Is this a $2.2 mil house?

[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

Prepare for lift-off in 3, 2, 1....

[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

What we are seeing is the trend of building homes that look small or less affluent due to the guilt and the recent recession. We will start going back to the above homes now that things are getting better. Personally I hate the new modest look homes and prefer the ones above.

[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.

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.

So you prefer all siding and no stone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Location is fabulous. It's definitely a $2m house. I don't think it will go much less than $2.1m.

Agreed- it's all of nine-hundred feet from Whole Foods and 5 minutes from two prime metros and Edgewood is not a major street (it's well traveled but not an artery). The big Mickey-Simpson houses (like this one) peaked at $2.3 in 2008 and were selling for $1.6 after 2008. I think that this one is actually the original Mickey model. Super nice, I've been in it, finishes are all high end and there is tons of room. I bet that it will sell close to asking. Still, most LV houses under $1.5 sell instantly where-as above that they can sit.

[Anonymous]

If people are so hot to buy $2.0 M homes in Lyon Village, I wonder why this house has been on the market since the spring and hasn't been snapped up.

http://franklymls.com/AR8051598

For the most part, Lyon Village strikes me as $875-$1.8M territory, depending on the house.

[Anonymous]

Imagine how pleasant Lyon Village would be if it were still full of the original homes like this and hadn't been ruined by all the 6,000-SF "Kow-A-Bungalows."

http://franklymls.com/AR8127991

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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

The pictures look nice, because you tend to envision a neighborhood full of similar homes. If you've actually seen a typical Mickey Simpson home, though, you realize that they are massive, take up almost all of the lots, and tower over the nearby houses. They've ruined the aesthetics of our neighborhoods completely.

[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???

Because very few areas of DC check the box on both "city living" and "good for families." Usually it's one or the other. The choice to live in Arlington to enjoy all the benefits of a close-in, urban-style location PLUS suburban benefits for families is a no-brainer for families who are inclined that way and can afford it.

[Anonymous]

I like the house a lot. I even like the house in the neighborhood. I don't think it is an eyesore at all. I think it a very well-designed, comfortable, and functional house if you have a large family. The location is also pretty fantastic. I can't speak to whether it is worth 2.2 million, but I would buy it in a heartbeat if it were in my budget (which is closer to 1.5).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine how pleasant Lyon Village would be if it were still full of the original homes like this and hadn't been ruined by all the 6,000-SF "Kow-A-Bungalows."

http://franklymls.com/AR8127991

You mean the brick shit-box Capes and colonials with tiny rooms, 1.5 baths and galley kitchens? Yeah.... I love this conversation. Plus the listing you posted is fugly.

For the record, there are TWO major Lyon Village zones- East and West of Highland: West, you have lots of legitimately attractive center-halls that would be a shame to tear down; East you have shit-box land. Well East (near key) you get into decrepit bungalow land. Regardless, the house in question is definitely on the East side on a street that is 50/50 newer build and smaller older house- it really doesn't stand out and it definitely replaced a 1930's tract cape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Damn ugly and no attached garage

Big ass garage doors are so pretty from the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand people complaining about small lots in close-in semi-urban areas- are they expecting that they will be deprived off their dreams to start a hobby farm near Clarendon.

That's a straw-man argument that ignores the fact these 5,000-SF houses have no business on small lots where properly sized houses once stood. The teardown phenomenon has been particularly pernicious in Arlington and has destroyed the scale and attractiveness of its neighborhoods.

Enjoy your Mickey Simpson homes, your Hummers, and your crass, Big Gulp lifestyles.

awww. Did your neighbor sell out to a developer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn ugly and no attached garage

Big ass garage doors are so pretty from the street.

Better than detached in the asphalt backyard ohhhhhhhh burn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine how pleasant Lyon Village would be if it were still full of the original homes like this and hadn't been ruined by all the 6,000-SF "Kow-A-Bungalows."

http://franklymls.com/AR8127991

You mean the brick shit-box Capes and colonials with tiny rooms, 1.5 baths and galley kitchens? Yeah.... I love this conversation. Plus the listing you posted is fugly.

For the record, there are TWO major Lyon Village zones- East and West of Highland: West, you have lots of legitimately attractive center-halls that would be a shame to tear down; East you have shit-box land. Well East (near key) you get into decrepit bungalow land. Regardless, the house in question is definitely on the East side on a street that is 50/50 newer build and smaller older house- it really doesn't stand out and it definitely replaced a 1930's tract cape.

do you really talk like in real life? so unnecessarily crass.

I didn't bother with the link (annoying Frankly MLS website), but there haven't been many of the cute little houses on the market recently. There was one last year that never went on MLS, but it was torn down right away.

[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

Really? These just look like they are trying to be "classic" and covering parts of them with faux stone facades. Talk about looking fake...