Anonymous wrote:

Additions still don't pay off the same ROI as new construction and you still have an old part that needs maintenance vs the new addition.

How long are you planning to stay? Once your new house is 5-10 years old, it will start needing as much maintenance as an older house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yeah, Sand Hill Road ramblers are VERY different from the ramber contemporaries inside the beltway... Especially the upgraded interiors and materials.

Anyhow, on Teardowns - our Bethesda neighborhood is FILLED with old crummy ramblers going one by one into teardown. The catch is the stubborn old couple (and their adult children) who are mad they did not sell in 2005-2008 at peak price. They cannot get over those prices and that makes for nonsensical conversations with them.

I find it hard to believe that a family who paid off their house in 1967 really cares that they aren't getting that extra 25K, but whatever. Have you considered that maybe, gasp!--they love their home and its memories and plan on leaving it feet first?

Or they are too poor to afford anything else and they have no choice but to stay. Eventually taxes will push them out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, those midget 50s and 60s tract homes built for the lower classes WERE STILL CONSTRUCTED MORE SOLIDLY THAN HOUSES ARE TODAY!

Are you a home builder.

We live in one of those and we have had several builders knock on our door asking if we would sell it. We tell them know, we are going to renovate and add on to it and they offer to do the work becuase those houses are so sound it is easy to add a second floor on and create a much better house than they can build from scratch.

Additions still don't pay off the same ROI as new construction and you still have an old part that needs maintenance vs the new addition.

Anonymous wrote:The smart move IMO is to have one of the smaller houses in an area full of higher priced ones rather than build a $1.5M teardown-replacement in a neigbhorhood full of modest houses.

The big houses stick out like a sore thumb, look out of scale, etc., and are just a total turn off to us.

But eventually when the whole street has turned over (as ours has in Bethesda, but for the lone small, ugly split level from the 1950s that doesn't look ANYTHING like those nice Palm Spring mid-centuries), the street looks very nice and uniform again. It's the in-between stage that looks awkward. Ours was the first new house on the block and I didn't want to buy it because of that, but now it's an entirely different neighborhood. Went from old folks with no kids, to tons of families with kids.

And yes, there are hold-outs who are upset that they didn't sell during the boom. The highest price paid for a tear-down on my street was 1 mil. They sell for 200 to 300K less than that now.

Anonymous wrote:The smart move IMO is to have one of the smaller houses in an area full of higher priced ones rather than build a $1.5M teardown-replacement in a neigbhorhood full of modest houses.

The big houses stick out like a sore thumb, look out of scale, etc., and are just a total turn off to us.

True, but remember this is likely to change in the next few years, assuming it's a neighborhood that is desirable (close in) location-wise. The trend in this area is population growth, and traffic is only going to get worse, so a good location will keep its value over time. Those modest houses will be sitting on valuable land, and it will make financial sense to tear them down.

OP again here. I'm appreciating all of your comments, and love the debate--so thank you! I agree, curb appeal *is* a matter of taste, and I don't mean to slam all 50's style houses. In fact, I would love a home with some character--midcentury modern does appeal. I'm just unable to find it within me to appreciate the style which some PPs have referred to as postwar/50's gov't worker developments/tract houses, which unfortunately (for me, at least) take over big chunks of the close-in areas. These don't have anything modern about them, really. And many of them are quite close together. PP, did you really mean that this is the style that is becoming the rage in CA? It would surprise me.

Looking up some examples of "govt. worker stock" houses online (i.e. with franklymls), I see that some of these houses are quite nice inside, done tastefully. I honestly don't mind small rooms that much, as I've been an apartment-dweller for years. Age of house wouldn't bother me either, except that it appears that some of these older houses aren't well-maintained by the neighbors, so it might bother me to have less well-maintained homes in the neighborhood. I'm coming to accept that curb appeal is a major issue for me--maybe I'll evolve over time, but at this point it's also "neighborhood appeal" that I think is on my mind too.

11:23, I am on board with your thoughts about getting a smaller place on a nicer street. The thing with that, though, is that I'm guessing you'd still pay a lot due to a good location (a dump in chevy chase would still cost $$$). Wouldn't realtors/sellers know the value of their street and price up accordingly? and I'd feel that I overpaid for the actual house. Though maybe one could renovate/add on, if a teardown didn't make financial sense.

I wonder what these teardown-heavy neighborhoods will look like in a decade's time.

Related topic. What about the 50's ones that have been expanded? Some of them look somewhat unsuccessful aesthetically.

The smart move IMO is to have one of the smaller houses in an area full of higher priced ones rather than build a $1.5M teardown-replacement in a neigbhorhood full of modest houses.

The big houses stick out like a sore thumb, look out of scale, etc., and are just a total turn off to us.

Anonymous wrote:yeah, Sand Hill Road ramblers are VERY different from the ramber contemporaries inside the beltway... Especially the upgraded interiors and materials.

Anyhow, on Teardowns - our Bethesda neighborhood is FILLED with old crummy ramblers going one by one into teardown. The catch is the stubborn old couple (and their adult children) who are mad they did not sell in 2005-2008 at peak price. They cannot get over those prices and that makes for nonsensical conversations with them.

I find it hard to believe that a family who paid off their house in 1967 really cares that they aren't getting that extra 25K, but whatever. Have you considered that maybe, gasp!--they love their home and its memories and plan on leaving it feet first?

Anonymous wrote:And yet, those midget 50s and 60s tract homes built for the lower classes WERE STILL CONSTRUCTED MORE SOLIDLY THAN HOUSES ARE TODAY!

The fact is that people care more about space and amenities than how solid a home was constructed, assuming baseline safety and quality standards are met. I don't plan to kick the walls to see whether my foot or the wall will win, and don't currently expect a tsunami to hit DC. And the tract houses don't have features that many residents love, such as mud rooms and spacious closets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony in all of this, OP, is that those 50s houses you think have no curb appeal are both very chic on the West Coast, where real estate trends tend to begin. The trend has been away from larger mcmansion style homes to smaller, more sustainable houses. Smaller rooms for better energy efficiency. Mid-century chick... Also, those 50s homes were constructed with far more craft and care than pretty much anything that gets thrown together today. Quite shocking the difference in quality.

Most of the 50s tear downs built for govt workers in this area would not be the envy of the West Coast set. Get a grip.

Exactly, and the main reason they are "valuable" on the West Coast is, um, the freaking amazing view of, say the pacific out the back!. When your crappy little '50's house overlooks a row of other crappy 50's houses, not so much.

yeah, Sand Hill Road ramblers are VERY different from the ramber contemporaries inside the beltway... Especially the upgraded interiors and materials.

Anyhow, on Teardowns - our Bethesda neighborhood is FILLED with old crummy ramblers going one by one into teardown. The catch is the stubborn old couple (and their adult children) who are mad they did not sell in 2005-2008 at peak price. They cannot get over those prices and that makes for nonsensical conversations with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, those midget 50s and 60s tract homes built for the lower classes WERE STILL CONSTRUCTED MORE SOLIDLY THAN HOUSES ARE TODAY!

Are you a home builder.

We live in one of those and we have had several builders knock on our door asking if we would sell it. We tell them know, we are going to renovate and add on to it and they offer to do the work becuase those houses are so sound it is easy to add a second floor on and create a much better house than they can build from scratch.

Anonymous wrote:And yet, those midget 50s and 60s tract homes built for the lower classes WERE STILL CONSTRUCTED MORE SOLIDLY THAN HOUSES ARE TODAY!

Are you a home builder.

And yet, those midget 50s and 60s tract homes built for the lower classes WERE STILL CONSTRUCTED MORE SOLIDLY THAN HOUSES ARE TODAY!

Anonymous wrote:The irony in all of this, OP, is that those 50s houses you think have no curb appeal are both very chic on the West Coast, where real estate trends tend to begin. The trend has been away from larger mcmansion style homes to smaller, more sustainable houses. Smaller rooms for better energy efficiency. Mid-century chick... Also, those 50s homes were constructed with far more craft and care than pretty much anything that gets thrown together today. Quite shocking the difference in quality.

those midget 50s, 60s tract homes were never intended to be permanent or were originally made for the lower class