Anonymous wrote:I live in a new build & see the downsides some PPs are referring to, however, the amount of light from new window configurations, the ceiling height, & the closet space in new houses are all a huge plus. Not sure I could go back.
Anonymous wrote:We just don't build like we used to, its a utilitarian and disposable era. At least preserve what we have, don't demolish it.
Anonymous wrote:I live in a row house that is more than 100 years old. If it is maintained it will still be here 100 years from now. The new builds are made with much cheaper material and are already falling apart. Also most surviving old houses have craftsmanship that most can't afford today.
Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?
Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?
For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)
I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.
Anonymous wrote:I live in a new build & see the downsides some PPs are referring to, however, the amount of light from new window configurations, the ceiling height, & the closet space in new houses are all a huge plus. Not sure I could go back.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.Anonymous wrote:I can understand disliking the look of a new house that has replaced a charming old house. But if the old house was in a desirable location, is it not inevitable that this will take place?
Do you think that the old houses were meant to last forever?
For example, I recently read that, when the U.S. Supreme Court building was built nearly 100 years ago, they had to tear down existing apartments to build the building. I feel bad that they got rid of housing, but I think that it was acknowledged that buildings are not meant to last forever. (Maybe a building with historic significance, would be preserved as an exception.)
I personally live in a 1950's house in close-in Bethesda. For the first time, some of the houses on my street are being torn down. I am kind of bummed about that, but not surprised because it's a great location and these original houses are nothing special. If I could afford one of the new builds on my street, I would buy it! We've remodeled our house, and it's really nice now, but it still has the original floor plan, ceiling height, etc. Not worth preserving for another 70 years.
Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new
*ecologically
You must sell new builds. Absolutely nobody else thinks this financially and eco ally wasteful way.