PP, the Cracker Barrel analogy is *expected* but not accurate.

Of my friends who live in new houses and bought before the recession (so they are doubly lucky, if you will); their neighborhoods ALL started out with mostly old homes and are now ALL mostly new homes. Who would have thunk? Certainly not the ones who WISHED the neighborhoods stayed old, conveniently so that their horrible additions (on their old houses, obviously) would not look so dreadfully out of place!

Change happens. Get over it. Sorry if you don't look like you can afford the neighborhood (in your old house), but you don't own the neighborhood (regardless that you think you should). Period. Besides, you sound ridiculous trying to desperately detract from the inevitable.

If I could afford one of those gorgeous new homes, I would. What is the harm in admitting it? It sounds far more true and convincing than being so clearly jealous and ugly about it. If you want to live amongst old houses, just move. It's easy.

We are tearing down an 1100 sq ft home and building a much larger one on a quarter acre lot. Several of the houses around it are not huge but have been added onto so that they are maybe 2,200 to 3,000 sq ft. Further down the street there are houses of a similar size to or larger than our new one. This is in an area of very pricey homes, where $750K or so is clearly the entry point, and we paid $750K for the tear down. The upper limit is in the millions, $4 or more, I think.

We have had some problems with neighbors over the construction. What is bizarre about it in our case is you only have to go one or two streets over or just further down our street to see homes even bigger and literally a million or two more than our house, yet this little end of the street seems to think it is its own enclave. Luckily everything we want to do is within the zoning rules, and the house is in keeping with the look of the houses around it, even though it is much larger. No Potomac castle for us.

There's always debate.. I don't mind the size and am quite glad any time a ratty house in my neighborhood goes... just wish it was in good taste!

welcome to april 2012, BACK TO THE FUTURE

any house smaller than 2500 sqrft should be torn down

Anonymous wrote:I'll admit that part of me is envious and wishes I could afford to have a new larger home for upwards of $1.3M in my same great location. No question.

However, even though my neighborhood is by many standards older, smaller and not terribly attractive, it has a consistency to it. Even with additions, houses are all of the same shape and style, lots are basically the same size. There is a uniformity. Suddenly dropping in a huge house that extends practically to all four property lines and has no architectural tie to anything around it is jarring aesthetically. It may actually be a nicer house, but it's like wearing your wedding dress to Cracker Barrel. You might be the best dressed person there, but you do look odd and make the place seem a bit awkward all of a sudden.

I love the visual of this! Ha!

I agree with this post. Much of the stuff we looked at in Vienna and Arlington (9 years ago) was what we called "cats and dogs". We would look at a nice newer home, but look out across the steet and see a dump that no one was taking care of. Some houses on the street were new, some were older but well taken care of, and some were falling apart ... overgrown weeds for a yard, missing shutters, peeling paint, etc. We were concerned about property values based ont he neighborhood. We ended up buying in a different neighborhood, and settling for an older home, but the neighborhood is more uniform ... nothing brand spanking new, but also nothing that looks like a shack that should be razed.

Want uniformity? Move to Ashburn.

A run-down cape sold a couple streets away from us. It was torn down and a giant two-story colonial (with high ceilings, i suspect) was put up in its place. I actually think the house is beautiful, and a definite improvement over the previous house, but I feel sorry for the neighbors because it really towers over everything else on the street. (not jealous - I'd love a house like that, but would prefer it on a street with similar houses.)

I'll admit that part of me is envious and wishes I could afford to have a new larger home for upwards of $1.3M in my same great location. No question.

However, even though my neighborhood is by many standards older, smaller and not terribly attractive, it has a consistency to it. Even with additions, houses are all of the same shape and style, lots are basically the same size. There is a uniformity. Suddenly dropping in a huge house that extends practically to all four property lines and has no architectural tie to anything around it is jarring aesthetically. It may actually be a nicer house, but it's like wearing your wedding dress to Cracker Barrel. You might be the best dressed person there, but you do look odd and make the place seem a bit awkward all of a sudden.

Anonymous wrote:This is the age old new vs. old debate. The close in suburbs mostly have had the very minimal and humble WW II construction for well, 60 years. Some could barely afford it then. Since that time, the close in suburbs have changed from mostly government workers to other than. This is one point of contention. Another point of contention is any amount of change, including but not limited to (gasp!) the inevitable new houses. Does it seem that if you give the new houses an unflattering name that they will be less desirable or better yet, go away - poof?!?!?

Really, get over it. I would love to be able to afford one of those beautiful new homes. Clearly, by your actions, you would too. No one wants to live with half-a&&, makeshift, piecemeal additions onto an old ratty, smelly house if they don't have to!

But don't morph into a childish have not, making it so obvious by your behaviors. It is unbecoming, and makes you look jealous and unaccomplished, to say the least.

The old houses in Lyon Village, Edgemoor, Upper NW, etc are hardly ratty. Those neighborhoods have always been desirable because of the quality of those 1930s homes which are much larger and more appealing than the smaller and simpler post WWII era homes.

This is the age old new vs. old debate. The close in suburbs mostly have had the very minimal and humble WW II construction for well, 60 years. Some could barely afford it then. Since that time, the close in suburbs have changed from mostly government workers to other than. This is one point of contention. Another point of contention is any amount of change, including but not limited to (gasp!) the inevitable new houses. Does it seem that if you give the new houses an unflattering name that they will be less desirable or better yet, go away - poof?!?!?

Really, get over it. I would love to be able to afford one of those beautiful new homes. Clearly, by your actions, you would too. No one wants to live with half-a&&, makeshift, piecemeal additions onto an old ratty, smelly house if they don't have to!

But don't morph into a childish have not, making it so obvious by your behaviors. It is unbecoming, and makes you look jealous and unaccomplished, to say the least.

You don't have to go to Arlington for crazy. Our DC neighbour told us she owned our 'airspace' and wouldn't let us add on (detached home in Palisades). OK, crazy! enjoy our construction!

I know who has or is planning to erect a soul-less McMansion !

Tell us, OP, did you go with the taupe Hardi-Plank or the ivory? And how many pointless columns did you use on the facade?

Thi is not a new debate nor is it as one-sided as you would like to make it. People also have rights to sun and sight lines and enough street parking etc... This is happening in lost of the close in burbs, Lyon Village (in Arlington) and Edgemoor (in Bethesda) are two oft cited examples of the most egregious in-fill sizing. This does not equate with "People do not like their neighbors" so dont even try to start that.

Some people in Lyon Village don't like their neighbors very much. Have they ever heard about property rights?

http://www.arlingtonmagazine.com/March-April-2012/Sizing-Up/