New Construction vs. Old

[Anonymous]

I have lived in both old (30s through 70s) and new and prefer new. I did find myself justifying why old was awesome before I could afford new.

[Anonymous]

I like $1M+, pre-war old or $3M+ new (as long as it's not McMansion-y or overdone).

Everything in-between is depressing and cookie-cutter. I live in the in-between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

On par with ramblers? HAHAHAHAHAH, note the 1.7 million price tag, the fact they are everywhere (in demand). You can't deny the fact that 7000 SF is much more livable than 1000. Anyways... You can argue asthetics but the fact is the new homes have low maintenance, are more insulated, have better floor plans and are more comfortable.

Excuse me, pardon my awesomeness!!!

Wow. That is one ugly Jiffy Lube house.

[Anonymous]

yeah, that is a not a great example of attractive new construction. i'm sure we can find something prettier and less generic than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On par with ramblers? HAHAHAHAHAH, note the 1.7 million price tag, the fact they are everywhere (in demand). You can't deny the fact that 7000 SF is much more livable than 1000. Anyways... You can argue asthetics but the fact is the new homes have low maintenance, are more insulated, have better floor plans and are more comfortable.

Excuse me, pardon my awesomeness!!!

Wow. That is one ugly Jiffy Lube house.

The majority of buyers prefer front facing 3 car garages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like $1M+, pre-war old or $3M+ new (as long as it's not McMansion-y or overdone).

Everything in-between is depressing and cookie-cutter. I live in the in-between.

I feel the same way. My problem is I only have $700K to spend on renovating an early-1940's Colonial or rebuilding. I know that rebuilding at that price point will get me a cookie-cutter depressing house but it seems like spending $500,000 on a renovation is also a lot. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Aesthetics aside, one nice thing about new construction that I have experienced is lower utilities. I pay 120/month for electricity which includes heating/cooling a 2k sq ft home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On par with ramblers? HAHAHAHAHAH, note the 1.7 million price tag, the fact they are everywhere (in demand). You can't deny the fact that 7000 SF is much more livable than 1000. Anyways... You can argue asthetics but the fact is the new homes have low maintenance, are more insulated, have better floor plans and are more comfortable.

Excuse me, pardon my awesomeness!!!

[fug]https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/57/bigphoto/090/FX8359090_0.jpg[/fug]

Wow. That is one ugly Jiffy Lube house.

The majority of buyers prefer front facing 3 car garages.

Why don't you post the link to that article again to "prove" it. Then maybe you will convince us this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aesthetics aside, one nice thing about new construction that I have experienced is lower utilities. I pay 120/month for electricity which includes heating/cooling a 2k sq ft home.

But aesthetics are huge! I don't want to live in an ugly new home but "at least I'm saving on utilities".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say they don't like new builds. They don't like the tacky vinyl caverns (with brick front!) with 7000 sqft and no charm. These fucking things seem to be all over the place in NoVa, and it looks awful. I would say these new builds are on par in terms of aesthetics with a lot of the shitty ramblers they are replacing.

Personally, I like well built homes. I have lived in places where the nicest custom homes were built in the 90s. I have lived in other places where the best built homes were from the 40s and earlier. It all depends on how the area developed. Much of the inner ring DC suburbs were middle and lower-middle class until very recently, and the housing stock reflects that. The frustrating thing about the market around here is that so much of the housing stock - both new builds as well as the older homes - is of low quality.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.

For sake of completeness, much of DC was built as middle and lower-middle-class housing, and at various times it's been ghetto housing and obscenely expensive for what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say they don't like new builds. They don't like the tacky vinyl caverns (with brick front!) with 7000 sqft and no charm. These fucking things seem to be all over the place in NoVa, and it looks awful. I would say these new builds are on par in terms of aesthetics with a lot of the shitty ramblers they are replacing.

Personally, I like well built homes. I have lived in places where the nicest custom homes were built in the 90s. I have lived in other places where the best built homes were from the 40s and earlier. It all depends on how the area developed. Much of the inner ring DC suburbs were middle and lower-middle class until very recently, and the housing stock reflects that. The frustrating thing about the market around here is that so much of the housing stock - both new builds as well as the older homes - is of low quality.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.

For sake of completeness, much of DC was built as middle and lower-middle-class housing, and at various times it's been ghetto housing and obscenely expensive for what it is.