Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they creak when the wind blows.

I find most new houses cheaply made. The materials last 5 years and need to be replaced. Older stuff just seems to last longer. Of course there has always been shoddy construction. I think houses constructed during "booms" (DC in the 1940's) were not so well built. Houses built in the 1930s however, seem to be very well built - by craftsmen who took time and cared about their work.

Such as? I live in new construction that is eight years old and the only stuff that needed to be replaced after five years is builder grade stuff, like cheap appliances--which can fail in older homes too.

Please tell me which "materials" in my new home I should be replacing now.

You people are very emotional about all of this stuff. At some point, your cherished older homes were brand new and "soulless" as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an architect and I just want to clarify a few things:

- the new builds people on here are talking about are in most cases extremely well constructed and energy efficient. The giant behemoth often uses less energy than much smaller '40's house.

- the ugliness is often not the architects fault. Often we will draw something proportionally correct only to have the developer change everything until it's a whitetrash monstrosity

- I personally believe neighbors should live and let live. Worry about your own house/yard and MYOB

That's easy to say until the developer has cut down a 200 year old tree to cram two enormous homes where once there was one. Blocking neighbors sunlight and killing their gardens.

Anonymous wrote:Because they creak when the wind blows.

I find most new houses cheaply made. The materials last 5 years and need to be replaced. Older stuff just seems to last longer. Of course there has always been shoddy construction. I think houses constructed during "booms" (DC in the 1940's) were not so well built. Houses built in the 1930s however, seem to be very well built - by craftsmen who took time and cared about their work.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bXpQVJwlsY

Eddie Murphy: Ice Cream Man

"You can't afoooooord it......"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

No, I don't think people who choose older homes follow their emotions any more than people who prefer new choose logic. It's a preference, no more, no less. One is not any better or worse or another.

I find my sense of logic disturbed only when "soulless" is taken to mean unattractive or lacking in construction quality, and then it turns out it simply means "not old enough". Aesthetics or construction quality can be debated as they are somewhat objective standards. The soul defined as age is not related to either.

It is not preference. It is ABILITY.

People with tons of resources and money also renovate older homes. It's preference. Don't worry, you are still doing well at life. If having a new house was your idea of success, congrats! You did it! Some people have just as much wealth and success. They choose to renovate. It's ok. You're life choices are ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

No, I don't think people who choose older homes follow their emotions any more than people who prefer new choose logic. It's a preference, no more, no less. One is not any better or worse or another.

I find my sense of logic disturbed only when "soulless" is taken to mean unattractive or lacking in construction quality, and then it turns out it simply means "not old enough". Aesthetics or construction quality can be debated as they are somewhat objective standards. The soul defined as age is not related to either.

It is not preference. It is ABILITY.

People with tons of resources and money also renovate older homes. It's preference. Don't worry, you are still doing well at life. If having a new house was your idea of success, congrats! You did it! Some people have just as much wealth and success. They choose to renovate. It's ok. You're life choices are ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

No, I don't think people who choose older homes follow their emotions any more than people who prefer new choose logic. It's a preference, no more, no less. One is not any better or worse or another.

I find my sense of logic disturbed only when "soulless" is taken to mean unattractive or lacking in construction quality, and then it turns out it simply means "not old enough". Aesthetics or construction quality can be debated as they are somewhat objective standards. The soul defined as age is not related to either.

It is not preference. It is ABILITY.

People with tons of resources and money also renovate older homes. It's preference. Don't worry, you are still doing well at life. If having a new house was your idea of success, congrats! You did it! Some people have just as much wealth and success. They choose to renovate. It's ok. You're life choices are ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always love this debate on DCUM, from people in a city with no fashion sense who look like cookie cutter office dwellers in neutral uniforms, bad haircuts, and no makeup. But yet you are all arbiters of architectural "taste" and "aesthetics.". Give me a break.

^^Agreed. New construction and flips are tasteless and lack character in the DC area. I actually believe that the green designs and asthetic coming out of the Pacific Northwest will be the next big design wave (like arts and crafts or MCM). It's so functional, beautiful and conducive to living in this century.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You say it's a logic thing, but I'm not following. Are saying some people are making a choice based on emotions ( older homes) , and some folks are basing it on logic ( new build)?

No, I don't think people who choose older homes follow their emotions any more than people who prefer new choose logic. It's a preference, no more, no less. One is not any better or worse or another.

I find my sense of logic disturbed only when "soulless" is taken to mean unattractive or lacking in construction quality, and then it turns out it simply means "not old enough". Aesthetics or construction quality can be debated as they are somewhat objective standards. The soul defined as age is not related to either.

Anonymous wrote:I am an architect and I just want to clarify a few things:

- the new builds people on here are talking about are in most cases extremely well constructed and energy efficient. The giant behemoth often uses less energy than much smaller '40's house.

- the ugliness is often not the architects fault. Often we will draw something proportionally correct only to have the developer change everything until it's a whitetrash monstrosity

- I personally believe neighbors should live and let live. Worry about your own house/yard and MYOB

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

Intangible maybe... But it's pretty universally understood that when a home has soul - it's been around awhile. Yes, some people like blank slates. They aren't the people buying and loving old brick ramblers, colonials, and cape cods. The people walking into their brand spanking new house aren't swept away by the feeling of history. Yes these two sides value exactly what the other side loathes. Its not jealousy, just different tastes.

soul, charm, cozy etc... these are all made up terms realtors have used to make you believe that the uneven wall or crookedness of old homes is appealing. You drank the koolaide. What history? Most homes have no history unless you are talking about the 1 or 2 out of 1000s that maybe a world leader or founding father lived in.

History? Our home was one of the first built in our little neighborhood - it's strong and sturdy and the envy of all our friends (well not the couple that live in new TH's - because it is not their jam) . One of the families who lived in it in the 60's/70's drives by every other spring or so and we chat. They've shared stories of what the hood was like. We didn't use a realtor, and the sellers agent didn't have to lay it on thick. We knew we had found the one the moment we walked through the door. It's ok to not understand that perspective- but you don't need to belittle it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you've lived in newer construction, you are less willing to live in an old house. But if all you've ever lived in is old constrution, you think it's fine and settle for it.

+1

That, and the "I see dead people" factor.

Worked the opposite for me. Grew up in Historical homes. Bought a new home as an adult, I thought it was going to be something it wasn't. Now Im selling it to buy an 1800's stone farmhouse with a stone barn and slave quarters. I like new construction within and an old foundation and design.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you've lived in newer construction, you are less willing to live in an old house. But if all you've ever lived in is old constrution, you think it's fine and settle for it.

+1

That, and the "I see dead people" factor.

Worked the opposite for me. Grew up in Historical homes. Bought a new home as an adult, I thought it was going to be something it wasn't. Now Im selling it to buy an 1800's stone farmhouse with a stone barn and slave quarters. I like new construction within and an old foundation and design.