Anonymous
10/22/2025 11:19
Subject: Re:New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
OP here. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a place for the older and more affordable smaller homes inside the beltway - I just don't get why so many people expect these neighborhoods to remain locked in time for over 75-100 years. There will be demand for these homes because we can't all afford $2.5M+ homes (myself included) and some people actually prefer smaller homes. But this constant labeling of virtually any new build that is big as a "monstrosity" or "mcmansion" is overdone. And I think people have to accept that a lot of professionals in this are CAN afford $2M+ homes, do want larger homes and want to live inside the beltway too, so this will keep happening all over... whether we like the changes or not.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 10:57
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:I find it annoying when someone puts up a monstrosity in a beautiful older neighborhood. Older homes are just more lovely, and highly desirable. The new cardboard homes lower everyone’s property value.
Not the case in our neighborhood, and I am loving it. Our McLean homes value has appreciated from $1.0M to $1.9M in 7 years, due in large part to the many big new homes being built on our street.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:58
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
Weird comment. Are you really that insecure? My house was built in 1956 but has a total of 4000 sq ft of finished space on a 1-acre lot inside the Beltway. It’s solid brick with custom millwork and all the energy-efficient updates. Better than much of the cardboard new construction going around everywhere.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:56
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
There is such a thing as too large. And new does not automatically equate quality or superiority.
I can afford a bigger house. But I don't want a bigger house. I will agree once you reach a certain threshold there is diminishing returns for the extra square footage, which starts to become more of a hassle. For me that threshold is between 3,000 and 3,500 sqft. I allow a range because square footage isn't the only factor in what makes a house more liveable.
I have absolutely no desire to live in a big echoing barn, which is what many of those very large suburban houses are.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:54
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
I meant new builds are not in high demand. but they do generate invome
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:53
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Figured I'd start a new thread instead of derailing the McLean thread.
Can someone tell me why so many people are always surprised (or even upset) when they see a large new home built in Arlington, Falls Church, McLean... in a neighborhood that was built between 1930-1955? Do you really think there's a big market for people who want small brick post-world war ramblers with no insultation, tiny galley kitchens and bathrooms to sustain these neighborhoods.
I cannot afford a $2.8M 6.5-7K square foot home, but I get why they are slowing replacing homes built 70 to 95 YEARS!!! ago. These aren't the solid built large homes you find in some small cities that can be remodeled and stand the test of time. And I'm sorry, but a 1/3-acre lot is not "small" to many people. There is one of these 6.5K sq ft new homes two houses down from ours and the backyard is much large than ours - I wish ours was that big.
I agree that some of these homes look bland and cookie cutter, but I also understand that it's often because the developers are building what is most popular and sells in this area. In the case of our neighbor, they custom built their home and I'm sure people would look at it and still say it's another boring McMansion - but it's fine really and they built it for their taste not mine. I get and agree these homes look out of place in neighborhoods like ours, but I also get that this is going to continue to happen until most of the super old homes are seriously renovated or torn down.
We love our 1950's brick rambler, and will keep doing what we can to make it nicer and keep it well maintained - and at the very least we are seeing our home values rise.
There is absolutely a market for original builds for the non-rich. They are in short supply and sell faster thsn new mcmansions.
But the reason the original builds are being torn down is because of investors. Not because they are in such high demand. There's no money in quick flips anymore. That was so 2000s and 2010s.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:43
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
Did you put a giant fountain in the front? Classy!
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:33
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
This is obviously untrue because of the many people who choose to pay a premium for smaller homes in dense, urban neighborhoods. If everyone really preferred bigger and newer, then why would anyone ever spend $3.5 million on a row house in the city? Look at the cost of NYC, Tokyo, or Hong Kong real estate. Lots of wealthy people choosing to live in homes with less square footage than your average midwest suburban ranch house.
Also, as any wealthy person who lives in a small urban home knows, paying people to create custom built ins and organization systems is worth way more than whatever an extra 1000 sq ft out in the burbs would cost you. It looks better, it's more convenient, and it leads to a better lifestyle. The big suburban homes often make things big with the assumption that people will just fill them up with crap. That is a poor person's habit. If you have the money, you can be smart and selective about what you keep in your home, and you can afford to have it perfectly curated.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:22
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
I don't get the "new" comment. There are plenty of amazing, super expensive old homes on palatial estates. They are usually fully updated, so it's not as though anyone is missing out on any creature comfort.
The most expensive homes in DC (which are way higher priced than any Potomac listings) are all usually 100+ years old.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 09:15
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
It's possible to double the size of the smaller, older homes by putting an addition on; most in our neighborhood have. It's not a question of small and old vs big and new. There are plenty of houses in the middle with arguably the best of both - maintaining the look from the front but plenty of space once you're inside. But this isn't cost effective for developers, hence them just tearing down old cape cods etc to throw up one of their pre-designed models.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 08:24
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
Me I can't rationalize living in a small old house, townhouse or apartment just to be in a good school district. The math doesn't grok.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 08:18
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
We laugh at those houses. I mean if it makes you happy that’s great for you but I have zero desire to live there.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 08:15
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.
Not true. We could easily have a bigger house then we do but chose to renovate and slightly add on to our existing SFH in the District. Not an open floor plan, decent sized kitchen but small enough that I can shoo visiting family out while I cook, enough room for us and the kids but not so big we won't bounce around when they leave. Bonus points - it is updated enough that it won't be torn down and replaced with a cookie cutter monstrosity. Read the "Not So Big House" if you don't believe me - or look at the Tiny House movement.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 08:14
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
I find it annoying when someone puts up a monstrosity in a beautiful older neighborhood. Older homes are just more lovely, and highly desirable. The new cardboard homes lower everyone’s property value.
Anonymous
10/22/2025 08:09
Subject: New and larger homes in old neighborhoods inside the beltway
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't care about these neighborhoods but: yes, I want a house with a smaller footprint and less square footage. I do think you have to update the layouts because houses built in the 1930s or 50s don't make sense for the way we live now. But that doesn't mean you have to supersize everything.
My ideal house would be around 2000 sq ft, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The bedrooms and bathrooms do not need to be huge, and I prefer an efficiently and intelligently laid out kitchen to some massive space with a huge island. I like built in storage and houses with nooks and alcoves that can be used for reading or working without dedicating entire rooms to it.
Smaller homes are easier to take care of. I also don't want or need a huge yard and would prefer a smaller lot with a patio for outdoor dining and space for some plantings or a garden rather than an expanse of yard. I don't need space that will encourage me to accumulate more and more stuff.
We have friends whoa re in these massive 5k and up new builds and to be honest they always feel empty and strange. I think they are hard to furnish because they require a lot of furniture to make them feel full, but also they are all open plan so people stress over furniture going together and also a lot of the rooms in the main living spaces don't have a ton of wall space for storage or TVs, so it's a challenge. Yes there is more room for kids, but also that means often your kids are off in some distant part of the house -- sometimes it would be nice if they were just in the next room or at least within earshot.
I truly don't understand the appeal of these homes. They are built to meet a social media aesthetic that I think is divorced from how it actually feels to live there. Great for TikTok dances, but not much else.
Move and/or live in a townhouse. Regardless, you are in the minority or the homes would not be selling. The market determines what people will buy.
What a weird aggressive response. People are allowed to have different opinions and explain them reasonably.
I am not that PP but I agree with them. And the point is that developers build the houses that will bring them the mosy profit. There certainly is a market for 2-3k sq ft houses that aren’t quite as expensive.
The 6k sq ft houses are ridiculous imo— even the real estate agents struggle to explain what the point of those extra rooms are. And suggesting it’s easier to clean a 6k sq ft house than a 2k sq ft house is also ridiculous
I assume you have never actually lived in a larger house and you can't afford one.
This, lol. People who claim to like small houses are dealing with copium for not being able to afford a large one.
Large and new is better in every single way. Recently sold my dental practice and purchased a palatial estate in Potomac and I’m never looking back.