They're not that cute though. Most of them are modest bungalows which is fine they're just ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the housing stock in Bethesda is not that "charming". There are also plenty of young families in these tear downs, these neighborhoods are filled with kids. People have money here (or their families do and are willing to help on down payments). I agree that some of the new mcmansions are terrible, but many times, the homes they are replacing were not that great to begin with. I think it is better growth and development policy to encourage people to teardown rather than take build new in green space in the outer burbs.

+1

+2

People live differently nowadays, and there are only so many additions one can make before the additions no longer make sense. As other PP stated, it is cheaper, in the long run, to knock down the old house and build proper space for today's way of life. You are paying for the land. There are plenty of areas of the country where the old houses are large, beautiful and useful - but the D.C. area is not it.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the housing stock in Bethesda is not that "charming". There are also plenty of young families in these tear downs, these neighborhoods are filled with kids. People have money here (or their families do and are willing to help on down payments). I agree that some of the new mcmansions are terrible, but many times, the homes they are replacing were not that great to begin with. I think it is better growth and development policy to encourage people to teardown rather than take build new in green space in the outer burbs.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Who is the “they” in your question? Bethesda is just a geographic area. There is no Bethesda government. Some neighborhoods do have covenants that prohibit tear downs. But the housing stock is pretty old. Some of these houses need to be torn down.

+1

Some of the old houses have not only no improvements, but also little or no maintenance, OP. Worse yet, DIYs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about Bethesda but in Vienna, the new homes do pay a lot more taxes. There is no new land in town limits, so demand drives the price of the existing lots sky
High. Houses sell before being listed. Older residents are bombarded with solicitations trying to buy they’re home. ramblers on a quarter acre ( or rather “a quarter acre with a run down rambler”) goes for $700k. And the only people who can afford a 1960 rambler that’s falling apart is a young family with high HHI. They can fix it up and make it a livable 1100 sf rambler that cost them $1mm. Or knock it down and build a $500k structure , costing them $1.2mm.

People want to say “that house is not worth 1.2mm.” The buyer should know that. It’s the LAND plus the house. And ours cost 1.5mm because we bought from a middle man (ie builder).

the town of Vienna wins here. They are making a killing just on them taxes. Again, not Bethesda, but thinking it’s similar

x10000

One word: taxes.

Same in most close in areas. The "old" residents don't like it. But then, they aren't the ones paying the bulk of the taxes, so their opinion doesn't matter much.

I’m one of those old residents and the pay a sh$tload of taxes.

You don't pay what the new house homeowners pay, that is the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about Bethesda but in Vienna, the new homes do pay a lot more taxes. There is no new land in town limits, so demand drives the price of the existing lots sky
High. Houses sell before being listed. Older residents are bombarded with solicitations trying to buy they’re home. ramblers on a quarter acre ( or rather “a quarter acre with a run down rambler”) goes for $700k. And the only people who can afford a 1960 rambler that’s falling apart is a young family with high HHI. They can fix it up and make it a livable 1100 sf rambler that cost them $1mm. Or knock it down and build a $500k structure , costing them $1.2mm.

People want to say “that house is not worth 1.2mm.” The buyer should know that. It’s the LAND plus the house. And ours cost 1.5mm because we bought from a middle man (ie builder).

the town of Vienna wins here. They are making a killing just on them taxes. Again, not Bethesda, but thinking it’s similar

x10000

One word: taxes.

Same in most close in areas. The "old" residents don't like it. But then, they aren't the ones paying the bulk of the taxes, so their opinion doesn't matter much.

I’m one of those old residents and the pay a sh$tload of taxes.

Who is the “they” in your question? Bethesda is just a geographic area. There is no Bethesda government. Some neighborhoods do have covenants that prohibit tear downs. But the housing stock is pretty old. Some of these houses need to be torn down.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about Bethesda but in Vienna, the new homes do pay a lot more taxes. There is no new land in town limits, so demand drives the price of the existing lots sky
High. Houses sell before being listed. Older residents are bombarded with solicitations trying to buy they’re home. ramblers on a quarter acre ( or rather “a quarter acre with a run down rambler”) goes for $700k. And the only people who can afford a 1960 rambler that’s falling apart is a young family with high HHI. They can fix it up and make it a livable 1100 sf rambler that cost them $1mm. Or knock it down and build a $500k structure , costing them $1.2mm.

People want to say “that house is not worth 1.2mm.” The buyer should know that. It’s the LAND plus the house. And ours cost 1.5mm because we bought from a middle man (ie builder).

the town of Vienna wins here. They are making a killing just on them taxes. Again, not Bethesda, but thinking it’s similar

x10000

One word: taxes.

Same in most close in areas. The "old" residents don't like it. But then, they aren't the ones paying the bulk of the taxes, so their opinion doesn't matter much.

JBethesda appeals to the McMansion set.

We live in one of those tear-downs, and were in competition with a builder who wanted to raze it down and build a McMansion.

However nobody cares about that, OP, compared to the scandalous overbuilding in downtown Bethesda.

For years, MCPS has ignored parents who kept warning that they should count the families with school-aged children living in high-rises, to correctly predict future demographics and school growth. MCPS did nothing, and current predictions for school population growth do not take these buildings into account. Result: the Bethesda Elementary school max capacity is 500 (counting recent addition) and the current number of students is nearly 700. We have portables, and children are obliged to go out in all weather to the main building to go to the bathroom. Portables are hot in summer and cold in winter and do not have the same security as the main building. Core spaces such as the cafeteria and gym are too small, leading to Kindergartners having lunch at 10:30am because mealtimes must be staggered. As a result of all these things, quality of instruction has suffered.

The county council is in the developers' pockets and has lied to the community about finding ways to slow construction of tall buildings while waiting to implement school solutions. Nothing short of a new elementary school would solve the problems here, but there are school issues up and down the county, and we are not a priority. Somerset and Westbrook have made a deal with shuttle some Somerset students to Westbrook. Boundary changes are perhaps in the works, which is a big deal for parents, who buy expensive housing for certain school districts.

The school field is full of dog poo because there are more dog owners than ever before and Bethesda does not have a dog field.

Traffic is a nightmare.

I could go on.

But McMansions, however ugly they are - and I agree with you on that point! - are not really in the top 10 problems.

I am not completely against teardowns but I wish there was some guidelines you had to follow, like at least make it look somewhat blended with the rest of the neighborhood. I hate hate hate that "5000 sq foot cedar plank on a 9000sq foot lot in a neighborhood full of brick rambers" look.

Tear downs are okay in theory, but these huge homes on teeny lots are ugly and obnoxious. I don't know why DPS allows it.

A lot of the housing stock in Bethesda is not that "charming". There are also plenty of young families in these tear downs, these neighborhoods are filled with kids. People have money here (or their families do and are willing to help on down payments). I agree that some of the new mcmansions are terrible, but many times, the homes they are replacing were not that great to begin with. I think it is better growth and development policy to encourage people to teardown rather than take build new in green space in the outer burbs.

Not sure about Bethesda but in Vienna, the new homes do pay a lot more taxes. There is no new land in town limits, so demand drives the price of the existing lots sky
High. Houses sell before being listed. Older residents are bombarded with solicitations trying to buy they’re home. ramblers on a quarter acre ( or rather “a quarter acre with a run down rambler”) goes for $700k. And the only people who can afford a 1960 rambler that’s falling apart is a young family with high HHI. They can fix it up and make it a livable 1100 sf rambler that cost them $1mm. Or knock it down and build a $500k structure , costing them $1.2mm.

People want to say “that house is not worth 1.2mm.” The buyer should know that. It’s the LAND plus the house. And ours cost 1.5mm because we bought from a middle man (ie builder).

the town of Vienna wins here. They are making a killing just on them taxes. Again, not Bethesda, but thinking it’s similar

I drive through Bethesda a lot and any smaller cute original home that gives neighborhood charm is being torn down. Then these massiive plywood boxes go up that lack any style, are cheaply made, take up most of lot and casts shadows on neighbors. Big houses usually have more occupants but given size of house on plot they have less parking.

The traffic gets worse and worse with each new McMansion and the construction is a nightmare for neighbors.

Why does Bethesda allow it? Can't they put brakes on it or at least tax these new homes at a higher rate? My old town outside Maryland had lots of cute original homes with tons of character. A tear down on my old neighborhood never happen and homes were all 1940s and 1950s homes. We tax on build quality and square footage. New construction pays 100 percent higher tax rate per square foot and new construction is usually bigger.

Knock down a 1500 sf house with 6k taxes and build a 3,000 sf new home taxes are 24,000. Or make the whole thing historical. They have to stop the madness. It also kills young families. No more small older starter homes to buy. No more downsizing homes to buy. Just large overpriced boxes.

Do you think something like this is possible?