Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is also plenty of ugly housing in the LA area. I do agree that outdoor spaces tend to be nicer there, but, it is SoCal. You can be outside year round. I really think DC area and LA area are apples to oranges.

more like apples to bananas - they're both fruit but that's where it ends. You can't beat SoCal weather, and beauty of the landscape and terrain. Also people in Southern CA are just happier and much nicer than in the DMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't even have to go all the way to California. The housing stock and neighborhoods are much nicer in the traditional NE suburbs of Philly and NY, with good/better schools and equivalent prices.

Does NY really have nicer neighborhoods and similar pricing? I thought it was more expensive.

- someone who lives in NYC area

NY suburbs are more expensive overall on a per foot basis, especially taking into account property taxes, but there's much more attractive housing stock at all price ranges. If you go further out to say Fairfield county the prices are pretty similar to closer-in DC suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda, but the houses/towns are a lot nicer than what you get an hour outside of DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I take the point about Monrovia being a suburb. I wasn't trying to compared Capitol Hill to Monrovia -- I actually live on the Hill. But we'd move to a suburb happily. It's just that the housing stock there sucks too.

Someone said it would be more apt to compare Monrovia to Laurel, maybe even Columbia. Totally fair! No go find me a house in Laurel or even Columbia that has the charm of the one I linked to. You can't. You can find plenty of cheaper homes that are ugly, and you can find plenty for the same price that are ugly, and you can even find homes for more $$ that are somehow EVEN UGLIER.

My point is that in many parts of the country, you will find lots of ugly housing stock, but there's a discount because it's ugly or cheaply built. I just don't see the discount around here. I see many, many flipped houses or recent developer builds that are objectively unattractive -- weird proportions, no attention to scale, bad layouts, etc. -- and they still cost a premium. Even the ugly 90s McMansions with the weird foyers and ill-conceived kitchens, and cheap construction that you can already see needs major overhauls. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And if you don't like the California comparison because it's too apples to oranges, then fine: look at houses off the Main Line outside Philly. You can find incredibly charming homes, some renovated and costing more, some unrenovated and with a discount to match, all along those commuter lines. You pay a premium for the better schools and proximity to Philadelphia, of course. But you can find attractive houses with good construction all over that area. Similar things in the New Jersey suburbs, outside Boston, in the Connecticut suburbs north of NYC. And you can find it in and around Chicago too, with more modern housing styles.

The DMV has uniquely ugly housing. Even row houses, which can be pretty on the outside, are often really ugly inside due to decades of weird, cheap updates where they've destroyed the original character of the home while adding nothing of value. When you find a row house in DC that isn't like this, it inevitably costs $2m+ even if it's small.

I stand by my assessment. I agree with the PP that the problem is that a lot of the houses in the 800k-150k range in this area were built cheaply for working class families and are now being sold to lawyers and doctors for 10x what they sold for in the 70s or 80s. Other cities built much more attractive or better quality housing for middle and working class people, so gentrification reveals lots of gems. This area did not.

You are correct. Aside from certain areas in NWDC and Chevy Chase, houses here are basically hideous 90s McMansions, ugly modern farmhouse new builds, or 60/70s split levels. Main Line is a great example of an area with attractive homes at a lower cost. I think it's partially the history of this area being developed later, though that doesn't explain why the new builds are so heinous.

Anonymous wrote:Weird. I lived in Philly and always thought the Main Line houses were ugly. I suppose they have a certain gothic charm if you're in to stone castles.

Having recently moved here from the Bay, we were delighted by the housing options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't even have to go all the way to California. The housing stock and neighborhoods are much nicer in the traditional NE suburbs of Philly and NY, with good/better schools and equivalent prices.

Does NY really have nicer neighborhoods and similar pricing? I thought it was more expensive.

- someone who lives in NYC area

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I take the point about Monrovia being a suburb. I wasn't trying to compared Capitol Hill to Monrovia -- I actually live on the Hill. But we'd move to a suburb happily. It's just that the housing stock there sucks too.

Someone said it would be more apt to compare Monrovia to Laurel, maybe even Columbia. Totally fair! No go find me a house in Laurel or even Columbia that has the charm of the one I linked to. You can't. You can find plenty of cheaper homes that are ugly, and you can find plenty for the same price that are ugly, and you can even find homes for more $$ that are somehow EVEN UGLIER.

My point is that in many parts of the country, you will find lots of ugly housing stock, but there's a discount because it's ugly or cheaply built. I just don't see the discount around here. I see many, many flipped houses or recent developer builds that are objectively unattractive -- weird proportions, no attention to scale, bad layouts, etc. -- and they still cost a premium. Even the ugly 90s McMansions with the weird foyers and ill-conceived kitchens, and cheap construction that you can already see needs major overhauls. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And if you don't like the California comparison because it's too apples to oranges, then fine: look at houses off the Main Line outside Philly. You can find incredibly charming homes, some renovated and costing more, some unrenovated and with a discount to match, all along those commuter lines. You pay a premium for the better schools and proximity to Philadelphia, of course. But you can find attractive houses with good construction all over that area. Similar things in the New Jersey suburbs, outside Boston, in the Connecticut suburbs north of NYC. And you can find it in and around Chicago too, with more modern housing styles.

The DMV has uniquely ugly housing. Even row houses, which can be pretty on the outside, are often really ugly inside due to decades of weird, cheap updates where they've destroyed the original character of the home while adding nothing of value. When you find a row house in DC that isn't like this, it inevitably costs $2m+ even if it's small.

I stand by my assessment. I agree with the PP that the problem is that a lot of the houses in the 800k-150k range in this area were built cheaply for working class families and are now being sold to lawyers and doctors for 10x what they sold for in the 70s or 80s. Other cities built much more attractive or better quality housing for middle and working class people, so gentrification reveals lots of gems. This area did not.

Anonymous wrote:You don't even have to go all the way to California. The housing stock and neighborhoods are much nicer in the traditional NE suburbs of Philly and NY, with good/better schools and equivalent prices.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I take the point about Monrovia being a suburb. I wasn't trying to compared Capitol Hill to Monrovia -- I actually live on the Hill. But we'd move to a suburb happily. It's just that the housing stock there sucks too.

Someone said it would be more apt to compare Monrovia to Laurel, maybe even Columbia. Totally fair! No go find me a house in Laurel or even Columbia that has the charm of the one I linked to. You can't. You can find plenty of cheaper homes that are ugly, and you can find plenty for the same price that are ugly, and you can even find homes for more $$ that are somehow EVEN UGLIER.

My point is that in many parts of the country, you will find lots of ugly housing stock, but there's a discount because it's ugly or cheaply built. I just don't see the discount around here. I see many, many flipped houses or recent developer builds that are objectively unattractive -- weird proportions, no attention to scale, bad layouts, etc. -- and they still cost a premium. Even the ugly 90s McMansions with the weird foyers and ill-conceived kitchens, and cheap construction that you can already see needs major overhauls. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And if you don't like the California comparison because it's too apples to oranges, then fine: look at houses off the Main Line outside Philly. You can find incredibly charming homes, some renovated and costing more, some unrenovated and with a discount to match, all along those commuter lines. You pay a premium for the better schools and proximity to Philadelphia, of course. But you can find attractive houses with good construction all over that area. Similar things in the New Jersey suburbs, outside Boston, in the Connecticut suburbs north of NYC. And you can find it in and around Chicago too, with more modern housing styles.

The DMV has uniquely ugly housing. Even row houses, which can be pretty on the outside, are often really ugly inside due to decades of weird, cheap updates where they've destroyed the original character of the home while adding nothing of value. When you find a row house in DC that isn't like this, it inevitably costs $2m+ even if it's small.

There's no link in your OP?

I stand by my assessment. I agree with the PP that the problem is that a lot of the houses in the 800k-150k range in this area were built cheaply for working class families and are now being sold to lawyers and doctors for 10x what they sold for in the 70s or 80s. Other cities built much more attractive or better quality housing for middle and working class people, so gentrification reveals lots of gems. This area did not.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I take the point about Monrovia being a suburb. I wasn't trying to compared Capitol Hill to Monrovia -- I actually live on the Hill. But we'd move to a suburb happily. It's just that the housing stock there sucks too.

Someone said it would be more apt to compare Monrovia to Laurel, maybe even Columbia. Totally fair! No go find me a house in Laurel or even Columbia that has the charm of the one I linked to. You can't. You can find plenty of cheaper homes that are ugly, and you can find plenty for the same price that are ugly, and you can even find homes for more $$ that are somehow EVEN UGLIER.

My point is that in many parts of the country, you will find lots of ugly housing stock, but there's a discount because it's ugly or cheaply built. I just don't see the discount around here. I see many, many flipped houses or recent developer builds that are objectively unattractive -- weird proportions, no attention to scale, bad layouts, etc. -- and they still cost a premium. Even the ugly 90s McMansions with the weird foyers and ill-conceived kitchens, and cheap construction that you can already see needs major overhauls. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And if you don't like the California comparison because it's too apples to oranges, then fine: look at houses off the Main Line outside Philly. You can find incredibly charming homes, some renovated and costing more, some unrenovated and with a discount to match, all along those commuter lines. You pay a premium for the better schools and proximity to Philadelphia, of course. But you can find attractive houses with good construction all over that area. Similar things in the New Jersey suburbs, outside Boston, in the Connecticut suburbs north of NYC. And you can find it in and around Chicago too, with more modern housing styles.

The DMV has uniquely ugly housing. Even row houses, which can be pretty on the outside, are often really ugly inside due to decades of weird, cheap updates where they've destroyed the original character of the home while adding nothing of value. When you find a row house in DC that isn't like this, it inevitably costs $2m+ even if it's small.

I stand by my assessment. I agree with the PP that the problem is that a lot of the houses in the 800k-150k range in this area were built cheaply for working class families and are now being sold to lawyers and doctors for 10x what they sold for in the 70s or 80s. Other cities built much more attractive or better quality housing for middle and working class people, so gentrification reveals lots of gems. This area did not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s what you get when homes for poor people in the 1960s become homes for rich people in the 2020s. They were ugly as hell then, built for simple people (plumbers, nurses, teachers) over 50 years ago. They have not aged well, yet now house dual income professionals. Really makes you wonder whether you’ve come out ahead, doesn’t it?

This right here.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I take the point about Monrovia being a suburb. I wasn't trying to compared Capitol Hill to Monrovia -- I actually live on the Hill. But we'd move to a suburb happily. It's just that the housing stock there sucks too.

Someone said it would be more apt to compare Monrovia to Laurel, maybe even Columbia. Totally fair! No go find me a house in Laurel or even Columbia that has the charm of the one I linked to. You can't. You can find plenty of cheaper homes that are ugly, and you can find plenty for the same price that are ugly, and you can even find homes for more $$ that are somehow EVEN UGLIER.

My point is that in many parts of the country, you will find lots of ugly housing stock, but there's a discount because it's ugly or cheaply built. I just don't see the discount around here. I see many, many flipped houses or recent developer builds that are objectively unattractive -- weird proportions, no attention to scale, bad layouts, etc. -- and they still cost a premium. Even the ugly 90s McMansions with the weird foyers and ill-conceived kitchens, and cheap construction that you can already see needs major overhauls. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And if you don't like the California comparison because it's too apples to oranges, then fine: look at houses off the Main Line outside Philly. You can find incredibly charming homes, some renovated and costing more, some unrenovated and with a discount to match, all along those commuter lines. You pay a premium for the better schools and proximity to Philadelphia, of course. But you can find attractive houses with good construction all over that area. Similar things in the New Jersey suburbs, outside Boston, in the Connecticut suburbs north of NYC. And you can find it in and around Chicago too, with more modern housing styles.

The DMV has uniquely ugly housing. Even row houses, which can be pretty on the outside, are often really ugly inside due to decades of weird, cheap updates where they've destroyed the original character of the home while adding nothing of value. When you find a row house in DC that isn't like this, it inevitably costs $2m+ even if it's small.

I stand by my assessment. I agree with the PP that the problem is that a lot of the houses in the 800k-150k range in this area were built cheaply for working class families and are now being sold to lawyers and doctors for 10x what they sold for in the 70s or 80s. Other cities built much more attractive or better quality housing for middle and working class people, so gentrification reveals lots of gems. This area did not.