Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who rent also "build families." This is a weird post. I mean, it's probably rented out to international families in DC for a posting who want IB for good DC publics. I doubt the owner is renting out to a frat or other undesirable neighbors.

I think you're missing the point here. They took a beautiful home, stripped it of all the character they could (to limit their maintenance costs on their rental), and are preventing anyone from making it their own.

I am confused. Why do you think a homeowner should care about preventing some hypothetical person who doesn't own their home, from "making it their own."

The owners...you know...who OWN the home..made it their own.

Why would they NOT reduce maintenance costs? Have you ever worked a day in the private sector?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who rent also "build families." This is a weird post. I mean, it's probably rented out to international families in DC for a posting who want IB for good DC publics. I doubt the owner is renting out to a frat or other undesirable neighbors.

I think you're missing the point here. They took a beautiful home, stripped it of all the character they could (to limit their maintenance costs on their rental), and are preventing anyone from making it their own.

Then You should have purchased it.

Anonymous wrote:I remember this home and saw it when it was for sale. Here’s a link to the before pictures:

https://www.longandfoster.com/homes-for-sale/4524-Verplanck-Place-NW-Washington-DC-20016-314166716

I could be wrong, but I remember posters complaining about too much shrubbery obstructing the front of the house.

So the "investor" took it from a finished basement to an unfinished basement. I have no idea why they thought that would help its rental value. What a waste of money.

Anonymous wrote:We rent a SFH in AU Park and take very good care of the home (too good, the landlord takes advantage of our good will at times). On the same block, there are two owner occupied homes that are pretty dumpy, overgrown lawns / plants / weeds etc. Owners can be lousy occupants too.

OP's objection to the renovation isn't really about rentals. The same thing is done by flippers, who often rip the character out of a home to simplify renovations. Or by buyers who simply lack taste. So if you want to make this a cause, lobby for an AUP historical district.

PS: $5800 for the location / space / schools, assuming the house is in good shape (aesthetics aside) is a more than fair price for that rental.

The fact that it has been on the rental market for nearly 60 days suggest otherwise.

OP, let's not pretend that AU Park is Georgetown, or Old Town, Alexandria, or Spring Valley, or the Hill, or even Columbia Heights in terms of housing stock. Its "character" is small, nondescript homes for civil servants built decades ago, gradually being replaced by much larger (but not any more aesthetically appealing) homes. This is not some sort of architectural tragedy.

I remember this home and saw it when it was for sale. Here’s a link to the before pictures:

https://www.longandfoster.com/homes-for-sale/4524-Verplanck-Place-NW-Washington-DC-20016-314166716

I could be wrong, but I remember posters complaining about too much shrubbery obstructing the front of the house.

We rent a SFH in AU Park and take very good care of the home (too good, the landlord takes advantage of our good will at times). On the same block, there are two owner occupied homes that are pretty dumpy, overgrown lawns / plants / weeds etc. Owners can be lousy occupants too.

OP's objection to the renovation isn't really about rentals. The same thing is done by flippers, who often rip the character out of a home to simplify renovations. Or by buyers who simply lack taste. So if you want to make this a cause, lobby for an AUP historical district.

PS: $5800 for the location / space / schools, assuming the house is in good shape (aesthetics aside) is a more than fair price for that rental.