Who calls a place where their family lives a shithouse?

Anonymous wrote:15:28 - the 1000 SF colonials (or probably more like 1,200 plus finished basement) were built years ago, when people had lower space expectations for their homes. The wealthy had larger homes, of course, but the middle class were occupying the smaller homes.

Closets were smaller because people had fewer clothes. Kitchens were smaller in the wealthy homes because servants were doing the cooking and kitchens weren't for hanging out. Other rooms were smaller and ceilings were lower because it was easier to heat and cool smaller spaces. Lots has changed since some homes were built.

HAHAHAHA...you're funny!

Anonymous wrote:15:28 - the 1000 SF colonials (or probably more like 1,200 plus finished basement) were built years ago, when people had lower space expectations for their homes. The wealthy had larger homes, of course, but the middle class were occupying the smaller homes.

Closets were smaller because people had fewer clothes. Kitchens were smaller in the wealthy homes because servants were doing the cooking and kitchens weren't for hanging out. Other rooms were smaller and ceilings were lower because it was easier to heat and cool smaller spaces. Lots has changed since some homes were built.

This. I'm the PP and our house was built in the 1940s in NOVA as part of the effort to house the influx of government workers after WWII.

Shocking, I know, in this day and age.

This was not a wealthy area until recently. Even in Mclean (for example) - people built smaller houses because that is all they could afford. Do you think they built small houses because they supposedly "wanted" small houses? If you think that, I have a bridge to sell you.

In other areas of the country, even if they are traditionally more (!) expensive areas, the houses are much, much bigger and not worthy of tear down. But those who are not apprised very easily take offense to this fact.

15:28 - the 1000 SF colonials (or probably more like 1,200 plus finished basement) were built years ago, when people had lower space expectations for their homes. The wealthy had larger homes, of course, but the middle class were occupying the smaller homes.

Closets were smaller because people had fewer clothes. Kitchens were smaller in the wealthy homes because servants were doing the cooking and kitchens weren't for hanging out. Other rooms were smaller and ceilings were lower because it was easier to heat and cool smaller spaces. Lots has changed since some homes were built.

I'm the one who hated living "farther out" in close-in Fairfax. I lived in DC for 4 years, then Arlington for 5, than Fairfax for 12, and Fairfax just never "took" for me. The only reason I stayed as long as I did was because my mortgage was cheap and I liked my house well enough, and my Metro commute was ok. But it was a drag to have to take the metro to/from Vienna all the time, especially on weekends with long wait times, the outdoor metro stations shut down in snowy weather and I just felt isolated from the city. There wasn't anything cool in Merrifield like there is now, and you could walk to the Safeway and CVS, but not much else. When my daycare dropoff (3 miles from home in the direction of my work) + commute started taking over 3 hours a day round-trip, I threw in the towel and moved back to Arlington. Traffic was really, really terrible when road projects on 29, 50, Gallows and 495 all happened at once. It's probably better now.

Plenty of people would have been just fine in that situation. I just underestimated how much I'd hate being farther out than Arlington. (I'm a single mom, so being single in family-ville probably had something to do with it too - the only singles were GMU students.) My point is that people should think very hard about location when they're buying. If the tradeoff is location vs. space, make sure you know what you're getting into and maybe try hard to love your house if the alternative might be hating a commute.

Anonymous wrote:Our realtor gave us good advice to never renovate to the point of being the most expensive house in the neighborhood. At the time we bought 15yrs ago she pointed to the one house with an addition and said "they will never get their money out". Market changed, and our close-in neighborhood of small homes in a great school district became a hot commodity. All these tiny 1100sf colonials are now getting additions and becoming 2000-2300sf houses. Lots are still small making a tear-down not really a good option, and some additions are more well done than others.

It's not the house I imagined living in forever, but love what we've done to make it our's. The addition and interior renovation plus bits and pieces of exterior work have made it a house I really like. And I know the re-sale value is through the roof.

Like you, it's a lot smaller than I'd expected having grown up in the midwest, but it's also worth more than twice as much as my cousin's 4000sf house in an upscale neighborhood in Cincinnati simply due to location.

1000 SF colonial? That's crazy. Who in their right mind would build a house like that unless they didn't have the land and were appealing to a lower demographic.

Add ons will always be add ons, at the end of the day. It may suit you temporarily, especially if you plan on leaving the area sooner rather than later. It is always cheaper to knock down, in the long run.

Our realtor gave us good advice to never renovate to the point of being the most expensive house in the neighborhood. At the time we bought 15yrs ago she pointed to the one house with an addition and said "they will never get their money out". Market changed, and our close-in neighborhood of small homes in a great school district became a hot commodity. All these tiny 1100sf colonials are now getting additions and becoming 2000-2300sf houses. Lots are still small making a tear-down not really a good option, and some additions are more well done than others.

It's not the house I imagined living in forever, but love what we've done to make it our's. The addition and interior renovation plus bits and pieces of exterior work have made it a house I really like. And I know the re-sale value is through the roof.

Like you, it's a lot smaller than I'd expected having grown up in the midwest, but it's also worth more than twice as much as my cousin's 4000sf house in an upscale neighborhood in Cincinnati simply due to location.

I love dutch colonials.

Really, LEARN to like what you have. It really can be done. Google dutch colonials and look at all the gorgeous homes of this style.

I will say again: obviously there are things that are better here than in the midwest, or you would be living there instead of here. You have chosen to live here for a reason. You have chosen your home's location for a reason. Those choices come with some trade-offs, as virtually all choices do (unless funds are unlimited). Embrace your choice.

Anonymous wrote:I like having a new large house inside the beltway

yep, it's great to be reach

I like having a new large house inside the beltway

Anonymous wrote:Around here, inside the beltway, 2,500 SF is a pretty decent sized house, and 1/4 acre is a pretty decent sized lot. If renovating it still won't make you happy, yes, you may need to think about moving farther out. That said, I personally would never live farther out again. I lived in FFX (about a mile outside the beltway) and hated it for 12 years, so I'll never do that again. And that was close-in, and metro-accessible. (And we do just fine with a 1,500 SF + basement house on 1/8th acre, because for us, a cozier house with character and a good layout is just fine.)

Just curious but why did you hate it? Seems like worst part about being outside the beltway is commute and if you were close to the metro then maybe commute wasn't so bad. Or are you really into the walkability thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overwhelmingly likely. That remains accurate.

An 11,000 square foot lot is huge in DC. HUGE. There are houses, perhaps hundreds of them, that are on lots greater than 1/4. But they are rare, and no one in such a situation would refer to their 1/4 acre lot as "very small." Sure, it's very small compared to many locals, but not in DC.

I meant that it is small compared with what we both grew up with in the Midwest.

Realize you are now in the DC area and adjust your expectations.

Anonymous wrote:Overwhelmingly likely. That remains accurate.

An 11,000 square foot lot is huge in DC. HUGE. There are houses, perhaps hundreds of them, that are on lots greater than 1/4. But they are rare, and no one in such a situation would refer to their 1/4 acre lot as "very small." Sure, it's very small compared to many locals, but not in DC.

I meant that it is small compared with what we both grew up with in the Midwest.