+1 to PP.

I'm a DP and would love to find a nice 3,000ish sf house either new or updated in Arlington. We don't need the 5,000sf that all the new builds have, and while we could afford it we don't want the size of mortgage that comes along with that massive house either.

I wouldn't mind if I liked the way these houses looked on the outside. If they were tearing down the old 1950s/60s boxy "ranch" and split-level houses and building something elegant and attractive, I wouldn't care about the tear downs.

I think part of the problem is the demand for bigger and bigger homes. It doesn't matter how elegant you try to make it look, if you put a 4000 sq ft home on a lot that previously housed a 1200 sq ft home, it's going to look bad, because you pretty much have to build a giant box in order to make it work logistically.

As someone who wants to buy a house that is around 2k sq ft, it's also frustrating because many of the older homes are much smaller (and often poorly laid out), but most of the newer homes are much larger and have elements I don't want or need (why are we still building houses with separate dining rooms when the new builds also have large kitchens with space for dining -- I truly do not need both). I also don't need every bedroom to have its own bathroom. On the other hand, home offices are increasingly necessary and I personally love sun rooms. But I don't need all the rooms to be huge. I don't need a gigantic laundry room AND a huge mud room AND a two car garage AND a finished basement AND two home offices AND a dining room AND both a living room and a den AND 6 walk in closets.

Basically I wish we were making more choices in these new builds, and considered the value of right-sizing the house for the lot. I don't want a giant house of guest rooms and more storage than I could ever fill. I want a house that feels good to be in and has a bit of character and good flow, not just a series of huge rooms with vaulted ceilings.

We really have not moved on from the McMansion have we? It's just that now instead of the old 90s style of McMansion, we build giant box "farmhouses". But it's the same thing. Houses that are too large, ruin the feel of the neighborhood, and will look incredibly dated in 10 years.

OP, it seems as if you are referring to the suburbs of this area, correct?

The suburbs of this area were mainly constructed around WWII, and are small brick boxes, previously owned by mostly military and government workers. Most people think it is more efficient to start over, than to build onto the old homes piecemeal.

You can change and maintain older homes it just costs money. My grandmother owns a beautiful home from the 1700s. It’s gorgeous and she had maintained and updated it for the 60+ years she has lived there.

I have relatives in England who own or owned homes all the way back to the 14th century. Beautiful homes and varying sizes some tiny thatched cottages, others large manors that have been expanded on throughout the years. And in the Uk many of those homes are protected. I much prefer all those homes to any of the contemporary box homes and mass produced new builds.

The other issue is if you have a developer build a new home and aren’t involved get any architect, etc, sometimes the newer homes are horribly built. I have seen old homes torn down and it takes years to build a new home but had extensive work on it and is clearly a quality home that fits in with the neighborhood. I’m all for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

NP. I would, given it’s been properly maintained. I think a lot of people would.

I would too! As long as it’s maintained — I love old buildings!

Do the PP want to tear down the White House or the Capitol?

And Old Town Alexandria? And blocks and blocks of Brooklyn brownstones? You think nobody wants to live there, PP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

NP. I would, given it’s been properly maintained. I think a lot of people would.

I would too! As long as it’s maintained — I love old buildings!

Do the PP want to tear down the White House or the Capitol?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

NP. I would, given it’s been properly maintained. I think a lot of people would.

The best is when gorgeous old architecture is tastefully updated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with tearing down old homes and replacing with new. You’re right, they’re not meant to last forever. You nailed the problem though, which is what they’re replaced with. I don’t know a single person who prefers the contemporary monstrosities that replace them. I don’t think that’s unusual given the complaints you see here. I guess someone is buying them though, but maybe it’s because that’s what’s available if you want new.

This has always been my issue, but clearly they are buyers. Typically neighborhoods have a somewhat similar scale and style. Although the existing home might be towards the end of its natural lifespan, replacing it with something three times the size that covers almost the entire lot is like Gulliver and the Lilliputians. Even more so if it's a boxy glass modern home in a neighborhood of small colonials or cape cods. Again the market rules and clearly there's a market, it just looks bad IMO.

Yes this! It's the horrible size (and often so much closer to neighboring homes bc the new ones are so much bigger) and height, towering over other houses. Makes the whole street look so junky.

Anonymous wrote:Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Do you really want to live or work in a building that is 200 years old? I doubt most people would like that.

I'm generally disappointed when an "elegant" home is torn down and replace with an ugly, possibly poorly constructed new home.

But I think I prefer that over ruining an older home by trying to modernize it by following trends like painting brick and removing all the interior character and replacing it with generic gray.

Improvements in construction materials and methods can be a good reason for a teardown, but windows are a terrible example of this. Windows are designed to be replaced, and are a small fraction of the cost of most houses.

Insulation and modern heating and cooling technologies are better examples. Its much easier to be energy efficient with new construction, and retrofitting new tech onto old houses can present real problems.

Architecture is subjective, but the bigger issue is that we should really aim to build buildings to last, and we don't always do it. Our architecture choices, construction methods, and urban planning should be done with the goal that most things will still be in use in a couple hundred years.

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with tearing down old homes and replacing with new. You’re right, they’re not meant to last forever. You nailed the problem though, which is what they’re replaced with. I don’t know a single person who prefers the contemporary monstrosities that replace them. I don’t think that’s unusual given the complaints you see here. I guess someone is buying them though, but maybe it’s because that’s what’s available if you want new.

This has always been my issue, but clearly they are buyers. Typically neighborhoods have a somewhat similar scale and style. Although the existing home might be towards the end of its natural lifespan, replacing it with something three times the size that covers almost the entire lot is like Gulliver and the Lilliputians. Even more so if it's a boxy glass modern home in a neighborhood of small colonials or cape cods. Again the market rules and clearly there's a market, it just looks bad IMO.

I have no problem with tearing down old homes and replacing with new. You’re right, they’re not meant to last forever. You nailed the problem though, which is what they’re replaced with. I don’t know a single person who prefers the contemporary monstrosities that replace them. I don’t think that’s unusual given the complaints you see here. I guess someone is buying them though, but maybe it’s because that’s what’s available if you want new.

When an old house is torn down in an established neighborhood of nice homes, it seems like there is always a lot of criticism.

But these old houses were not meant to last forever.

Also, the new style seems to be boxy and contemporary. Although I prefer a more traditional look, I wonder if developers assume buys will want a boxy look. (On the Bravo show Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles, one realtor (Josh) always lamented when an elegant old house was torn down to make way for a boxy contemporary house.

Apart from the issue of what the new house looks like, is it probably for the best that a house that is at least 70 years old gets torn down? They may look nice, but the layouts are not ideal. Also, the materials - windows for example -- may look nice, but technology has made new windows so much better.