Is this a $2.2 mil house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My parents still live in the same house in Fairfax Co that I grew up. My mom declared 'the suburbs are dead" about 5 years ago. It was the dream in the early 70s. Now people want close-in, transit and walkability. There will still many that value land, but truth is close-in is out of reach for most people nowadays.

Right. This entire area has been booming in recent years. The growth rate in Loudoun County's population between 2010 and 2012 was almost 3% higher than the growth rate for DC. We moved closer in a few years ago to cut down on our commute, but we sold our home in a car-dependent Fairfax County suburb at a nice profit to a young Asian family that apparently hadn't gotten your mom's memo. And that house has appreciated at least another $100K since we sold it.

People ought to do what's best for them, and not feel the need to turn their personal choices into some zeitgeist to feed their own egos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this house! We rented around the corner and the kids were always at the path or nearby elem. school. I never get people bitching about a small yard in a location like this. It is urban/city living. Less to mow!

Here's the thing I don't understand: if you want urban/city living, why not live in the city? I truly don't understand why anyone would pay $2M to live in Arlington. If you want city living, buy in D.C. If you want suburban living, buy in McLean or Great Falls. Arlington has none of the appeal of a city and little appeal of the suburbs other than decent public schools. And honestly, private schools are better anyway, so if you could afford a $2M house, why on earth would you send your kids to Arlington public schools???

We have HHI of over $2MM in Country Club Hills, and we send our kids to Arlington public schools. Why on earth would that bother you?

I'll tell you why we live in Arlington - because it is very well-managed area, with excellent community services and kind, down to earth neighbors. The kids are thriving, my DH's commute is short. And did I mention we get all this with a lower tax burden than the folks across the river?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this house! We rented around the corner and the kids were always at the path or nearby elem. school. I never get people bitching about a small yard in a location like this. It is urban/city living. Less to mow!

Here's the thing I don't understand: if you want urban/city living, why not live in the city? I truly don't understand why anyone would pay $2M to live in Arlington. If you want city living, buy in D.C. If you want suburban living, buy in McLean or Great Falls. Arlington has none of the appeal of a city and little appeal of the suburbs other than decent public schools. And honestly, private schools are better anyway, so if you could afford a $2M house, why on earth would you send your kids to Arlington public schools???

We have HHI of over $2MM in Country Club Hills, and we send our kids to Arlington public schools. Why on earth would that bother you?

I'll tell you why we live in Arlington - because it is very well-managed area, with excellent community services and kind, down to earth neighbors. The kids are thriving, my DH's commute is short. And did I mention we get all this with a lower tax burden than the folks across the river?

Hey neighbor! Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.

If you have to explain that then you are making new homes wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.

some of the other models aren't quite so massive. this one is plenty big enough (similar to the one OP posted, but "without the FOURTH floor") and would have fit the street better. still big, but not as massive.
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-fillmore-model.html

I personally love this one - probably still bigger than we need - but I love the look:
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-lancaster-model.html

[Anonymous]

I think this house is beautiful! Don't know about $2m..it's so beyond anything I could afford that I can't process $1.75 vs. $2m vs. $2.25m.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.

Well, I think it's gorgeous, builder home or reno, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this house is beautiful! Don't know about $2m..it's so beyond anything I could afford that I can't process $1.75 vs. $2m vs. $2.25m.

I love it! However, it is really too big for my family of 4. 6 bedrooms and all of that square footage are well beyond what I could fathom needing or cleaning. Plus- I'd then have to downsize once the kids moved out.

For a large family--it looks great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.

some of the other models aren't quite so massive. this one is plenty big enough (similar to the one OP posted, but "without the FOURTH floor") and would have fit the street better. still big, but not as massive.
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-fillmore-model.html

I personally love this one - probably still bigger than we need - but I love the look:
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-lancaster-model.html

These homes are pretty tacky especially the Italian one.

Point being, stop trying to create a new home that is attempting to look old or classic, it's fake as shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.

some of the other models aren't quite so massive. this one is plenty big enough (similar to the one OP posted, but "without the FOURTH floor") and would have fit the street better. still big, but not as massive.
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-fillmore-model.html

I personally love this one - probably still bigger than we need - but I love the look:
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-lancaster-model.html

These homes are pretty tacky especially the Italian one.

Point being, stop trying to create a new home that is attempting to look old or classic, it's fake as shit.

can you please provide an example of a new home that doesn't look tacky then? you're saying it shouldn't look old or classic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:

Here is what I look for in a new home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.

this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.

Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:

Here is what I look for in a new home

The first and third homes are hideous.