Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:
Here is what I look for in a new home
![]()
![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
Why does a home need to scream "new?" The benefit of the home OP posted (although I agree it is huge, too big for me personally) is the modern layout without this exterior:

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.
some of the other models aren't quite so massive. this one is plenty big enough (similar to the one OP posted, but "without the FOURTH floor") and would have fit the street better. still big, but not as massive.
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-fillmore-model.html
I personally love this one - probably still bigger than we need - but I love the look:
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-lancaster-model.html
These homes are pretty tacky especially the Italian one.
Point being, stop trying to create a new home that is attempting to look old or classic, it's fake as shit.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.
some of the other models aren't quite so massive. this one is plenty big enough (similar to the one OP posted, but "without the FOURTH floor") and would have fit the street better. still big, but not as massive.
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-fillmore-model.html
I personally love this one - probably still bigger than we need - but I love the look:
http://www.mickeysimpson.com/custom-homes/portfolio-2/the-lancaster-model.html
Anonymous wrote:I think this house is beautiful! Don't know about $2m..it's so beyond anything I could afford that I can't process $1.75 vs. $2m vs. $2.25m.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
This doesn't look like a reno. It looks like a Mickey Simpson house -- borrowing Craftsman elements in an effort to add character to what would otherwise be a McMansion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I love this house! We rented around the corner and the kids were always at the path or nearby elem. school. I never get people bitching about a small yard in a location like this. It is urban/city living. Less to mow!
Here's the thing I don't understand: if you want urban/city living, why not live in the city? I truly don't understand why anyone would pay $2M to live in Arlington. If you want city living, buy in D.C. If you want suburban living, buy in McLean or Great Falls. Arlington has none of the appeal of a city and little appeal of the suburbs other than decent public schools. And honestly, private schools are better anyway, so if you could afford a $2M house, why on earth would you send your kids to Arlington public schools???
We have HHI of over $2MM in Country Club Hills, and we send our kids to Arlington public schools. Why on earth would that bother you?
I'll tell you why we live in Arlington - because it is very well-managed area, with excellent community services and kind, down to earth neighbors. The kids are thriving, my DH's commute is short. And did I mention we get all this with a lower tax burden than the folks across the river?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.
this is way too far the other way I want a new home that looks new. Why bother building something new if it looks like a reno.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I love this house! We rented around the corner and the kids were always at the path or nearby elem. school. I never get people bitching about a small yard in a location like this. It is urban/city living. Less to mow!
Here's the thing I don't understand: if you want urban/city living, why not live in the city? I truly don't understand why anyone would pay $2M to live in Arlington. If you want city living, buy in D.C. If you want suburban living, buy in McLean or Great Falls. Arlington has none of the appeal of a city and little appeal of the suburbs other than decent public schools. And honestly, private schools are better anyway, so if you could afford a $2M house, why on earth would you send your kids to Arlington public schools???
Anonymous wrote:
My parents still live in the same house in Fairfax Co that I grew up. My mom declared 'the suburbs are dead" about 5 years ago. It was the dream in the early 70s. Now people want close-in, transit and walkability. There will still many that value land, but truth is close-in is out of reach for most people nowadays.
Anonymous wrote:I think it's awesome. This is how new construction should be done -- not the houses with 47 peaks, as shown in an earlier thread.