Why do people hate new builds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

That's kind of logic soup.

But, conceding that, based on current zoning, the demand for square feet is typically greater than the demand for old houses with "charm" is potentially a start towards some measure of self-awareness.

You can call it logic soup if you like, I think the case is clear.

I also think the demand for sheer footage to house people is clear. We have a lot of people who want to live close to DC, esp close to metro. There is unmet demand for THs, for condos/apts, for small houses, and for large SFHs. I believe if the market were free, that demand would result in the smaller SFHs, at least the best located ones, being torn down and replaced by THs and multifamily. The heavy hand of the state prevents that, resulting in McMansions.

I also think that smaller older SFHs vary in their amount of charm. I think the more charming ones will resist longer, but the sheer force of economics ways against them.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

I don't hate new builds. However, my good friend did tear down her old small house and put up a huge new build (choosing from one of four models). I am pretty sure this is a mcmansion, and though it is nice that they have the space, and I love an open floor plan, etc., it really does lack character. I'm not saying I wouldn't live there, just that it's not my dream home.

That said, I don't think all new builds necessarily lack character.

We have a small colonial, and we did knock out a wall in the kitchen to get a more open flow in the kitchen and have a larger space. We matched the old hardwood floors which I think are lovely, but I also love our new cabinets and countertops, so I'm all for out-with-the-old in-with-the-new. We also gutted our 1940s bathroom upstairs and totally redid everything. Love it so much more and it's bigger given the inches we saved from the newer materials vs. the old clunky tile, tub, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate new builds. However, my good friend did tear down her old small house and put up a huge new build (choosing from one of four models). I am pretty sure this is a mcmansion, and though it is nice that they have the space, and I love an open floor plan, etc., it really does lack character. I'm not saying I wouldn't live there, just that it's not my dream home.

That said, I don't think all new builds necessarily lack character.

We have a small colonial, and we did knock out a wall in the kitchen to get a more open flow in the kitchen and have a larger space. We matched the old hardwood floors which I think are lovely, but I also love our new cabinets and countertops, so I'm all for out-with-the-old in-with-the-new. We also gutted our 1940s bathroom upstairs and totally redid everything. Love it so much more and it's bigger given the inches we saved from the newer materials vs. the old clunky tile, tub, etc.

Ok. So you you did a renovation. I think most people who live in older homes want new finishes in keeping with the style of the home. No one is really suggesting that people wig charming older homes want to keep the crumbling original tile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate new builds. However, my good friend did tear down her old small house and put up a huge new build (choosing from one of four models). I am pretty sure this is a mcmansion, and though it is nice that they have the space, and I love an open floor plan, etc., it really does lack character. I'm not saying I wouldn't live there, just that it's not my dream home.

That said, I don't think all new builds necessarily lack character.

We have a small colonial, and we did knock out a wall in the kitchen to get a more open flow in the kitchen and have a larger space. We matched the old hardwood floors which I think are lovely, but I also love our new cabinets and countertops, so I'm all for out-with-the-old in-with-the-new. We also gutted our 1940s bathroom upstairs and totally redid everything. Love it so much more and it's bigger given the inches we saved from the newer materials vs. the old clunky tile, tub, etc.

What do you consider a "small colonial"? We bought a 2,000 sq ft colonial on half an acre in Prince William County during the crash for 260k because that's what we could afford. I consider our house pretty large though clearly not as large as the aforementioned McMansions. If we had the money to buy new construction we would have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Agree with the above.

[Anonymous]

I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

The discussion of aesthetics here takes place largely in a vacuum, but the effort to recast resentment as a matter of "tastes" is palpable.

If I had to guess, you're an Ivy League grad who is or was a federal employee, and the notion that someone who went to a lower-ranked school did well and bought a gorgeous new home, while you spent your evenings in a small house or townhouse in Rockville or Annandale never quite seemed fair to you.

[Anonymous]

I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Agree with the above.

Well put. Are people ( without taste) self aware of their lack of it? I mean enough to be threatened by someone questioning their self created algorithm of big house - aesthetics x mediocre materials = made it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Agree with the above.

Well put. Are people ( without taste) self aware of their lack of it? I mean enough to be threatened by someone questioning their self created algorithm of big house - aesthetics x mediocre materials = made it.

what are these mediocre materials?

I have ripped open old houses and new houses and believe me the stuff inside the new homes are much better.

[Anonymous]

Housing is very expensive in the DC area so high earners who live in old cruddy tract homes from the 20s-60s have to talk down on new construction to make themselves feel better.

[Anonymous]

Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

I have even seen the barebone low cost new builds and they are vastly Superior because mandatory modern building codes. I would argue the bones are much better than 90% of the old construction including the cheap new homes. The only thing that really differentiates the cheap vs expensive new homes are the finishing which are interchangeable.