Vienna - high end?

[Anonymous]

Vienna is huge OP. It really depends on the area and neighborhood. My neighborhood is def not high end. It’s probably what the rest of the country would think a working class or middle class neighborhood looks like btw. But a house just sold for over a million. And no, it’s not a tear down or a McMansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:builder here. 1/3 acre Vienna lots go for $950K...1/2 acre over $1m - and IF you can even find it. Only McLean more expensive right now. Yes....Vienna is a high end area.

Ok “builder”. McLean has always been more expensive, not just right now.

Not only McLean. Arlington and the good parts of falls church are more expensive per sq foot than Vienna.

Haha agreed, the "builder" angle is hilarious since this data is public.

Per sq ft N.Arl>FCC>Mclean>Vienna

Overall price Mclean>N.Arl and FCC>Vienna

Great Falls is a trip back to the 90s.

Not sure what point you’re making because in terms of overall price Great Falls is more expensive than FCC and Vienna. It’s also more expensive than North Arlington as a whole and comparable to the more expensive parts of North Arlington (22207 as opposed to 22205).

Vienna is only “high-end” if you define that term expansively, but why bother since everything is relative.

Let me simplify this for you. Gaudy house on 100 acre land is more expensive than 2 bedroom condo on the Upper West Side. But Upper West side is more expensive than middle-of-nowhere gaudy house.

In other words, you're some North Arlington dweeb who thinks the higher price per square foot there compensates for the fact that the houses are often small and almost always on small lots. Great Falls is still (1) part of the discussion and (2) more expensive overall than North Arlington.

[When people leave the Upper West Side, as they often do, they often head to places in Westchester, New Jersey, and Long Island where the average home price costs more than the 2-BR condo they're leaving behind. And they still know they're moving up.]

You are right, at the end of the day price per sq ft dictates whether an area is considered expensive. The rest of the post is basically just rambling.

You're foolish. Buyers of residential property focus on the total purchase price, not the price per square foot.

[Anonymous]

Great Falls is where the geezers go to rest. Oh, and the tasteless gaudy McMansion builders who probably couldn't get that stuff approved in more refined parts of the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Just above ffx, oakton, west springfield

It’s a central area that makes commuting easier than most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just above ffx, oakton, west springfield

It’s a central area that makes commuting easier than most.

Unless you have to go to MD or DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:builder here. 1/3 acre Vienna lots go for $950K...1/2 acre over $1m - and IF you can even find it. Only McLean more expensive right now. Yes....Vienna is a high end area.

Ok “builder”. McLean has always been more expensive, not just right now.

Not only McLean. Arlington and the good parts of falls church are more expensive per sq foot than Vienna.

Haha agreed, the "builder" angle is hilarious since this data is public.

Per sq ft N.Arl>FCC>Mclean>Vienna

Overall price Mclean>N.Arl and FCC>Vienna

Great Falls is a trip back to the 90s.

Not sure what point you’re making because in terms of overall price Great Falls is more expensive than FCC and Vienna. It’s also more expensive than North Arlington as a whole and comparable to the more expensive parts of North Arlington (22207 as opposed to 22205).

Vienna is only “high-end” if you define that term expansively, but why bother since everything is relative.

Let me simplify this for you. Gaudy house on 100 acre land is more expensive than 2 bedroom condo on the Upper West Side. But Upper West side is more expensive than middle-of-nowhere gaudy house.

In other words, you're some North Arlington dweeb who thinks the higher price per square foot there compensates for the fact that the houses are often small and almost always on small lots. Great Falls is still (1) part of the discussion and (2) more expensive overall than North Arlington.

[When people leave the Upper West Side, as they often do, they often head to places in Westchester, New Jersey, and Long Island where the average home price costs more than the 2-BR condo they're leaving behind. And they still know they're moving up.]

You are right, at the end of the day price per sq ft dictates whether an area is considered expensive. The rest of the post is basically just rambling.

You're foolish. Buyers of residential property focus on the total purchase price, not the price per square foot.

And? The basis of the total purchase price is price per sq ft for the land and structure combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:builder here. 1/3 acre Vienna lots go for $950K...1/2 acre over $1m - and IF you can even find it. Only McLean more expensive right now. Yes....Vienna is a high end area.

Ok “builder”. McLean has always been more expensive, not just right now.

Not only McLean. Arlington and the good parts of falls church are more expensive per sq foot than Vienna.

Haha agreed, the "builder" angle is hilarious since this data is public.

Per sq ft N.Arl>FCC>Mclean>Vienna

Overall price Mclean>N.Arl and FCC>Vienna

Great Falls is a trip back to the 90s.

Not sure what point you’re making because in terms of overall price Great Falls is more expensive than FCC and Vienna. It’s also more expensive than North Arlington as a whole and comparable to the more expensive parts of North Arlington (22207 as opposed to 22205).

Vienna is only “high-end” if you define that term expansively, but why bother since everything is relative.

Let me simplify this for you. Gaudy house on 100 acre land is more expensive than 2 bedroom condo on the Upper West Side. But Upper West side is more expensive than middle-of-nowhere gaudy house.

In other words, you're some North Arlington dweeb who thinks the higher price per square foot there compensates for the fact that the houses are often small and almost always on small lots. Great Falls is still (1) part of the discussion and (2) more expensive overall than North Arlington.

[When people leave the Upper West Side, as they often do, they often head to places in Westchester, New Jersey, and Long Island where the average home price costs more than the 2-BR condo they're leaving behind. And they still know they're moving up.]

You are right, at the end of the day price per sq ft dictates whether an area is considered expensive. The rest of the post is basically just rambling.

You're foolish. Buyers of residential property focus on the total purchase price, not the price per square foot.

And? The basis of the total purchase price is price per sq ft for the land and structure combined.

There is a difference between the “basis” and a factor, and several factors determine the total purchase price, which is what matters most.

Again, there’s nothing controversial about this. Give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

I live in Vienna (town). We are not high end and we like it that way.

We have expensive homes, but we drive normal cars, most kids go to public, we love getting a beer and hanging out with neighbors, we love our dogs, block parties are a summer norm, and we like the kitschy town stuff like the Halloween parade, Viva Vienna, and random local bands on the green.

Basically we like the things ‘high end’ places would balk at.

You might like McLean or North Arlington for high end living.