Anonymous wrote:Lived in 1890 Victorian house, four stories, 5000 sf. Original leaded stained glass and double paned windows- beautiful- leaked like crazy. No insulation in turret. Electric bill $1000/month. Basement- we had to put in two sump pumps or else a harsh rain would flood it every time. Fixed it up and sold it in 2007.
2010 townhouse, four stories, 2000sf. Energy efficient everything and dual zone hvac. Electric bill $100-150/month.
Every house needs regular maintenance. But I choose new construction every time. That said, we don't plan to move.
Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty much useless to discuss whether this is more charming than that -- people have different taste (and some people have bad taste), that's it.
That said, I do think that homes built pre-WWII were built to last longer than those built today, even if those pre-WWII were cookie-cutters back then -- for me, that's obviously true. I also suspect that cookie-cutters pre-WWII homes were better built than cookie-cutters build after WWII.
Personally, I like the idea of living in a home that has aged / will age nicely (especially, but not only, if I am going to age with it). I wonder: how many advocates of homes built in recent years can say that their homes will age like good wine, getting better over time?
Or more generally, is it possible to have a home built that has character, is architecturally refined (whether classic or contemporary) and will age nicely, without being rich?
Anonymous wrote:I think it's pretty much useless to discuss whether this is more charming than that -- people have different taste (and some people have bad taste), that's it.
That said, I do think that homes built pre-WWII were built to last longer than those built today, even if those pre-WWII were cookie-cutters back then -- for me, that's obviously true. I also suspect that cookie-cutters pre-WWII homes were better built than cookie-cutters build after WWII.
Personally, I like the idea of living in a home that has aged / will age nicely (especially, but not only, if I am going to age with it). I wonder: how many advocates of homes built in recent years can say that their homes will age like good wine, getting better over time?
Or more generally, is it possible to have a home built that has character, is architecturally refined (whether classic or contemporary) and will age nicely, without being rich?
Anonymous wrote:1915 house:
sewer was always backing up because there were roots in the pipes.
Tiny kitchen
Poor insulation
Radiator heat
Window a/c units
Only 1 original bathroom the others were closets turned into bathrooms
Not much closet space
No attached garage
Couldn't use a hair dryer and the toaster at the same time
2009 house:
Nail pops
I'll take new construction over old any day.
I think my new house as as much charm as the old house and none of the problems.
Anonymous wrote:
Agree. People in DC are very traditional and conservative when it comes to style--whether it be clothes or homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
"Character" and "post-WWII old homes" are mutually exclusive words.
Codswallop. I like older houses, but there houses built after WWII that have character, too.