Why do people in the DC area hate newer and larger homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like McMansions -- cookie cutter homes made with the cheapest possible parts. They're just not "charming." That doesn't mean I am a part of the "movement"..it's just my preference. I like smaller homes where I can actually see my family on a regular basis instead of them being on the other side of 6000 sq ft (example). Also, I don't want to heat/cool a big house. Again, just a preference.

Hahaha...this is funny. My first house was one of about 8 models in my 1960's neighborhood. When I sold the house, literally two of the listed comps were the exact same model of home with different design choices (and my house was different because the one car garage had been converted to another bedroom and a family room addition had been added onto the back making mine have more square footage than those comps). As for cheapest possible parts, when we built our current McMansion, I hired a general contractor recommended by my insurance company (who I trusted because he had done a good job on my insurance claim in the old house several years earlier) to come in and do two walk-throughs during construction, one for pre-drywall and one for final walk-through. He has worked in MD for over 25 years and knows the construction codes very thoroughly. During pre-drywall walk-through he commented how solidly built the construction was, pointed out several places where the builder had exceeded code requirements for the state and/or county where I live and several places where the builder had gone the extra mile to do something better than the minimum required. We were quite pleased and have been quite pleased for the last 7 years. This house has given us far fewer issues than several of my friends who have classic pre WWII "charming" homes with charming 80 year old problems and huge $$$ repair/renovation/replacement costs.

And despite our nearly 4000 sf, my family of four spends the majority of our time together. What we like about the extra space is not individual space, but a purpose for every place and not having to put everything related to one task/job/project/pasttime to work on another. We don't have an office and guest room doing double duty. The kids playroom and the family room are separate places. I don't have to find "creative storage" to hide kids' toys. I don't have to find ways to use the space 6 feet above my head because I don't have room to store anything else. And I no longer have to do my laundry in the kitchen.

Oh yeah, and my large house sits very nicely on my .42 acre lot with big front and back yards. I'm also 4 miles outside the beltway and can get downtown in 25-30 minutes, so I'm not in the middle of exurbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate them so much to the point it becomes some religious or political movement.

I wonder if housing was cheaper around here that there would be less complaining and hate for them.

I'm from Main Line Philadelphia and certainly have an appreciation for large estates privately commissioned and built with quality materials. Nothing against a proper mansion, but those are rarely built in this country anymore and certainly not in Washington. Unless we are talking Wesley Heights, what you are referring to as a "mansion" is cheap dry wall over wood frame covered with brick facade ( 1/2 of a brick placed to look like a brick over cinder blcok or some other cheep garbage). "stone overlay over cinder block" . It looks and feels dead and is absolutely hideous. Developers throw this garbage up and try to maximally extract as much capital out of the land. In 25 years its full of mold and half falling down…..but heck, the " developer" has made a quick buck.

So, to restate, no one is against a beautiful home, but they aren't being built.

[Anonymous]

I don't mind large/new houses for others - some are beautiful. But, for myself, I do prefer smaller, older and of course well-maintained.

I do have a tough time understanding why some people choose to live very far out and still have very little space between their neighbors. Some of the houses in the newer neighborhoods are practically on top of each other. I guess I'd want to have more space if I was going to live far out. But since I don't have to live there myself it's more of a curiosity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate them so much to the point it becomes some religious or political movement.

I wonder if housing was cheaper around here that there would be less complaining and hate for them.

I'm from Main Line Philadelphia and certainly have an appreciation for large estates privately commissioned and built with quality materials. Nothing against a proper mansion, but those are rarely built in this country anymore and certainly not in Washington. Unless we are talking Wesley Heights, what you are referring to as a "mansion" is cheap dry wall over wood frame covered with brick facade ( 1/2 of a brick placed to look like a brick over cinder blcok or some other cheep garbage). "stone overlay over cinder block" . It looks and feels dead and is absolutely hideous. Developers throw this garbage up and try to maximally extract as much capital out of the land. In 25 years its full of mold and half falling down…..but heck, the " developer" has made a quick buck.

So, to restate, no one is against a beautiful home, but they aren't being built.

So if you built a new home what would you use for wall? Cinder blocks covered with hand mined granite?

I still don't understand why people think that new homes are going to magically fall apart at year 25 and have mold? In fact my old 50s rambler had a lot of issues with mold until we properly sealed the basement walls and installed a modern drain system.

[Anonymous]

NP to the mold topic - anecdotally, "everyone" (3 families) I know with new houses have had unexpected mold problems, due to shoddy plumbing work. There were otherwise high- end homes too. I don't know how many friends with older houses have had mold problems. Possibly, old houses are constantly being repaired so no one thinks twice of a budding (but fixed) mold problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people in DC tend to be better educated and more worldly, and thus are able to either "make do" with 2,000 SF (or less sometimes) to be in a good, urban, walkable environment, or see their dream home as something large but not strangling. Like 4,000 SF, not 10,000. And being better educated, they value design and aesthetic over opulence.

Of course, there are the outliers who are very wealthy and want the 10,000 SF frontgate design home. Different strokes for difft folks.

I have seen some well-educated people's homes in the DC area that are as ugly as homemade sin. Education and money don't guarantee taste, and I don't get why you would think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like McMansions -- cookie cutter homes made with the cheapest possible parts. They're just not "charming." That doesn't mean I am a part of the "movement"..it's just my preference. I like smaller homes where I can actually see my family on a regular basis instead of them being on the other side of 6000 sq ft (example). Also, I don't want to heat/cool a big house. Again, just a preference.

Hahaha...this is funny. My first house was one of about 8 models in my 1960's neighborhood. When I sold the house, literally two of the listed comps were the exact same model of home with different design choices (and my house was different because the one car garage had been converted to another bedroom and a family room addition had been added onto the back making mine have more square footage than those comps). As for cheapest possible parts, when we built our current McMansion, I hired a general contractor recommended by my insurance company (who I trusted because he had done a good job on my insurance claim in the old house several years earlier) to come in and do two walk-throughs during construction, one for pre-drywall and one for final walk-through. He has worked in MD for over 25 years and knows the construction codes very thoroughly. During pre-drywall walk-through he commented how solidly built the construction was, pointed out several places where the builder had exceeded code requirements for the state and/or county where I live and several places where the builder had gone the extra mile to do something better than the minimum required. We were quite pleased and have been quite pleased for the last 7 years. This house has given us far fewer issues than several of my friends who have classic pre WWII "charming" homes with charming 80 year old problems and huge $$$ repair/renovation/replacement costs.

And despite our nearly 4000 sf, my family of four spends the majority of our time together. What we like about the extra space is not individual space, but a purpose for every place and not having to put everything related to one task/job/project/pasttime to work on another. We don't have an office and guest room doing double duty. The kids playroom and the family room are separate places. I don't have to find "creative storage" to hide kids' toys. I don't have to find ways to use the space 6 feet above my head because I don't have room to store anything else. And I no longer have to do my laundry in the kitchen.

NP here, but I laughed at the idea that a 1960s house is old. Yes, houses then were cookie cutter and many (not all, I know, I know) new homes are cookie cutter seeming too. I don't think when people describe the charm of older houses, they are talking about the 60s. I think they are talking about a bit older than that. The house I grew up in was built in the 1800s and I adored it. Yes it had maintenance issues. Pipes froze. There was no central AC. Floors creaked. We had to find "creative storage." But that is what I grew up with, and it is what I love. I do sometimes feel drawn to new houses, but they tend to be the new ones that are constructed to look deliberately like older colonials or victorians, but with some of the modern perks you describe. Unfortunately, I feel like those are few and far between, not just here, but most places since for the most part I think they are bespoke/custom architected. And while I say this is my ultimate house (on a lot with mature trees, of course) I don't have any interest in overseeing a full house construction from scratch.

So where does that leave me? Probably looking at old houses. Personal preference, but I don't care what you do or where you live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old home lover here. I do think construction has improved, and one could in principle build a better built home now than in the past. The problem is that a great number of builders now don't use the available technology but instead rely on the cheapest possible way to mass produce homes of inferior craftsmanship than yesteryear.

Which is why a house built in 1975 isn't going to last as long as the one built in 1880. The walls in our rowhouse let in no sound and you can't punch a hole in the wall.

Not much resembling Notre Dame, Sagrada Familia, St Basils, etc.

The majority of new home builders use crap materials and put these things up in a few months time.

The capability to build more efficient homes is there--just not frequently utilized.

Not all rowhomes in DC are like that. Our 90 year old semi-detached had NO sound buffer I'm the separating wall. It was infuriating. So apparently they built cheap in 1925 too. The brickwork was also shit.

[Anonymous]

I love that PPs think 2800 sq ft or 3300 sq ft is a smallish home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP to the mold topic - anecdotally, "everyone" (3 families) I know with new houses have had unexpected mold problems, due to shoddy plumbing work. There were otherwise high- end homes too. I don't know how many friends with older houses have had mold problems. Possibly, old houses are constantly being repaired so no one thinks twice of a budding (but fixed) mold problem.

And my experience is the exact opposite. I lived in one of the MD Levittowns built from the late 1950's to the early 1970's. From my plumber, he mentioned that the Levitt machine used so many problematic materials, especially copper piping that was nowhere near up to today's code and that he himself had serviced over 100 of the homes in the community (over about a 20 year period) that had problems with pinhole leaks that caused innumerable problems some quite major and some creating mold issues. In 2001, I came home to find my kitchen ceiling sitting on the kitchen floor exposing my rambler attic letting all of my household's heat out. It was caused by a pinhole leak in the copper pipes. In 2008 when we had moved out and the house was on the market, another leak in a different piece of the pipe burst in two places and caused the destruction of about 75% of the house. Thank to the insurance and about $10K of our money for renovations, we were able to add a huge amount of value to the house and sold it for than we could have gotten before the accident, although we had to take the house off the market for 6 months. Conversely, in our McMansion neighborhood, I know a few dozen families through the HOA and community events and none of them have had any major plumbing problems because the PVC piping is better lasting than the old copper piping.

Construction that meets current modern code is significantly more reliable than anything built post-WWII.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I was thinking of houses built after 2010 vs houses from before WWII (even before WWI). No experience with 1950-1970s houses.

[Anonymous]

Don't hate newer, as long as they're well designed
Don't hate larger, as long as they fit the lot.

We live in an area that has seen a lot of tear downs recently. Some are lovely - well designed and fit the lots. We've been fortunate to have a couple in our immediate neighborhood (not surprisingly, built by someone who lives in the area and knows the neighborhood).

Others are hot messes - generic looking, or weird designs so that a 4000sf home can fit onto a sub-divided and narrow lot. They're just unattractive. Too many of these look like the builder is in it for the flip/quick profit, rather than building a nice home. I don't understand why anyone would then pay $1-2million or more for one of these homes.

We have one of the smaller, older homes that receive a lot of criticism on this and other threads. We bought it because of the location, its floor plan, and the fact that it was turnkey - we haven't had to do anything major since we've moved in, and our inspector mentioned how well-built it was. That said, a new home has appeal, and our older home isn't historic or necessarily worth "saving." But once I started looking into teardown/new build options, there doesn't seem to be much that fits my criteria. Ideal would be less than 3000sf, and more modern. Just the size alone seems to preclude most builders. And good design (modern or otherwise), what a PP called "bespoke architecture", just doesn't seem to happen around here (with the possible exception of Hugh Newell Jacobsen.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't hate newer, as long as they're well designed
Don't hate larger, as long as they fit the lot.

We live in an area that has seen a lot of tear downs recently. Some are lovely - well designed and fit the lots. We've been fortunate to have a couple in our immediate neighborhood (not surprisingly, built by someone who lives in the area and knows the neighborhood).

Others are hot messes - generic looking, or weird designs so that a 4000sf home can fit onto a sub-divided and narrow lot. They're just unattractive. Too many of these look like the builder is in it for the flip/quick profit, rather than building a nice home. I don't understand why anyone would then pay $1-2million or more for one of these homes.

We have one of the smaller, older homes that receive a lot of criticism on this and other threads. We bought it because of the location, its floor plan, and the fact that it was turnkey - we haven't had to do anything major since we've moved in, and our inspector mentioned how well-built it was. That said, a new home has appeal, and our older home isn't historic or necessarily worth "saving." But once I started looking into teardown/new build options, there doesn't seem to be much that fits my criteria. Ideal would be less than 3000sf, and more modern. Just the size alone seems to preclude most builders. And good design (modern or otherwise), what a PP called "bespoke architecture", just doesn't seem to happen around here (with the possible exception of Hugh Newell Jacobsen.)

.

"older homes that receive a lot of criticism on this and other threads. "

Judging from your "hot mess" and "unattractive", Here's the difference, people who LIVE in the older homes criticize the older homes.

People who live in the newer ones don't care either way.

The people criticizing the newer homes are the ones living in the older ones.

[Anonymous]

this is sad http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5015-Rugby-Ave-Bethesda-MD-20814/37166623_zpid/

I grew up around here in bethesda (Rugby avenue when Bethesda wasn't cool. that house is/was a lovely red brick capecod w/ 3 bedrooms and now it'll have 7. truly sad to see Bethesda sell to the mac mansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate them so much to the point it becomes some religious or political movement.

I wonder if housing was cheaper around here that there would be less complaining and hate for them.

I'm from Main Line Philadelphia and certainly have an appreciation for large estates privately commissioned and built with quality materials. Nothing against a proper mansion, but those are rarely built in this country anymore and certainly not in Washington. Unless we are talking Wesley Heights, what you are referring to as a "mansion" is cheap dry wall over wood frame covered with brick facade ( 1/2 of a brick placed to look like a brick over cinder blcok or some other cheep garbage). "stone overlay over cinder block" . It looks and feels dead and is absolutely hideous. Developers throw this garbage up and try to maximally extract as much capital out of the land. In 25 years its full of mold and half falling down…..but heck, the " developer" has made a quick buck.

So, to restate, no one is against a beautiful home, but they aren't being built.

This is an idiotic comment. In the DC area, no matter what price you are spending, residential homes are going to be poured concrete basement and wood framed above grade. The exterior is always a veneer applied on top of the wood framing, whether this is full brick, stone, stucco, hardie plank, or cheap vinyl siding. This is true from $250k homes way out in the boonies, to $15M mansions. Of course, the work done and grade of materials used will differ, so the better built homes will have much better quality in all aspects. But the usage of veneers as a construction method is fairly universal and does not correlate with quality in the DC area. Philly area building methods may be different due to weather and building code, so it's foolish to say just because DC area building methods are different, that they are inferior. You want to see some cheaply built large homes, go drive around in Texas.