New vs old homes, what problems with you old vs brand new, they don't build them like they used to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Character" and "post-WWII old homes" are mutually exclusive words.

Codswallop. I like older houses, but there houses built after WWII that have character, too.

Agree. People in DC are very traditional and conservative when it comes to style--whether it be clothes or homes.

[Anonymous]

I live in a post-WWII home and while there is a lot I would change about the design, my neighbor has the "same" home that has been renovated in a very tasteful way to make the home both larger and a little more stylish in the front. I would love to see ways of using existing homes to make them more suitable for modern living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. People in DC are very traditional and conservative when it comes to style--whether it be clothes or homes.

It's not really a question of conservatism and matters of style. It's more a status issue and an effort on the part of some residents of older homes to try to persuade others that their own lifestyle should be copied. Put many of these folks in LA and they'd gush about contemporary homes, or put them in Atlanta and they'd boast about their new home in Buckhead.

The DC area has some really nice pre-WW II homes, but it also has many non-descript older properties and very nice newer houses. I have to say that I agree that the rowhouses in places like Glover Park (and much of NE and SE) don't exactly leave me green with envy. Convenient, maybe? A testament to urban aesthetics? Not exactly. If all the older properties were as well-built and desirable as some posters here suggest, you wouldn't see nearly as many major renovations and teardowns as you do today.

[Anonymous]

1915 house:
sewer was always backing up because there were roots in the pipes.
Tiny kitchen
Poor insulation
Radiator heat
Window a/c units
Only 1 original bathroom the others were closets turned into bathrooms
Not much closet space
No attached garage
Couldn't use a hair dryer and the toaster at the same time

2009 house:
Nail pops

I'll take new construction over old any day.
I think my new house as as much charm as the old house and none of the problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1915 house:
sewer was always backing up because there were roots in the pipes.
Tiny kitchen
Poor insulation
Radiator heat
Window a/c units
Only 1 original bathroom the others were closets turned into bathrooms
Not much closet space
No attached garage
Couldn't use a hair dryer and the toaster at the same time

2009 house:
Nail pops

I'll take new construction over old any day.
I think my new house as as much charm as the old house and none of the problems.

The more apt comparison would be to revisit homes built in 2009 in 2109.
Regardless, I'd be curious to see how your 2009 home holds up even in 2019 and 2029. Let's see then what problems you'll experience....

[Anonymous]

I think it's pretty much useless to discuss whether this is more charming than that -- people have different taste (and some people have bad taste), that's it.

That said, I do think that homes built pre-WWII were built to last longer than those built today, even if those pre-WWII were cookie-cutters back then -- for me, that's obviously true. I also suspect that cookie-cutters pre-WWII homes were better built than cookie-cutters build after WWII.

Personally, I like the idea of living in a home that has aged / will age nicely (especially, but not only, if I am going to age with it). I wonder: how many advocates of homes built in recent years can say that their homes will age like good wine, getting better over time?

Or more generally, is it possible to have a home built that has character, is architecturally refined (whether classic or contemporary) and will age nicely, without being rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty much useless to discuss whether this is more charming than that -- people have different taste (and some people have bad taste), that's it.

That said, I do think that homes built pre-WWII were built to last longer than those built today, even if those pre-WWII were cookie-cutters back then -- for me, that's obviously true. I also suspect that cookie-cutters pre-WWII homes were better built than cookie-cutters build after WWII.

Personally, I like the idea of living in a home that has aged / will age nicely (especially, but not only, if I am going to age with it). I wonder: how many advocates of homes built in recent years can say that their homes will age like good wine, getting better over time?

Or more generally, is it possible to have a home built that has character, is architecturally refined (whether classic or contemporary) and will age nicely, without being rich?

Yes, but the location will not be ideal.

[Anonymous]

Lived in 1890 Victorian house, four stories, 5000 sf. Original leaded stained glass and double paned windows- beautiful- leaked like crazy. No insulation in turret. Electric bill $1000/month. Basement- we had to put in two sump pumps or else a harsh rain would flood it every time. Fixed it up and sold it in 2007.

2010 townhouse, four stories, 2000sf. Energy efficient everything and dual zone hvac. Electric bill $100-150/month.

Every house needs regular maintenance. But I choose new construction every time. That said, we don't plan to move.

[Anonymous]

Our 1915 rowhouse had good bones but certainly had not aged like fine wine. It had deteriorated and needed substantial upgrades. We made those upgrades because we thought at the time we'd stay in the city, but that was before we decided we didn't want to raise our kids in an area with so many drug dealers, alcoholics and rats. You can look past those things for so long, but eventually it doesn't feel right anymore.

I feel like the upgrades that we made to the house were a parting gift to DC, but its subsequent three owners do not appear to have lifted a finger to improve what we left behind, and I notice when I drive by the old neighborhood that it's started to deteriorate again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty much useless to discuss whether this is more charming than that -- people have different taste (and some people have bad taste), that's it.

That said, I do think that homes built pre-WWII were built to last longer than those built today, even if those pre-WWII were cookie-cutters back then -- for me, that's obviously true. I also suspect that cookie-cutters pre-WWII homes were better built than cookie-cutters build after WWII.

Personally, I like the idea of living in a home that has aged / will age nicely (especially, but not only, if I am going to age with it). I wonder: how many advocates of homes built in recent years can say that their homes will age like good wine, getting better over time?

Or more generally, is it possible to have a home built that has character, is architecturally refined (whether classic or contemporary) and will age nicely, without being rich?

Home structures don't age they deteriorate and depreciate, land appreciates. You can't use that type of analogy because cheese and wine is a consumable which characteristics change with time not fall apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lived in 1890 Victorian house, four stories, 5000 sf. Original leaded stained glass and double paned windows- beautiful- leaked like crazy. No insulation in turret. Electric bill $1000/month. Basement- we had to put in two sump pumps or else a harsh rain would flood it every time. Fixed it up and sold it in 2007.

2010 townhouse, four stories, 2000sf. Energy efficient everything and dual zone hvac. Electric bill $100-150/month.

Every house needs regular maintenance. But I choose new construction every time. That said, we don't plan to move.

How did you feel moving from SH to TH? Any pros cons, do you have kids?

thanks