Anonymous wrote:Isn't there a lot of resentment between "new" and "old" owners? I could never live in a neighborhood like that - even if I could afford it

I think it's more of an issue when the new homes are on small lots and literally overshadow the neighbors.

I won't say it's not an issue even where the lots are larger, but I think it's less of an issue in that situation, or where the neighborhood has evolved over time, with a mix of home additions, renovations and tear downs. Some older residents may also welcome the fact that their properties have increased in value and that they have the option of selling at a nice price and retiring elsewhere if they choose. I did discover that one acid-tongued resident of our area had actually started a snippy blog where she posted photos of every new house that she disliked, but sadly we didn't make the cut.

To each his or her own. Personally, I have zero interest in living in DC or living again in a subdivision where all the houses are similar. There are plenty of HOAs or historic districts for those who prefer more uniformity, and people can also lobby the local zoning bodies if they believe things are getting out of hand.

Anonymous wrote:There is a neighborhood in Mclean - I don't know the technical name, but it is behind the library. There are old homes that have really awkward add ons and there are also nice normal sized new homes. Some of the add ons look like they skirted some parameters, for certain. Most of the new homes are done well, all different and tasteful, decent sized lots, and not Mcmansions, though I would fully expect the original or less recent owners would have some (real or imagined) criticism. There are a few originals (without additions), but not many. The latter has deteriorating roofs and porches, so I would bet there are older owners who can not keep up with what a house requires. I am surprised a builder has not bought them out. When this neighborhood finally turns over with new homes, it will be nice. The bigger garages keep random yard piles to a minimum, and the new houses seem to attract a different element, as with any neighborhood. It makes a difference when people can actually afford their house, which seems more prevalent with the new houses than with those who can barely afford it. Since you asked. It is a different market nowadays.

There are a lot of tear downs in the Old Dominion Gardens/Hansborough neighborhood that is NW of the library near Churchill Road.

Isn't there a lot of resentment between "new" and "old" owners? I could never live in a neighborhood like that - even if I could afford it

There is a neighborhood in Mclean - I don't know the technical name, but it is behind the library. There are old homes that have really awkward add ons and there are also nice normal sized new homes. Some of the add ons look like they skirted some parameters, for certain. Most of the new homes are done well, all different and tasteful, decent sized lots, and not Mcmansions, though I would fully expect the original or less recent owners would have some (real or imagined) criticism. There are a few originals (without additions), but not many. The latter has deteriorating roofs and porches, so I would bet there are older owners who can not keep up with what a house requires. I am surprised a builder has not bought them out. When this neighborhood finally turns over with new homes, it will be nice. The bigger garages keep random yard piles to a minimum, and the new houses seem to attract a different element, as with any neighborhood. It makes a difference when people can actually afford their house, which seems more prevalent with the new houses than with those who can barely afford it. Since you asked. It is a different market nowadays.

Anonymous wrote:What about the lot coverage restrictions in Arlington? How can they fill the lots so thoroughly?

I agree with the person who said Franklin Park is a nice example. There is not a cookie cutter look to the neighborhood, and some of the builders do really lovely work. But it does help that the lots are generally quite large. A McMansion almost invariably looks much worse on a small lot.

You will gain a lot of insight by going to the Arlington Property Assessment/Board of Zoning Appeals website, and seeing what your neighborhood is zoned as. For example, neighborhoods zoned "R-8" are residential, with larger-size lots. Neighborhoods zoned "R-6" are residential, but with mid-sized lots. Some neighorhoods are zoned for higher density/townhouses/condos or commercial.

Then, there are building code rules in Arlington for how the property can be built upon. For example, the new house has to be so many feet back from the front property line, X many feet from the back property line, and X feet from either side property line.

Arlington's building code gives incentives for having a front porch, and incentives for having the garage as a separate structure back from the house. (Versus the huge garage bays taking up the front facade of the house.)

Where it really gets contentious sometimes in my neighborhood is with building permit variances. Eg, someone wants a variance to build closer to the side property line than would normally be allowed by the building code, or wants to build a big garage right up against the neighbor's property line. Then all of the grievances with the architectural style and size of the house are aired by certain of my neighbors.

Worst is the area around the Woodmont YMCA in N Arlington. Fillmore street has a lot of huge mcmansions on tiny lots.

Permits are public record so if you are ever curious as to how those houses get built, you can just go to the county and ask. Nothing secret about it.

Anonymous wrote:an "infill" is not the same thing as a teardown.

Filling in means exactly that -- you put a house into a space where there isn't a house to begin with.

In Arlington, a lot of the tear downs are the ones on double lots. Tear down one old house, split the lot, and put up two. So more density.

Anonymous wrote:What about the lot coverage restrictions in Arlington? How can they fill the lots so thoroughly?

This is my frustration! O/T, but we chose to do an addition on our old Arlington home rather than move. We wanted an extra 1-2ft to one side beyond what zoning allows without a permit waiver. The county denied it. More than 50% of our land is still land instead of house. Yet, they're now approving permits for these massive houses on micro-yards. So frustrating, and wondering what sort of backroom deals happen between the county and the big developers that those of us who do one-off construction work with a smaller builder don't benefit from.

Oh and the one on Sycamore. Wasn't the original builder forced to make it blend in a little better somehow? It's still a huge ugly box, but I think the original box was even worse? Wasn't he trying to build a boarding house or halfway house or something? Weird.

That house on Barton is the worst - with the big garage right out front and everything. Yuck. So out of place.

Anonymous wrote:
I am really impressed when some key is seamlessly able to add an addition or expand while keeping with the character of the original house and neighborhood.

I hate to see a nice old house completely bulldozed,, but I also hate cheap plastic surgery on older women. It's not keeping with the time period of the structure.

That's how I feel about cheap hair pieces on middle-aged men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's easier to tear down and put up an energy efficient, sealed house than to fix up an old one.

It takes less labor to tear down and rebuild, so it's cheaper for the builder. It's much less efficient in terms of energy and materials. The McMansions are built in a way that barely meets code, so they'll be easy to tear down in twenty years or so, if we still have lumber left.

I am really impressed when some key is seamlessly able to add an addition or expand while keeping with the character of the original house and neighborhood.

I hate to see a nice old house completely bulldozed,, but I also hate cheap plastic surgery on older women. It's not keeping with the time period of the structure.

Anonymous wrote:the big homes on small lots are good for busy families who don't want to do alot of yardwork. Everyone complains about a big home next to a small one. Maybe it's the small ones that need to be bigger not the other way around.

Cutting down trees and replacing grass with asphalt roofing is bad for the environment. If you don't want to do yardwork, plant shrubs and perennials, which don't take as much attention.

Anonymous wrote:
It's easier to tear down and put up an energy efficient, sealed house than to fix up an old one.

It takes less labor to tear down and rebuild, so it's cheaper for the builder. It's much less efficient in terms of energy and materials. The McMansions are built in a way that barely meets code, so they'll be easy to tear down in twenty years or so, if we still have lumber left.