Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:41
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:The whole east coast south of Boston is a mess .
Agree.
DC has the ugliest housing stock I have seen, though.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:40
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:I am betting OP is a guy.
DH pays me if it's not!
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:39
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I am betting OP is a guy.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:38
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Totally with you, OP. It's depressing.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:37
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.
Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.
That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).
I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.
And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.
Maybe you can start a Go Fund Me page for an airplane ticket, because few here are going to buy this crap that a typical West Coast home has much to recommend it. It always comes down to people here who can't afford what they think they deserve.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:36
Subject: Re:Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I agree with OP. I've lived on the west coast and southwest in areas where the architecture is just gorgeous. Here I'm in an uninspiring colonial. There aren't many good options here
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:29
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.
Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.
That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).
I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.
And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.
Hi OP - I just read this post aloud to my husband and hoping you can settle a bet.
Are you a man or a woman?
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:20
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
gAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.
Oh how I wish that were true. But nope, we are house hunting and spending a lot of time on the side streets. Budget is 1.3 million. Many (truly, most, not just many) are seriously ugly. Even bueautiful streets in Kent with $2-3 million houses, the next block over has chain link fences. Hideous. throughout upper NW and Bethesda there are So Many unattractive additions globbed on to blah colonials. There are beautiful streets here and there (south 1/2 of Wesley Heights), a couple parts of Westmoreland Hills, there's always a touch of unkempt and rundown that creeps in to many of the neigborhoods. It's depressing.
1.3m in this area is not impressive.
You're nothing special and clearly not rich.
That's what I was saying. I received a very rude awakening thinking that that would be enough to live in neighborhood with nice charming houses with but it's not. I guess i should heed the advice of the lovely people of DCUM and just go back to where I came from!
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:19
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.
Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.
That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).
I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.
And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.
Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.
That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).
I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.
And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 21:05
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
There are a few pockets here and there with some attractive homes, but yes overall the housing stock here sucks. I prefer many other areas in the Northeast, Chicago, West Coast, etc.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 20:45
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.
Oh how I wish that were true. But nope, we are house hunting and spending a lot of time on the side streets. Budget is 1.3 million. Many (truly, most, not just many) are seriously ugly. Even bueautiful streets in Kent with $2-3 million houses, the next block over has chain link fences. Hideous. throughout upper NW and Bethesda there are So Many unattractive additions globbed on to blah colonials. There are beautiful streets here and there (south 1/2 of Wesley Heights), a couple parts of Westmoreland Hills, there's always a touch of unkempt and rundown that creeps in to many of the neigborhoods. It's depressing.
1.3m in this area is not impressive.
You're nothing special and clearly not rich.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 20:42
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I totally agree! So ugly.
DC isn't a town for creatives (the way SF, NYC, Boston, or LA are). It shows in the architecture.
I'm not a creative - guess that's how I ended up in DC - but sure wish there were more around here to rub off on the neighborhoods.
DC isn't a town for creatives (the way SF, NYC, Boston, or LA are). It shows in the architecture.
I'm not a creative - guess that's how I ended up in DC - but sure wish there were more around here to rub off on the neighborhoods.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 20:39
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Hey pp - didn't take it personally, just stating the facts. And, not sure why OP requires any sympathy???
Anonymous
03/22/2015 20:36
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:It's true OP - this is what happens in a city without representation, built on the backs of slavery and ex-slaves escaping their southern masters.
Stuff wasn't always done to "the standards" of the southern white plantation owners or the well-monied bostonites,
Guess you're just gonna have to suck it up - or move somewhere else. Regardless, pp is right, get over yourself.
NP here. Why would you take OP's statement personally? Truly bizarre!
OP, it seems there are locals that might not know better. You are not going to get sympathy from them. Just be glad you know better yourself. Case in point above.
Also, I agree with you, the ramshackle add ons are the worst.
Anonymous
03/22/2015 20:31
Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
It's true OP - this is what happens in a city without representation, built on the backs of slavery and ex-slaves escaping their southern masters.
Stuff wasn't always done to "the standards" of the southern white plantation owners or the well-monied bostonites,
Guess you're just gonna have to suck it up - or move somewhere else. Regardless, pp is right, get over yourself.
Stuff wasn't always done to "the standards" of the southern white plantation owners or the well-monied bostonites,
Guess you're just gonna have to suck it up - or move somewhere else. Regardless, pp is right, get over yourself.