Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. I've lived on the west coast and southwest in areas where the architecture is just gorgeous. Here I'm in an uninspiring colonial. There aren't many good options here

It's not our fault we prefer Colonials over Taco Bell garbage.

[Anonymous]

Hi OP - I'm the one who asked what you like. You are right - you won't find that kind of architecture here. And I'm not going to defend much of the housing stock in the DC area - too much of it is new and I don't really care for what passes as "luxurious" that was built since the 80s. I'm kind of okay with the new faux craftsman stuff. Most of the houses built before that were modest and that accounts for many of the additions that seem like afterthoughts because they were.

But I also find that Spanish and southwestern style stuff unappealing. For me, the reason why the houses seem nice is that the landscape itself can be impressive. But those square boxes and tile roofs don't do a thing for me, and the modest stucco things are truly dreadful. Irony is I'm stuck in a stucco house here - it was in my price range because they're not in demand.

It's in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.

Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.

That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).

I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.

And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.

Maybe you can start a Go Fund Me page for an airplane ticket, because few here are going to buy this crap that a typical West Coast home has much to recommend it. It always comes down to people here who can't afford what they think they deserve.

OP again, and what I can afford is not the issue. Across all prices ranges, the housing stock here is deplorable, and arguably more so at the highest price points in the region. Again, looking at most local builder's ideas of "luxury", "quality", and "design" is laughable. I think it might be that so many people came here in the 1990s and the decades that followed, and lots of housing was quickly thrown up in the "style du jour" to meet that demand. The result is very cookie-cutter and very undistinguished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.

Oh how I wish that were true. But nope, we are house hunting and spending a lot of time on the side streets. Budget is 1.3 million. Many (truly, most, not just many) are seriously ugly. Even bueautiful streets in Kent with $2-3 million houses, the next block over has chain link fences. Hideous. throughout upper NW and Bethesda there are So Many unattractive additions globbed on to blah colonials. There are beautiful streets here and there (south 1/2 of Wesley Heights), a couple parts of Westmoreland Hills, there's always a touch of unkempt and rundown that creeps in to many of the neigborhoods. It's depressing.

You sound entitled and hard to please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.

Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.

That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).

I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.

And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.

Maybe you can start a Go Fund Me page for an airplane ticket, because few here are going to buy this crap that a typical West Coast home has much to recommend it. It always comes down to people here who can't afford what they think they deserve.

OP again, and what I can afford is not the issue. Across all prices ranges, the housing stock here is deplorable, and arguably more so at the highest price points in the region. Again, looking at most local builder's ideas of "luxury", "quality", and "design" is laughable. I think it might be that so many people came here in the 1990s and the decades that followed, and lots of housing was quickly thrown up in the "style du jour" to meet that demand. The result is very cookie-cutter and very undistinguished.

Agree completely. It's across many price ranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am betting OP is a guy.

DH pays me if it's not!

If you are betting that the original poster is a man, then why will your DH pay you if the original poster turns out to be a woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP. I've lived on the west coast and southwest in areas where the architecture is just gorgeous. Here I'm in an uninspiring colonial. There aren't many good options here

It's not our fault we prefer Colonials over Taco Bell garbage.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Pasadena-CA/house_type/65247419_zpid/47019_rid/1500000-_price/5472-_mp/6m_days/pricea_sort/34.279489,-117.974453,34.089203,-118.288937_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/

[Anonymous]

Georgetown, LeDroit Park, Logan Circle, Capitol Hill? OP must be excluding rowhouses from consideration. Or have really bad taste.

[Anonymous]

Hi OP - I'm the one who asked what you like. You are right - you won't find that kind of architecture here. And I'm not going to defend much of the housing stock in the DC area - too much of it is new and I don't really care for what passes as "luxurious" that was built since the 80s. I'm kind of okay with the new faux craftsman stuff. Most of the houses built before that were modest and that accounts for many of the additions that seem like afterthoughts because they were.

But I also find that Spanish and southwestern style stuff unappealing. For me, the reason why the houses seem nice is that the landscape itself can be impressive. But those square boxes and tile roofs don't do a thing for me, and the modest stucco things are truly dreadful. Irony is I'm stuck in a stucco house here - it was in my price range because they're not in demand.

It's in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown, LeDroit Park, Logan Circle, Capitol Hill? OP must be excluding rowhouses from consideration. Or have really bad taste.

Of course Washington, DC, has beautiful neighborhoods, but even within areas like Cleveland Park, Wesley Heights, Spring Valley and others, you have some lovely, even gorgeous homes mixed in with some plain, older ones with rather unfortunate renovations. And when you include other neighborhoods and its suburbs, with those suburban builds, well, it just goes downhill from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.

Depends on the neighborhood. In many neighborhoods, the nicest homes are on the main roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The housing in this region is some of the most poorly planned and designed, and cheaply built of that in any major metropolitan area.

Ugly houses, maybe. But we have jobs...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.

Oh how I wish that were true. But nope, we are house hunting and spending a lot of time on the side streets. Budget is 1.3 million. Many (truly, most, not just many) are seriously ugly. Even bueautiful streets in Kent with $2-3 million houses, the next block over has chain link fences. Hideous. throughout upper NW and Bethesda there are So Many unattractive additions globbed on to blah colonials. There are beautiful streets here and there (south 1/2 of Wesley Heights), a couple parts of Westmoreland Hills, there's always a touch of unkempt and rundown that creeps in to many of the neigborhoods. It's depressing.

You should have married better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.

Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.

That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).

I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.

And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.

Maybe you can start a Go Fund Me page for an airplane ticket, because few here are going to buy this crap that a typical West Coast home has much to recommend it. It always comes down to people here who can't afford what they think they deserve.

OP again, and what I can afford is not the issue. Across all prices ranges, the housing stock here is deplorable, and arguably more so at the highest price points in the region. Again, looking at most local builder's ideas of "luxury", "quality", and "design" is laughable. I think it might be that so many people came here in the 1990s and the decades that followed, and lots of housing was quickly thrown up in the "style du jour" to meet that demand. The result is very cookie-cutter and very undistinguished.

Face it, if you weren't such a loser and actually had a life, you wouldn't be airing your petty grievances here. It's not like you've said anything here that isn't a total cliche. Work a little harder and maybe you'll be able to live in a nicer house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.

Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.

That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).

I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.

And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.

Maybe you can start a Go Fund Me page for an airplane ticket, because few here are going to buy this crap that a typical West Coast home has much to recommend it. It always comes down to people here who can't afford what they think they deserve.

What I can afford is not the issue. Across all prices ranges, the housing stock here is deplorable, and arguably more so at the highest price points in the region. Again, looking at most local builder's ideas of "luxury", "quality", and "design" is laughable. I think it might be that so many people came here in the 1990s and the decades that followed, and lots of housing was quickly thrown up in the "style du jour" to meet that demand. The result is very cookie-cutter and very undistinguished.

Face it, if you weren't such a loser and actually had a life, you wouldn't be airing your petty grievances here. It's not like you've said anything here that isn't a total cliche. Work a little harder and maybe you'll be able to live in a nicer house.

I am not the poster looking to buy a $1.3 million dollar house, but your incredibly rude criticism and put down of that nice poster for not working "a little harder" to "live in a nicer house" worth more than $1.3 million is really shameful.

I wish that this site could electronically "out" you, so that your neighbors, your co-workers and professional colleagues, your personal friends, your fellow parents at school and on the playing field, and every other nice person here and elsewhere could see how insufferable and petty you are. You, dear sir, embody the caricature of the entitled (but deluded) Washingtonian who thinks that they are better than everyone else by virtue of their salary or position, and who looks down with disdain on those you consider of "lesser status" than you.