Was Your Neighborhood Nicer 20 Years Ago?

[Anonymous]

22044 doesn't seem to have changed much (unfortunately). It's overdue for an overhaul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22044 doesn't seem to have changed much (unfortunately). It's overdue for an overhaul.

I really like 22044. It could be a great area, not sure why the development was mostly low-income housing and strip malls. I would much rather live there than my outside the beltway home.. but the schools....

[Anonymous]

There really seems to be a downward trend in maintaining homes. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but even in very expensive areas some homes and yards just look terrible. Do people not have pride anymore?

The avg home price in my neighborhood is probably $2M - 2.25M and some of the yards are horrendous. Shutters are peeling, old roofs, etc.

If you can't afford maintenance, sell the house and move to a nice condo!

[Anonymous]

Everything was less crowded 20 years ago. In a sense, it was more pleasant.

For places that gentrified and became less violent, it probably became "nicer" in terms of aesthetics and safety. But that also pushed out a lot of people with less means and stoked an affordability crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There really seems to be a downward trend in maintaining homes. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but even in very expensive areas some homes and yards just look terrible. Do people not have pride anymore?

The avg home price in my neighborhood is probably $2M - 2.25M and some of the yards are horrendous. Shutters are peeling, old roofs, etc.

If you can't afford maintenance, sell the house and move to a nice condo!

American homes built in 1950s-1970s - absent a major gut renovation - are coming up on the end of their lifespan.

That's A LOT of American housing stock. Something like 50% of the current housing stock was built in those three decades and they are all reaching the end of useable life. We not only have a major deferred infrastructure problem, but we also have a major deferred housing maintenance problem.

[Anonymous]

Don't really know from personal experience living here — 20 years ago, I lived in a different neighborhood (Dupont Circle then, Friendship Heights now, bunch of east of the Park neighborhoods in between). I didn't want to live here then and didn't come here that often except for specific destinations. I don't think the residential streets have changed that much, except for some renovations. The retail has obviously changed.

I guess I don't really ... care that much what the answer is? I don't know that I plan to be living in the same house 20 years from now, but anyway, cities and neighborhoods change, and this whole question is totally subjective. I may not like what things are like here in 2045, but someone else might. In which case they're a good person to sell my house to.

[Anonymous]

Mt. Pleasant. Nicer now.

[Anonymous]

Nope, no way. I would never have lived in my neighborhood 20 years ago and I live here pretty happily now.

Trinidad, DC. IYKYK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There really seems to be a downward trend in maintaining homes. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but even in very expensive areas some homes and yards just look terrible. Do people not have pride anymore?

The avg home price in my neighborhood is probably $2M - 2.25M and some of the yards are horrendous. Shutters are peeling, old roofs, etc.

If you can't afford maintenance, sell the house and move to a nice condo!

American homes built in 1950s-1970s - absent a major gut renovation - are coming up on the end of their lifespan.

That's A LOT of American housing stock. Something like 50% of the current housing stock was built in those three decades and they are all reaching the end of useable life. We not only have a major deferred infrastructure problem, but we also have a major deferred housing maintenance problem.

A lot of housing stock in New England is 100 years old. Why do you think these houses won't last another 50?

[Anonymous]

Isn't most of DC around 100 years old?

[Anonymous]

Bethesda, yes. Way more trees and no huge new houses on small lots. Our town picnic was grilling and potluck, now it’s catered - because it’s less work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There really seems to be a downward trend in maintaining homes. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but even in very expensive areas some homes and yards just look terrible. Do people not have pride anymore?

The avg home price in my neighborhood is probably $2M - 2.25M and some of the yards are horrendous. Shutters are peeling, old roofs, etc.

If you can't afford maintenance, sell the house and move to a nice condo!

American homes built in 1950s-1970s - absent a major gut renovation - are coming up on the end of their lifespan.

That's A LOT of American housing stock. Something like 50% of the current housing stock was built in those three decades and they are all reaching the end of useable life. We not only have a major deferred infrastructure problem, but we also have a major deferred housing maintenance problem.

Why would these houses be coming up on the end of their lifespan? My first non-condo house was built in 1914 and is still in great shape (we no longer own it, but my former neighbors would report if it, like, fell down).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There really seems to be a downward trend in maintaining homes. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but even in very expensive areas some homes and yards just look terrible. Do people not have pride anymore?

The avg home price in my neighborhood is probably $2M - 2.25M and some of the yards are horrendous. Shutters are peeling, old roofs, etc.

If you can't afford maintenance, sell the house and move to a nice condo!

American homes built in 1950s-1970s - absent a major gut renovation - are coming up on the end of their lifespan.

That's A LOT of American housing stock. Something like 50% of the current housing stock was built in those three decades and they are all reaching the end of useable life. We not only have a major deferred infrastructure problem, but we also have a major deferred housing maintenance problem.

A lot of housing stock in New England is 100 years old. Why do you think these houses won't last another 50?

Things were built better 100 years ago relative to the 1960-70s. My home was built in 1927 and it's a brick & plaster tank; last gut renovation was in the 1990s with other modernizing upgrades since then. Many of the 100 year-old homes in New England have been lovingly gut renovated since initial construction.

Homes from the 60s and 70s? Aluminum windows are failing, cheap masonry, plywood construction susceptible to mold and rot, asbestos, stucco has a 60-year lifespan before it starts failing (and that's with proper maintenance), outdated wiring, etc. And most of these have NOT been gut renovated and I question whether the current generation of home buyers has the financial means to renovate these homes on top of high prices & 7% interest rates.

[Anonymous]

DC, H St NE corridor. Definitely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There really seems to be a downward trend in maintaining homes. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what, but even in very expensive areas some homes and yards just look terrible. Do people not have pride anymore?

The avg home price in my neighborhood is probably $2M - 2.25M and some of the yards are horrendous. Shutters are peeling, old roofs, etc.

If you can't afford maintenance, sell the house and move to a nice condo!

American homes built in 1950s-1970s - absent a major gut renovation - are coming up on the end of their lifespan.

That's A LOT of American housing stock. Something like 50% of the current housing stock was built in those three decades and they are all reaching the end of useable life. We not only have a major deferred infrastructure problem, but we also have a major deferred housing maintenance problem.

A lot of housing stock in New England is 100 years old. Why do you think these houses won't last another 50?

Things were built better 100 years ago relative to the 1960-70s. My home was built in 1927 and it's a brick & plaster tank; last gut renovation was in the 1990s with other modernizing upgrades since then. Many of the 100 year-old homes in New England have been lovingly gut renovated since initial construction.

Homes from the 60s and 70s? Aluminum windows are failing, cheap masonry, plywood construction susceptible to mold and rot, asbestos, stucco has a 60-year lifespan before it starts failing (and that's with proper maintenance), outdated wiring, etc. And most of these have NOT been gut renovated and I question whether the current generation of home buyers has the financial means to renovate these homes on top of high prices & 7% interest rates.

There were a lot of crappy houses build 100 years ago, but most of them have been torn down. There were some that were built well, and they are generally the ones that are still around.