Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Agree with the above.

Well put. Are people ( without taste) self aware of their lack of it? I mean enough to be threatened by someone questioning their self created algorithm of big house - aesthetics x mediocre materials = made it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Agree with the above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen one that isn't ugly. That is not to say I don't think there can be nice ones, but I think that requires a special kind of architect and client. They are all cheap looking and give me headaches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

Exactly.

I also don't understand why people don't MYOB. If you want a new build, save your money and buy on. If you don't, dont. Stop trying to meddle in other families lives.

Humans are social animals, and naturally vie for status. Some people buy big things to get status. Others with less money but with better education subvert that by expressing their tastes. This has been going on since the time of the great gatsby, and is illuminated in the writings of Veblen.

Are you assuming that people will less money buy smaller things? The people who buy big houses in our neighborhood are very well educated. It may just be others with less money and less education trying to subvert status by trying to conflate "taste" and raw resentment.

I do not believe that taste is being conflated with raw resentment. But I do not wish to rehash to the aesthetic arguments, as I do not particularly care what you live in. I do think that if there are many people with high incomes (some of whom may have good degrees, but no real sense of aesthetics) who find the entire discussion of aesthetics very threatening - and I think that is due to the way it subverts money as status.

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate new builds. However, my good friend did tear down her old small house and put up a huge new build (choosing from one of four models). I am pretty sure this is a mcmansion, and though it is nice that they have the space, and I love an open floor plan, etc., it really does lack character. I'm not saying I wouldn't live there, just that it's not my dream home.

That said, I don't think all new builds necessarily lack character.

We have a small colonial, and we did knock out a wall in the kitchen to get a more open flow in the kitchen and have a larger space. We matched the old hardwood floors which I think are lovely, but I also love our new cabinets and countertops, so I'm all for out-with-the-old in-with-the-new. We also gutted our 1940s bathroom upstairs and totally redid everything. Love it so much more and it's bigger given the inches we saved from the newer materials vs. the old clunky tile, tub, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate new builds. However, my good friend did tear down her old small house and put up a huge new build (choosing from one of four models). I am pretty sure this is a mcmansion, and though it is nice that they have the space, and I love an open floor plan, etc., it really does lack character. I'm not saying I wouldn't live there, just that it's not my dream home.

That said, I don't think all new builds necessarily lack character.

We have a small colonial, and we did knock out a wall in the kitchen to get a more open flow in the kitchen and have a larger space. We matched the old hardwood floors which I think are lovely, but I also love our new cabinets and countertops, so I'm all for out-with-the-old in-with-the-new. We also gutted our 1940s bathroom upstairs and totally redid everything. Love it so much more and it's bigger given the inches we saved from the newer materials vs. the old clunky tile, tub, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In many areas, it is illegal to tear down an existing single family home (or group of homes) and replace it with new townhomes or multifamily, to "preserve the neighborhood character" However it is perfectly legal to tear down an existing home and replace it with a new and vastly larger home. In areas with high land values, and demand for sq feet, this creates a massive bias towards lots of very large SFH's. Since such homes also change the character of the neighborhood, it is essentially a loophole, and one might even argue a hidden subsidy for large new SFHs.

It is interesting how many people claim a free market ideology, but have no problem with the zoning laws that ban TH's and multifamily, even in places close to metro stations.

That's kind of logic soup.

But, conceding that, based on current zoning, the demand for square feet is typically greater than the demand for old houses with "charm" is potentially a start towards some measure of self-awareness.

You can call it logic soup if you like, I think the case is clear.

I also think the demand for sheer footage to house people is clear. We have a lot of people who want to live close to DC, esp close to metro. There is unmet demand for THs, for condos/apts, for small houses, and for large SFHs. I believe if the market were free, that demand would result in the smaller SFHs, at least the best located ones, being torn down and replaced by THs and multifamily. The heavy hand of the state prevents that, resulting in McMansions.

I also think that smaller older SFHs vary in their amount of charm. I think the more charming ones will resist longer, but the sheer force of economics ways against them.