Is AU Park the next Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This mcmansion was built on an 1800 square foot plot!!!

You could fit three of these on a 60x100 plot

https://www.redfin.com/NY/Long-Beach/95-Tennessee-Ave-11561/home/20240752

The house is 2000 sq ft. That is not a "McMansion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

Yeah but you’re comparing building an entirely new house to renovating an existing one. At that price point you can replace every window in an old house, rip open plaster walls and add modern insulation bats and replace wall with R-11+ drywall, and completely replace every system. And you will end up with better construction than these poorly built McCraftsman and McModernfarmhouses that well heeled yuppie couples can’t get enough of.

Pshaw! Strawman (McStrawman???) arguments! It matters a lot *what* the particulars of the old houses are. AU Park is full of so-so houses from the 30s to 50s, some of which are poorly maintained. At some point, new energy efficient technologies will out compete these (obvious) retrofits that dazzle you, if they haven’t already.

I live in a house built in 1936 and sure it has plaster walls, but it’s also a piece of crap.

I’m not sure why people assume that old houses are somehow better. My house is probably still better quality than a late-70s/early 80’s ranch or split level. But homes right are actually built quite well.

[Anonymous]

Prices in AU Park have gone up a lot. Average price appears to be +$1.3M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

Yeah but you’re comparing building an entirely new house to renovating an existing one. At that price point you can replace every window in an old house, rip open plaster walls and add modern insulation bats and replace wall with R-11+ drywall, and completely replace every system. And you will end up with better construction than these poorly built McCraftsman and McModernfarmhouses that well heeled yuppie couples can’t get enough of.

Pshaw! Strawman (McStrawman???) arguments! It matters a lot *what* the particulars of the old houses are. AU Park is full of so-so houses from the 30s to 50s, some of which are poorly maintained. At some point, new energy efficient technologies will out compete these (obvious) retrofits that dazzle you, if they haven’t already.

If you're worried about anything other than cost, it's still better for the environment to improve efficiency on an existing house than it is to tear it down and replace it with new construction, even if your new house is LEED Platinum.

At current assumptions, that's *mostly* true. But don't fool yourself by making it too categorical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha that Johnny McDeveloper builds a house with “better construction” than a solid brick, plaster, slate, actual stone foundation house from 1930.

I think you meant “better open plan”

DCUM is where middlebrows reign. While not all new houses represent improvements in technology, it’s clear that, inter alia, energy efficiency can be wildly better with new construction.

Yeah but you’re comparing building an entirely new house to renovating an existing one. At that price point you can replace every window in an old house, rip open plaster walls and add modern insulation bats and replace wall with R-11+ drywall, and completely replace every system. And you will end up with better construction than these poorly built McCraftsman and McModernfarmhouses that well heeled yuppie couples can’t get enough of.

Pshaw! Strawman (McStrawman???) arguments! It matters a lot *what* the particulars of the old houses are. AU Park is full of so-so houses from the 30s to 50s, some of which are poorly maintained. At some point, new energy efficient technologies will out compete these (obvious) retrofits that dazzle you, if they haven’t already.

I live in a house built in 1936 and sure it has plaster walls, but it’s also a piece of crap.

I’m not sure why people assume that old houses are somehow better. My house is probably still better quality than a late-70s/early 80’s ranch or split level. But homes right are actually built quite well.

Yup. There's both good and bad for old and for new. A lot of artisan stuff (eg, plaster walls)gets pricier with time, but technology gets better/cheaper at the same time. And almost nothing lasts forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prices in AU Park have gone up a lot. Average price appears to be +$1.3M

Yeah, there's a mania at play. You pay for a (WOTP, to be totally honest) DC address with neighbors with similar worldviews. At some point people will wake up to the idea that they should look elsewhere, but that will take a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+100 houses in AU park are ugly.

So true. Great real estate with hideous ugly a$$ houses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+100 houses in AU park are ugly.

So true. Great real estate with hideous ugly a$$ houses

And many of those houses feature truly fugly additions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices in AU Park have gone up a lot. Average price appears to be +$1.3M

Yeah, there's a mania at play. You pay for a (WOTP, to be totally honest) DC address with neighbors with similar worldviews. At some point people will wake up to the idea that they should look elsewhere, but that will take a while.

So alternatives in the DC area? Prices are up the same percent (if not more) everywhere else with a semi-decent commute. Anywhere in Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Moco, and PG County have the same (if not higher) percent increases.

I mean I get you hate the "AU Park" stereotype person, but to where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices in AU Park have gone up a lot. Average price appears to be +$1.3M

Yeah, there's a mania at play. You pay for a (WOTP, to be totally honest) DC address with neighbors with similar worldviews. At some point people will wake up to the idea that they should look elsewhere, but that will take a while.

So alternatives in the DC area? Prices are up the same percent (if not more) everywhere else with a semi-decent commute. Anywhere in Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Moco, and PG County have the same (if not higher) percent increases.

I mean I get you hate the "AU Park" stereotype person, but to where?

I don't know that anyone's telling you to go elsewhere so much as telling you to own that you're buying really ugly houses because you want to be wotp but are stuck in the au park price range.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, the DMV in general has very ugly & poorly built housing (well, the stuff built after 1930-ish that is). It's a DMV problem, not an AU Park problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices in AU Park have gone up a lot. Average price appears to be +$1.3M

Yeah, there's a mania at play. You pay for a (WOTP, to be totally honest) DC address with neighbors with similar worldviews. At some point people will wake up to the idea that they should look elsewhere, but that will take a while.

So alternatives in the DC area? Prices are up the same percent (if not more) everywhere else with a semi-decent commute. Anywhere in Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Moco, and PG County have the same (if not higher) percent increases.

I mean I get you hate the "AU Park" stereotype person, but to where?

I don't know that anyone's telling you to go elsewhere so much as telling you to own that you're buying really ugly houses because you want to be wotp but are stuck in the au park price range.

People need to draw a 3-5 mile radius circle around AU Park and see what else is there price range. Whether you choose a short commute, more greenery, more land, more house, better shopping, better schools, etc. is up to you. But folks are lazy as hell if they think AU Park is so magical that they can't consider anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Palisades, the part of Wesley Heights closest to Mann, parts of Kent, all have better houses and are better neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the DMV in general has very ugly & poorly built housing (well, the stuff built after 1930-ish that is). It's a DMV problem, not an AU Park problem.

Not true. Kent has lovely homes. Wesley heights has lovely homes. Some parts of spring valley have lovely homes (though here I wouldn't blame someone for passing on the cancer houses). Lots of lovely homes in nwdc. Just not in au park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This mcmansion was built on an 1800 square foot plot!!!

You could fit three of these on a 60x100 plot

https://www.redfin.com/NY/Long-Beach/95-Tennessee-Ave-11561/home/20240752

The house is 2000 sq ft. That is not a "McMansion."

A few blocks from this is a 6,000 square foot house in 60x100 in that town. Amazing house square footage same or larger plot