taking up all of the lot, being made of crappy material, towering over other homes, all of these reasons are why ppl hate new builds. older homes, even those built for the working class were made with better materials and better craftsmanship. I live in a house built in 1924 and while my husband is a little horrified by the upkeep, I love it and aspire to live in a proper prewar or 19th century house when we move or something totally new and modern but suited to the lot size if its a SFH. I love the leaded glass and the wood and cool plaster walls, also the high ceilings and gracious size of the rooms. I have original closets that have al of the built ins a flapper would've had, I love it, down to the wallpaper and the tiny chandelier- its adorable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.

If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.

+1

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.

If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.

+1

Someday the new builds will be torn down. I can’t see that style ever lasting or being meant to last, unlike prewar buildings.

My town is filled with homes built in the 1700 and 1800s. Mine is from 1940 and solid as a rock.

The junk from the ‘80s is tear down. Not the older stuff.

Anonymous wrote:I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.

If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.

+1

I live in a row house that is more than 100 years old. If it is maintained it will still be here 100 years from now. The new builds are made with much cheaper material and are already falling apart. Also most old houses have craftsmanship that most can't afford today.

Let's see. One family castle is from the late 17th century. The other was started in the medieval ages and was added to continually until the 19th century. The walls are several feet thick. No need for A/C.

My house is very new - it's only a hundred years old.

Modern builds with passive solar features and other energy-reducing features are great too!

There are English farm houses that predate Columbus sailing the ocean blue that are still being lived in.

I hate that all of the new builds in our neighborhood are enormously gigantic. They tower over every other house and take up every inch of the lot, so much so they cause other houses to flood.

If new builds were 4,000 sq feet with a backyard instead of 8,000 sq feet with no yard, I'd like them so much more. Right now I have a strong preference for older houses with well done additions. They tend to be around the 4,000 sq ft and keep the backyard, but aren't as small as the 2,000 sq ft original builds.

In Europe some houses are centuries old. So they do last forever. Or should be built to do so.

Some houses are worth keeping, most are not. I don’t have a problem with tear downs as long as the new one isn’t too large for the space. I think new houses elevate the look of the whole neighborhood if done well. I used to live in a 1960’s house and the layout was terrible. I wouldn’t be sad if it were torn down.

I just want well-built houses that aren't all alike.

Thank you.

Carry on.

I love my old pre-war house and hope it lasts a long time - but we also have some very nice newer homes on my street that replaced older homes and were done tastefully and are much nicer than the 1950s homes that they replaced. So it depends.

As someone who lives in a house built in 1892, I sure hope some will last forever! There is no reason why houses can’t go on for many generations if they’re not taken care of properly.

I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?

Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?

For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)

I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.