For those who hate teardowns, do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

[Anonymous]

When you walk down a lovely street lined with very old large trees and stately brick houses from the 1920s, and suddenly in the middle of the block you see a naked lot with no trees and a new modern home that looks like shipping containers stacked on top of each other, painted 7 different garish colors .... you should know why people hate tear downs.

[Anonymous]

I grew up on one of the prettiest streets in DC--all lovely brick houses, 3-4 bedrooms, nice yards etc. At least 5-6 of the houses on the street have been torn down and are in the process of being replaced with massive, ugly houses. It's so sad.

[Anonymous]

I live in a new build & see the downsides some PPs are referring to, however, the amount of light from new window configurations, the ceiling height, & the closet space in new houses are all a huge plus. Not sure I could go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

*ecologically

You must sell new builds. Absolutely nobody else thinks this financially and eco ally wasteful way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a new build & see the downsides some PPs are referring to, however, the amount of light from new window configurations, the ceiling height, & the closet space in new houses are all a huge plus. Not sure I could go back.

My 1913 house has huge, huge windows.

[Anonymous]

Yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.

If you've lived in Europe, you know most homes can be maintained for centuries.

[Anonymous]

Unless one has a disposable mentality and don't care for environment or history, most sensible humans want to preserve things.

[Anonymous]

We just don't build like we used to, its a utilitarian and disposable era. At least preserve what we have, don't demolish it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a row house that is more than 100 years old. If it is maintained it will still be here 100 years from now. The new builds are made with much cheaper material and are already falling apart. Also most surviving old houses have craftsmanship that most can't afford today.

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Craftsmanship is dead. Nobody had time or money to build beautiful and sturdy buildings which can last for centuries and still make viewer say, "WOW!".

[Anonymous]

Plastic bags, made in china goods, cardboard McMansions are the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We just don't build like we used to, its a utilitarian and disposable era. At least preserve what we have, don't demolish it.

That isn’t true if you know what you are doing. Shitty builds from factory places suck.

I have a beautiful 1969 home, remodeled in 1993, and we keep up on maintenance. I expect it will be a lovely example of Prairie contemp for a hundred years and more. It’s such a wonderful house…light, flow, everything.

[Anonymous]

I'd like it if they were kept forever, because they look better and are built better than what usually gets put up. I almost pull my hair out when I see cute little cottage/bungalows, and then a brick-facade, vinyl sided monstrosity in the middle of the gems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a new build & see the downsides some PPs are referring to, however, the amount of light from new window configurations, the ceiling height, & the closet space in new houses are all a huge plus. Not sure I could go back.

+1