building a unique, well thought out custom home people would not be upset.

But oddly "custom" homes all look awful and the same? I don't have money to build a custom home so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Take some of the custom homes in 22207. People spend so much money building a custom home yet it still looks like a cookie cutter home. Maybe they are using the builder to design and not architects? It is like they are too scared to fully commit to modern so they end up with a hodge podge.

You also often end up with homes awkwardly situated on the lot, no curb appeal whatsoever.

Yes I'm jealous of the size, but if I had that much money maybe I would build a large Victorian with a wrap around porch, turret, cute well thought out garden, or something like that.

And all those post WWII ramblers and ranches were not cookie cutter

Most of the Arlington homes built from the 30s through the mid-50s were colonials. The 50s-era colonials were more bare bones than the fancier and bigger 1930s-era colonials.

There are very few areas with cute original homes in NOVA, mostly around Alexandria and a little bit around Falls Church and in more rural like areas with very large lots where a cute small farmhouse may look very appealing with the woodsy and rolling hills terrain. Arlington unfortunately has mostly ugly and somewhat utilitarian construction despite its location. Woodsy hilly parts of it sometimes make up for ugly construction, plus people remodeling and rebuilding.

I'll have to correct you. Throughout North Arlington there are a large number of original 1930s-era colonials, tudor revivals, etc., in Lyon Village, Lyon Park, Ashton Heights, Lacey Woods, Tara, Country Club Hills, Donaldson Run, Waycroft Woodlawn, etc. In South Arlington, there is Arlington Ridge. These are all charming neighborhoods. Historic Maywood has original wood-framed construction from the 1910s and 20s. These isn't a whole lot of this type of construction in Falls Church, where it is more scattered and not concentrated in entire neighborhoods.