Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fake French country house stones are another case in point - they are wallpaper and look like wallpaper. Artificial and cheap. Behind is a thin layer of dryfall -> the cheapest wood you could find.

What do you think the framing is made of in all these 50's shacks?

Typically one has to go back to 30s/40s for good construction, apart from some well-built modern architecture houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fake French country house stones are another case in point - they are wallpaper and look like wallpaper. Artificial and cheap. Behind is a thin layer of dryfall -> the cheapest wood you could find.

What do you think the framing is made of in all these 50's shacks?

Typically one has to go back to 30s/40s for good construction, apart from some well-built modern architecture houses.

yes, love the cinder blocks, smelly basements, low ceilings and no insulation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fake French country house stones are another case in point - they are wallpaper and look like wallpaper. Artificial and cheap. Behind is a thin layer of dryfall -> the cheapest wood you could find.

What do you think the framing is made of in all these 50's shacks?

Typically one has to go back to 30s/40s for good construction, apart from some well-built modern architecture houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fake French country house stones are another case in point - they are wallpaper and look like wallpaper. Artificial and cheap. Behind is a thin layer of dryfall -> the cheapest wood you could find.

What do you think the framing is made of in all these 50's shacks?

Anonymous wrote:The fake French country house stones are another case in point - they are wallpaper and look like wallpaper. Artificial and cheap. Behind is a thin layer of dryfall -> the cheapest wood you could find.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree Beautiful house, enjoy the shit shacks of the poors of yesteryear

Ugh, such a tacky phrase. People that speak like this are so gauche.

Anonymous wrote:I disagree Beautiful house, enjoy the shit shacks of the poors of yesteryear

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think when people are talking about preferring old construction, they're talking about homes built before WWII. Not the 1990s or 1960s.

I agree with thiis. That monstrosity pictured above is awful.

Anonymous wrote:I think when people are talking about preferring old construction, they're talking about homes built before WWII. Not the 1990s or 1960s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say they don't like new builds. They don't like the tacky vinyl caverns (with brick front!) with 7000 sqft and no charm. These fucking things seem to be all over the place in NoVa, and it looks awful. I would say these new builds are on par in terms of aesthetics with a lot of the shitty ramblers they are replacing.

Personally, I like well built homes. I have lived in places where the nicest custom homes were built in the 90s. I have lived in other places where the best built homes were from the 40s and earlier. It all depends on how the area developed. Much of the inner ring DC suburbs were middle and lower-middle class until very recently, and the housing stock reflects that. The frustrating thing about the market around here is that so much of the housing stock - both new builds as well as the older homes - is of low quality.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.

On par with ramblers? HAHAHAHAHAH, note the 1.7 million price tag, the fact they are everywhere (in demand). You can't deny the fact that 7000 SF is much more livable than 1000. Anyways... You can argue asthetics but the fact is the new homes have low maintenance, are more insulated, have better floor plans and are more comfortable.

Excuse me, pardon my awesomeness!!!

Lol. I thought you were serious for a moment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say they don't like new builds. They don't like the tacky vinyl caverns (with brick front!) with 7000 sqft and no charm. These fucking things seem to be all over the place in NoVa, and it looks awful. I would say these new builds are on par in terms of aesthetics with a lot of the shitty ramblers they are replacing.

Personally, I like well built homes. I have lived in places where the nicest custom homes were built in the 90s. I have lived in other places where the best built homes were from the 40s and earlier. It all depends on how the area developed. Much of the inner ring DC suburbs were middle and lower-middle class until very recently, and the housing stock reflects that. The frustrating thing about the market around here is that so much of the housing stock - both new builds as well as the older homes - is of low quality.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.

On par with ramblers? HAHAHAHAHAH, note the 1.7 million price tag, the fact they are everywhere (in demand). You can't deny the fact that 7000 SF is much more livable than 1000. Anyways... You can argue asthetics but the fact is the new homes have low maintenance, are more insulated, have better floor plans and are more comfortable.

Excuse me, pardon my awesomeness!!!