Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are so hysterical if you think people pick houses based on exclusively aesthetic decisions. As if things like budget, commute, schools, location, amenities etc. are completely irrelevant. Oh no. It's all about give me the cutest house in the best architecturally consistent area with perfect landscaping and houses that look different enough to satisfy my craving for visual diversity but similar enough to make me feel safe that I am in fact still in my natural habitat.
Your argument is a red herring. No one said people pick houses based "exclusively" on such factors. On the other hand, when people are completely oblivious to aesthetic factors, and just build their own McMansions on their own little plots, you end up with ugly places like Pimmit Hills. All you have to do is look at Bethesda and Vienna to see how it can be done better.
Anonymous wrote:OK, why the hell did they do THAT to the house in TP? It looks so drab and awful from the outside - and come to find out it is newer construction? Were they trying to ugly-it-up to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood? They had to have spent a fortune on that interior remodel, and they couldn't fix the exterior?
Anonymous wrote:You are so hysterical if you think people pick houses based on exclusively aesthetic decisions. As if things like budget, commute, schools, location, amenities etc. are completely irrelevant. Oh no. It's all about give me the cutest house in the best architecturally consistent area with perfect landscaping and houses that look different enough to satisfy my craving for visual diversity but similar enough to make me feel safe that I am in fact still in my natural habitat.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the second one is probably on a block with 6 other houses that look exactly like it. so, I would choose the first one.
That's hysterical. First PH is awful because the new homes are next to crap shacks and there is no continuity to the area. Now PH is awful because all the homes are new and look just like that one. You're reaching. Really, really reaching.
Anonymous wrote:Oh, FFS - now I see. The title is completely misleading. I thought TP was the newer construction, not Pimmit.
Jesus H, people - learn how to write.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the second one is probably on a block with 6 other houses that look exactly like it. so, I would choose the first one.
That's hysterical. First PH is awful because the new homes are next to crap shacks and there is no continuity to the area. Now PH is awful because all the homes are new and look just like that one. You're reaching. Really, really reaching.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the second one is probably on a block with 6 other houses that look exactly like it. so, I would choose the first one.
That's hysterical. First PH is awful because the new homes are next to crap shacks and there is no continuity to the area. Now PH is awful because all the homes are new and look just like that one. You're reaching. Really, really reaching.
I'm not the PP, but I think they were saying the TP house looked like it probably was on a street with 6 just like it. As in, most new construction neighborhoods look cookie cutter?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the second one is probably on a block with 6 other houses that look exactly like it. so, I would choose the first one.
That's hysterical. First PH is awful because the new homes are next to crap shacks and there is no continuity to the area. Now PH is awful because all the homes are new and look just like that one. You're reaching. Really, really reaching.