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 old houses have craftsmanship that most can't afford today.

One, that's an exaggeration. Two, who cares, if that happens it is someone else's problem likely long after the owners/builders have moved on.

The tear-down hate is fueled by insecurity and jealousy, busybodies with no life, and malcontents pissed about neighborhood construction traffic and noise.

Anonymous wrote:There are English farm houses that predate Columbus sailing the ocean blue that are still being lived in.

England does not have termites.

I don’t mind tear downs when they actually should be torn down. I really don’t like it when builders tear down perfectly decent mid sized homes to build huge homes that cost way more than the original house. There are so many people who would have happily lived in the original home. Why not let one of those families live there?

Counties need to stop approving this wastefulness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

You must sell new builds. Absolutely nobody else thinks this financially and eco ally wasteful way.

Depreciation commences as soon as the property is placed in service or available to use as a rental. By convention, most U.S. residential rental property is depreciated at a rate of 3.636% each year for 27.5 years.

I know, I’ve depreciated a rental condo myself. But this paper depreciation is irrelevant to people who live in their houses or condos. The purpose of tax depreciation is to recoup the expenses the owner will have as a result of the tenants’ wear and tear on the place.

My house, which I live in, will still be in great shape in 50 years, so long as I continue to maintain it and update things. The fact that I don’t get a tax perk for replacing the stove, via annual paper depreciation on my tax return, is irrelevant to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.compass.com/listing/3000-44th-place-northwest-washington-dc-20016/988657981602592457/

Even this house is going to be partially torn down. 3 or 4 years old and will be modified. Crazy.

This house is right next door and owned and sold by the same people as the one above. I hear this one is being torn down and the larger one is being expanded.

https://www.estately.com/listings/info/3010-44th-place-nw

Wow.

That is tragic. Look at the beautiful stone chimney!

If a building can be preserved, it should be preserved. With current technology and innovation, most can be saved, improved, even enhanced.

As others have said, there are well-built older buildings, and shoddier newer ones. Not everyone values the tear-down, fast fashion culture, be it buildings or clothing. I loved living in a pre-war apartment building in NYC, a turn of the last century DC row house, and have fond memories of the house that my Mom grew up in. My freshman dorm was built in 1894, and it was built to last. I’m fine with tearing down the ticky tacky boxes. I think it’s a shame that so many older buildings get torn down when they could be renovated. Unfortunately, this is what capitalism often looks like.

Anonymous wrote:Unless one has a disposable mentality and don't care for environment or history, most sensible humans want to preserve things.

+1. It's incredibly wasteful to tear down an old house and replace it, when it could have been renovated instead. It also usually results in removing many old trees in the process. Even when they're preserved, they often die as a result of all the roots because disturbed. And yet, these are the same folks worried about climate change and professing their love of the environment. SMH.

The worst are the builders who carelessly dig out basements too deep for the lot and then just put in sump pumps and allow the street to get this water which is a total nuisance. This is not allowed in other counties - but Montgomery County is the worst. I contacted our elected official as well as made numerous calls to report this issue and this builder - but no one cared. Now in the winter you have to be super careful not to slip or fall on the ice snd in the summer, the street is a breeding ground for mosquitoes because of the constant moisture present. The previous home was built above the water table, but this greedy builder ruined the street when he built his probably 190th McMansion with no regard for the water table. So, OP, I'm all for original homes being maintained - and if there must be a tear down, we need tighter building regulations!

It’s the waste that I find objectionable. If a house is truly crumbling and uninhabitable, sure it should be replaced with something functional, with the goal of doing as little damage to the surrounding environment as possible (preserving mature trees, etc).

But the vast majority of the houses being torn down in our neighborhood are completely functional, and lots are clear cut of old trees so that the houses can be replaced with structures that use every inch of space. In one instance, a beautiful 1950s California modern home on a corner lot was destroyed and its lot clear-cut to be replaced by a 12 BR monstrosity that they can’t sell after three years. In another, a big beautiful old 1920s brick home was torn down and replaced with a new build of the same size. It’s just appallingly wasteful.

I’m thrilled that the recent buyers of a solid, 1950s 4BR/3BA rambler on our block have decided to update rather than replace. We’ve been watching the work they’re doing, and it’s really thoughtful. It’s a house that lots of people on here would say of course should be replaced on the premise that it’s small and dated. If you want big and new, go somewhere else that doesn’t require the destruction of functional structures and their surroundings.

I live in a 100+ year old house that is likely a teardown. It’s not a beautifully crafted work of art that needs to be preserved but I will be sad to see it replaced with a 4500 square foot Craftsman monstrosity that takes up the entire lot, removes the trees and covers the entire backyard. It also looks terrible when new builds tower over their neighbors and shade their homes.

New homes minimum code exceeds that of homes 20 +years and it does so exponentially for every 5-10 years. That charm, bones and craftsmanship is nothing but veneer finishing that you could do on any home. It is not a sign of resilience

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood are not old. Houses should last many generations, not just one or two.

Not really. Houses depreciate over 27 years and then it's time to build new

You must sell new builds. Absolutely nobody else thinks this financially and eco ally wasteful way.

Depreciation commences as soon as the property is placed in service or available to use as a rental. By convention, most U.S. residential rental property is depreciated at a rate of 3.636% each year for 27.5 years.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t have to, but my husband is an architect, we added on. Have lovely windows, light and closet space. You can’t see the addition from the front of the house so it doesn’t look any different from the rest of the neighborhood. THere are 2 tear down/rebuilds and wow are they ugly. They also tore down a bunch of mature trees and have 3-4 different facade looks.

Short story: Get an architect and renovate/add on

My ex was an architect (weird architect spouse flex going on - does this give me more cred?) and this all depends. If you add on you’re keeping what is in DC a likely substandard big part of the structure, and you may pay as much or more than knocking down and starting over. It’s a valid choice but it’s not the only choice. Anyone who can afford to do this the right way could probably also afford to do a new build that isn’t builder ugly.

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.

You don’t have to, but my husband is an architect, we added on. Have lovely windows, light and closet space. You can’t see the addition from the front of the house so it doesn’t look any different from the rest of the neighborhood. THere are 2 tear down/rebuilds and wow are they ugly. They also tore down a bunch of mature trees and have 3-4 different facade looks.

Short story: Get an architect and renovate/add on