Anonymous wrote: Sure you are. The market giveth and the market taketh, and if DC's fortunes ebb you'll be stranded in sub-par New Deal-era housing in a city with remarkably poor schools. Hope you have a good Plan B.

AnonymousSure you are. The market giveth and the market taketh, and if DC's fortunes ebb you'll be stranded in[b wrote: sub-par New Deal-era housing [/b]in a city with remarkably poor schools. Hope you have a good Plan B.

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.
Haha. I'm not making any extra effort or need to convince myself -- the market speaks for itself. Good luck enjoying your McMansion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.
Haha. I'm not making any extra effort or need to convince myself -- the market speaks for itself. Good luck enjoying your McMansion.
Anonymous wrote:
It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.
Anonymous wrote:
NP. Regarding architectural integrity: any architect, any designer, anyone with a basic sense of aesthetics will agree that many, if not most, McMansions are a tribute to bad taste. While taste is relative, there IS something called bad taste -- and you know it when you see it, unless you are advocating a strong version of architectural nihilism. But hey, people are entitled to have bad taste.
Regarding commute: yes, obviously not everybody commutes inside the Beltway to work. But many/most people do - one strong reason for price differences. I'm not saying that -- the market does.
Finally, I live in what you could call a cookie-cutter "crappy" rowhouse from the 1930s. I acknowledge that they didn't use th best materials or the best architectural details. But my little humble house is vastly superior in terms of beauty, attention to detail **and construction quality** than McMansions that were built 10 years ago and that are beginning to fall apart. "Crappy" back then was waaaay better than average now.
Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no one can be judged wrong for not subscribing to your urban paradigm. You don't really know how long someone's commute is unless you know where they are commuting TO. Does the entire world work in your office building? And quality and quantity is not an either/or proposition. This area is full of houses that are both small AND crappy. And not everything built over 50 years ago is automatically museum quality. They built crap at that time, too. It's silly to get all breathy about houses because of nothing but a time stamp.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, it is a term that people use when they can't afford a big house. Do you ever hear people with nice, big houses using the term? Of course not! I don't have a big house, but that doesn't mean I can try to rip apart others - it would just mean that I am miserable. Why tell everyone?
Sorry, but no. It's a term used by people who have some education about architectural integrity, who understand the value of a short commute, and value quality above quantity.
Anonymous wrote:OP, it is a term that people use when they can't afford a big house. Do you ever hear people with nice, big houses using the term? Of course not! I don't have a big house, but that doesn't mean I can try to rip apart others - it would just mean that I am miserable. Why tell everyone?
Anonymous wrote:OP, it is a term that people use when they can't afford a big house.