Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 15:54     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Georgetown, LeDroit Park, Logan Circle, Capitol Hill? OP must be excluding rowhouses from consideration. Or have really bad taste.



I was thinking the same thing!! The rowhouses in these neighborhoods are beautiful!!


It's still attached



Umm... Yeah, cause it's in the city. A real city, not LA...


At least in LA the people are only ugly on the inside
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 15:53     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Georgetown, LeDroit Park, Logan Circle, Capitol Hill? OP must be excluding rowhouses from consideration. Or have really bad taste.



I was thinking the same thing!! The rowhouses in these neighborhoods are beautiful!!


It's still attached



Umm... Yeah, cause it's in the city. A real city, not LA...
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 11:07     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Georgetown, LeDroit Park, Logan Circle, Capitol Hill? OP must be excluding rowhouses from consideration. Or have really bad taste.



I was thinking the same thing!! The rowhouses in these neighborhoods are beautiful!!


It's still attached
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 10:47     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:Georgetown, LeDroit Park, Logan Circle, Capitol Hill? OP must be excluding rowhouses from consideration. Or have really bad taste.



I was thinking the same thing!! The rowhouses in these neighborhoods are beautiful!!
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 10:46     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.

Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.

That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).

I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.

And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.

No one puts a gun to your head to look at these neighborhoods exclusively, and they are in no way unique to DC.

What's unique to DC is Georgetown rowhouses, Logan Circle italianates, Dupont Circle brownstone, and you could have marveled at those. If you prefer to pretend DC consists of latter-day subdivisions, I guess it says more about your selection bias than about DC in general.
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 10:36     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:Aww man, I like my house. Guess it must be hideous though, since I only paid $450 for it and you can't find a nice one for nearly 3x as much.


Ha! I was thinking the same thing. We're shopping in the 400 range and have found a few that we love, but maybe we're wrong and they're truly god awful ugly. :/
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 10:24     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.



Oh how I wish that were true. But nope, we are house hunting and spending a lot of time on the side streets. Budget is 1.3 million. Many (truly, most, not just many) are seriously ugly. Even bueautiful streets in Kent with $2-3 million houses, the next block over has chain link fences. Hideous. throughout upper NW and Bethesda there are So Many unattractive additions globbed on to blah colonials. There are beautiful streets here and there (south 1/2 of Wesley Heights), a couple parts of Westmoreland Hills, there's always a touch of unkempt and rundown that creeps in to many of the neigborhoods. It's depressing.


You poor thing. I totally agree with you but ya shoulda known you'd have a lot of haters with your posting.


Read the entire thread please, this person searching for the $1.3 million house is not the OP, just a subsequent poster.
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 10:19     Subject: Re:Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
In florida you get those fancy tiled roofs with bats

Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 10:18     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I absolute agree, OP. I wish there were more affordable bungalows like in Denver or Atlanta. I also wish there were more tudor and American four squares like I saw in the midwest.

DC is ranch city with a colonial mayor.

The only other place I'd say is more depressing is San Jose/Palo Alto.
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 09:19     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:I was ready to feel sorry for you OP, but our budget is 600k and the housing options are keeping me up at night with dread and worry. You can't truly fathom "ugly" until you've looked at DC area houses in our price range.


About same at 550K and we are trying to live in Fairfax, not even some particularly sexy part of the DMV and its endless 60s split levels that are just UGH! Half a million dollars for a split level in suburbs?!
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 08:34     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You have to remember that if you're not familiar with an area, you'll only see what is on the main roads. And because some people don't want to pay top dollar for a house on a main road, sometimes the nicest houses will not be on the main road. Or they'll end up being rentals and not taken care of as well as owner-occupied houses. But then you'll get one street away and the houses will be very attractive.



Oh how I wish that were true. But nope, we are house hunting and spending a lot of time on the side streets. Budget is 1.3 million. Many (truly, most, not just many) are seriously ugly. Even bueautiful streets in Kent with $2-3 million houses, the next block over has chain link fences. Hideous. throughout upper NW and Bethesda there are So Many unattractive additions globbed on to blah colonials. There are beautiful streets here and there (south 1/2 of Wesley Heights), a couple parts of Westmoreland Hills, there's always a touch of unkempt and rundown that creeps in to many of the neigborhoods. It's depressing.


You poor thing. I totally agree with you but ya shoulda known you'd have a lot of haters with your posting.
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 08:26     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I actually think it's funny that some posters have commented on how so many of the homes in the area are "cookie cutter."

I grew up in a gated golf course community in Florida where the HOA mandates everything from landscaping to the identical mailbox everyone must have. I actually think the housing stock here is diverse lol, so must be in the eye of the beholder.

I'm living in Northern VA now and agree that a lot of the housing stock is ugly, but I actually like how so many of the houses differ block by block. It keeps things interesting. And I love living in a home with brick and a front porch. I find it so much cozier looking than the stucco mid-90s builds that dot Floridian suburbs. Agree with a PP that Spanish architecture with tile roof (like a lot of places out west) is just NMS.

My idea of really ugly depressing housing stock is the homes out in New Mexico like on Breaking Bad.
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 08:24     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
I guess we aren't as good looking as California... But at least we have water...
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 07:09     Subject: Re:Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
OP, why not build something that meets your standards?
Anonymous
Post 03/23/2015 00:47     Subject: Washington, DC Metropolitan Area's Housing Stock Is UGLY
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am the OP, and I have been away from this thread for a while.

Though I only submitted my original post, it appears that many of the subsequent posters have confused/conflated me with a subsequent poster who is currently house hunting with a $1.3 million budget.

That is not me, I am not currently house hunting, and I am not from Wichita (though a lovely place, I am sure).

I just think that the neighborhoods and subdivisions full of the 1990s' and 2000s' idea of "quality new builds" -- as well as the equally hideous add-on renovations to existing houses done during that era -- all with two-story foyers and family rooms; excessive square footage and improper scale, for no purpose other than to flex one's money muscle; a mishmash of architectural styles and influences; low ceilings (in older homes) or too-high of ceilings (in the new ones); extraneous design columns; tumbled marble backsplashes; vinyl windows; no interesting interior details; wall-to-wall carpet; builder's grade everything.

And for the poster who asked, I generally prefer the character, variety, detail, architectural vision and planning, and builder's quality and integrity of established neighborhoods on the West Coast.


Maybe you can start a Go Fund Me page for an airplane ticket, because few here are going to buy this crap that a typical West Coast home has much to recommend it. It always comes down to people here who can't afford what they think they deserve.


What I can afford is not the issue. Across all prices ranges, the housing stock here is deplorable, and arguably more so at the highest price points in the region. Again, looking at most local builder's ideas of "luxury", "quality", and "design" is laughable. I think it might be that so many people came here in the 1990s and the decades that followed, and lots of housing was quickly thrown up in the "style du jour" to meet that demand. The result is very cookie-cutter and very undistinguished.


Face it, if you weren't such a loser and actually had a life, you wouldn't be airing your petty grievances here. It's not like you've said anything here that isn't a total cliche. Work a little harder and maybe you'll be able to live in a nicer house.[/[i]quote]

I am not the poster looking to buy a $1.3 million dollar house, but your incredibly rude criticism and put down of that nice poster for not working "a little harder" to "live in a nicer house" worth more than $1.3 million is really shameful.

I wish that this site could electronically "out" you, so that your neighbors, your co-workers and professional colleagues, your personal friends, your fellow parents at school and on the playing field, and every other nice person here and elsewhere could see how insufferable and petty you are. You, dear sir, embody the caricature of the entitled (but deluded) Washingtonian who thinks that they are better than everyone else by virtue of their salary or position, and who looks down with disdain on those you consider of "lesser status" than you.