Anonymous wrote:Race does play a part in the conversation as well as ethnicity.

Asians, particularly Chinese, will not buy old houses because they don't want to inherit other's misfortunes that may have been experienced in the house. G

Oh lord, please don't talk about what you don't know!

For me I like certain aspects of new construction - the obvious being that everything is new (appliances, plumbing, electrical). But that is IF they are done well and correctly. We've had two friends buy new construction - one with major plumbing issues (flooded basement first big rain) and one with some strange electrical issues. That said, the down side of the new construction that we saw while shopping around was that there is no longer an interest in architectural detail. A builder actually bragged to me his "trick" for making moldings look bigger than they are - basically leave a gap between the molding pieces and have the drywall show through. He was bragging about it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking here about interior finishes that can easily be changed every ten years, but rather the actual proportions/golden section type rules.

Changing finishes every 10 years is the sort of wastefulness that makes me cringe. One of the things I like about our 1920s house is that it was built to last. And yes, we redid the kitchen and one of the bathrooms, both of which were victims of 1970s . . . improvements . . . but we still have the original tile from one bathroom, the hardwood floors, the plaster walls, etc.

Well-designed, well-built houses from any period are a good thing. I'm sure there are people who don't like any new construction, but most of us who like old houses are cautious about new builds that cut corners in materials and designs.

I grew up in a town filled with huge 19th c. houses from a time when people thought they needed two parlors and an entire floor for the servants. When lifestyles changed, the houses either fell apart or got carved up into apartments. If they weren't properly maintained, they were torn down, and their beautiful components got thrown out. It was a tragic waste.

When most of the recent builds fall apart, their components -- designed to be replaced every 10 years anyway -- will go into a dumpster and then into a landfill. It will be a waste of resources, but not because they should have been salvaged.

What evidence do you have new builds fall apart in 10 years

Race does play a part in the conversation as well as ethnicity.

Asians, particularly Chinese, will not buy old houses because they don't want to inherit other's misfortunes that may have been experienced in the house. G

Anonymous wrote:Aren't the posters who try to mock new builds experiencing self loathing of their own? It certainly seems that way.

Sure- but race was weirdly interjected into the conversation.

Aren't the posters who try to mock new builds experiencing self loathing of their own? It certainly seems that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Materials change, but many of the new homes are much better designed than the older homes than the SWPL crowd covets. Neither your homes nor your lives are that interesting to most people.

I really don't understand why people keep saying that. NOBODY's homes or lives are interesting to most people. If any of the people reading or posting to this thread drops dead right now, no one will notice. We are all just internet nobodies. What does this have to do with the actual argument? It's not built on caring, you know.

These sorts of comments seem to be rooted in some form of self loathing/feelings of inadequacy. It wouldn't be surprising to learn this poster is in fact white.
If not, it could be a person of color who feels that love for older homes comes from a desire of exclusivity. They are expensive, and rare ( not talking about tiny ramblers- think Victorians). Seeing it as another form of exclusion, and possibly ( in their mind) making their preferences and accomplishments somehow diminished by comparison. Perhaps, they worked very hard to get out of old, decrepit housing stock, and find that now people are coming in to gentrify those areas, it can be frustrating and hurtful. Sometimes it's hard to accept that a dream that has been held up as the most important, and highest measure of success isn't someone else's dream. Even harder to accept if you feel that goal post is always being moved by a group of people you feel oppressed by.
That being said, maybe I should just head back over to pinterest and salivate over old homes, and beautiful new contempory construction. This thread is about houses, right?

Anonymous wrote:
Materials change, but many of the new homes are much better designed than the older homes than the SWPL crowd covets. Neither your homes nor your lives are that interesting to most people.

I really don't understand why people keep saying that. NOBODY's homes or lives are interesting to most people. If any of the people reading or posting to this thread drops dead right now, no one will notice. We are all just internet nobodies. What does this have to do with the actual argument? It's not built on caring, you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking here about interior finishes that can easily be changed every ten years, but rather the actual proportions/golden section type rules.

Changing finishes every 10 years is the sort of wastefulness that makes me cringe. One of the things I like about our 1920s house is that it was built to last. And yes, we redid the kitchen and one of the bathrooms, both of which were victims of 1970s . . . improvements . . . but we still have the original tile from one bathroom, the hardwood floors, the plaster walls, etc.

Well-designed, well-built houses from any period are a good thing. I'm sure there are people who don't like any new construction, but most of us who like old houses are cautious about new builds that cut corners in materials and designs.

I grew up in a town filled with huge 19th c. houses from a time when people thought they needed two parlors and an entire floor for the servants. When lifestyles changed, the houses either fell apart or got carved up into apartments. If they weren't properly maintained, they were torn down, and their beautiful components got thrown out. It was a tragic waste.

When most of the recent builds fall apart, their components -- designed to be replaced every 10 years anyway -- will go into a dumpster and then into a landfill. It will be a waste of resources, but not because they should have been salvaged.

In my language, we have a saying, "prisons are built to last but who wants them?"

Good design and good building have nothing to do with the color of your paint or your kitchen cabinets or the model of your wall oven (did you weep for your 1920s icebox?). Neither does "original" tile. These are aesthetic choices that have no intrinsic value. When these things are outdated, they should go into the landfill. It doesn't matter that they could have lasted longer, they are no longer pleasing to the eye. Floors erode over time. Not everyone in the 100-year house walks around in pointe shoes - sometimes floors are beyond salvation. Insulation rots. Better-made things get invented all the time.

Again, this has nothing to do with how soundly the house is built, or its proportions. You're getting hung up on the wrong things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking here about interior finishes that can easily be changed every ten years, but rather the actual proportions/golden section type rules.

Changing finishes every 10 years is the sort of wastefulness that makes me cringe. One of the things I like about our 1920s house is that it was built to last. And yes, we redid the kitchen and one of the bathrooms, both of which were victims of 1970s . . . improvements . . . but we still have the original tile from one bathroom, the hardwood floors, the plaster walls, etc.

Well-designed, well-built houses from any period are a good thing. I'm sure there are people who don't like any new construction, but most of us who like old houses are cautious about new builds that cut corners in materials and designs.

I grew up in a town filled with huge 19th c. houses from a time when people thought they needed two parlors and an entire floor for the servants. When lifestyles changed, the houses either fell apart or got carved up into apartments. If they weren't properly maintained, they were torn down, and their beautiful components got thrown out. It was a tragic waste.

When most of the recent builds fall apart, their components -- designed to be replaced every 10 years anyway -- will go into a dumpster and then into a landfill. It will be a waste of resources, but not because they should have been salvaged.

There are plenty of people who have homes built much later than the 1920s who have only made the types of improvements to their homes that you describe, and whose homes are lasting just fine, thank you.

Materials change, but many of the new homes are much better designed than the older homes than the SWPL crowd covets. Neither your homes nor your lives are that interesting to most people.

Anonymous wrote:it is only certain kind of white people.

remember, not all white people are the 'right' kind of white people. this is one of the key tenets of SWPL.

Shhhhh. The grown ups are talking.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking here about interior finishes that can easily be changed every ten years, but rather the actual proportions/golden section type rules.

Changing finishes every 10 years is the sort of wastefulness that makes me cringe. One of the things I like about our 1920s house is that it was built to last. And yes, we redid the kitchen and one of the bathrooms, both of which were victims of 1970s . . . improvements . . . but we still have the original tile from one bathroom, the hardwood floors, the plaster walls, etc.

Well-designed, well-built houses from any period are a good thing. I'm sure there are people who don't like any new construction, but most of us who like old houses are cautious about new builds that cut corners in materials and designs.

I grew up in a town filled with huge 19th c. houses from a time when people thought they needed two parlors and an entire floor for the servants. When lifestyles changed, the houses either fell apart or got carved up into apartments. If they weren't properly maintained, they were torn down, and their beautiful components got thrown out. It was a tragic waste.

When most of the recent builds fall apart, their components -- designed to be replaced every 10 years anyway -- will go into a dumpster and then into a landfill. It will be a waste of resources, but not because they should have been salvaged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Indeed the world keeps turning... wait what were we talking about?


Oh, that's right. Older homes being beautiful and a treasured part of our history... And only white people like them, or some such nonsense.
The interesting thing about open mindedness - most people can understand the attraction of a new build. It's such a simple concept, " new= better". Funny thing is a new home isn't new very long. There have been a swath of homes posted on this forum, esstenially mocked because they are terrible McMansions. Some of them are pretty bad, but many just seem dated. They often are fewer than 10 years old.
The glorious thing about a well proportioned (that can still be very large mind you - I'm not talking small box here) classic older home, it doesn't go out of style. there is some new custom construction that fits into this category as well.
It takes true open mindedness to look at an older house and see its potential. Most people aren't good at that. Watch HGTV sometime, all you will hear is homeowner after homeowner telling a designer, " I just can't see it"
I'm certain there are people who would much rather live in a new build. They have many things going for them ( closest space!). To me there is a chunk of time between that one being "new" and later being " classic" - I'll wait and see if your home becomes the latter. Then it will be interesting to me. In the meantime - it falls into the category of " dated".
Not necessarily ugly or hateful, just not my ( and many peoples) cup of tea.
I like tea
Vitage fashion
And older homes

The interesting thing about what you wrote is that what appeals to you, technically, does not necessarily have to emerge over time. The rules of good proportions - things like air circulation, proportion of rooms, ratios between windows/ceilings/doors, structural things of that matter - are a known quantity. In theory, nothing prevents a new home builder from integrating them during the design/architectural stage so that the house is planned with good proportions to begin with. I'm not talking here about interior finishes that can easily be changed every ten years, but rather the actual proportions/golden section type rules.

Indeed! I think you are right about that. As I recall reading earlier in this thread, an architect had mentioned that new homes are often changed by the builder. I'm sure some less attractive new construction loses out to those golden sections in order to cram more features into a home. Which is also understandable. If a person is spending a fortune on a tiny lot close into the city, it makes sense that they'd want a comfortable house that meets the needs of their family. I don't dispute that. I did note that good custom construction often does this well. Of course, we've all driven by some real doozies that have got to be custom - there could be no other explanation. I sort of love the ones that are outrageously bad. Those people are living their dream...
Boy howdy.
The thing I find interesting about this thread is that many people championing new homes, have two different and sort of competing ideas. The first being, " it's my house mind your own business", which makes me think they don't have much experience living in a single family home community. I live in Arlington, most everyone is incredibly busy and don't have time to be in each others business. I prefer older homes, but welcome improvements to my neighborhood, and I bet most of my neighbors agree. Be it good new construction, or a good renovation. Of course nosy or not, a huge eye sore you can't help but take note of. The other idea being, " your jealous of my fabulous new house" which to me implies you are smugly hoping everyone is interested in your business.
I would say I am very jealous of my Arlington neighbor's fabulous renovations, and ambivalent to my other neighbor's fabulous new build. However, grateful I am that are improving my neighborhood and raising my own property value. But that is really just a matter of personal taste.

it is only certain kind of white people.

remember, not all white people are the 'right' kind of white people. this is one of the key tenets of SWPL.

Anonymous wrote:
Indeed the world keeps turning... wait what were we talking about?


Oh, that's right. Older homes being beautiful and a treasured part of our history... And only white people like them, or some such nonsense.
The interesting thing about open mindedness - most people can understand the attraction of a new build. It's such a simple concept, " new= better". Funny thing is a new home isn't new very long. There have been a swath of homes posted on this forum, esstenially mocked because they are terrible McMansions. Some of them are pretty bad, but many just seem dated. They often are fewer than 10 years old.
The glorious thing about a well proportioned (that can still be very large mind you - I'm not talking small box here) classic older home, it doesn't go out of style. there is some new custom construction that fits into this category as well.
It takes true open mindedness to look at an older house and see its potential. Most people aren't good at that. Watch HGTV sometime, all you will hear is homeowner after homeowner telling a designer, " I just can't see it"
I'm certain there are people who would much rather live in a new build. They have many things going for them ( closest space!). To me there is a chunk of time between that one being "new" and later being " classic" - I'll wait and see if your home becomes the latter. Then it will be interesting to me. In the meantime - it falls into the category of " dated".
Not necessarily ugly or hateful, just not my ( and many peoples) cup of tea.
I like tea
Vitage fashion
And older homes

The interesting thing about what you wrote is that what appeals to you, technically, does not necessarily have to emerge over time. The rules of good proportions - things like air circulation, proportion of rooms, ratios between windows/ceilings/doors, structural things of that matter - are a known quantity. In theory, nothing prevents a new home builder from integrating them during the design/architectural stage so that the house is planned with good proportions to begin with. I'm not talking here about interior finishes that can easily be changed every ten years, but rather the actual proportions/golden section type rules.

Good thing the dc area is becoming less white especially since all these new homes ate going up.