Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Brick is still around but commands a premium
http://www.district-properties.com/35250preview_6521+Dryden+Dr_Mclean,_VA_.html


http://www.kw.com/homes-for-sale/22101/VA/MCLEAN/6713-WEAVER-AVENUE/3yd-MRIS-FX8539556.html

wow those houses are ugly

I love how there's a tiny rambler as the next door neighbor in both pictures.

I didn't notice that until you pointed it out! I like the second one, but would expect it in a neighborhood with similar houses.

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Brick is still around but commands a premium
http://www.district-properties.com/35250preview_6521+Dryden+Dr_Mclean,_VA_.html


http://www.kw.com/homes-for-sale/22101/VA/MCLEAN/6713-WEAVER-AVENUE/3yd-MRIS-FX8539556.html

wow those houses are ugly


I love how there's a tiny rambler as the next door neighbor in both pictures.
Probably the people who complain about new construction and call them ugly.

I love new construction and say they are ugly.
But my tastes just differ, I like a subtle 10,000 sg. ft home not a towering monolith inviting robbers.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/9000-Fernwood-Rd_Bethesda_MD_20817_M65255-16488?row=1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate all new builds. Some are nice. However, much more often, they're built cheaply and not built to last. They are almost always built with lesser quality materials than older houses and often lack any charm and are unpleasing aesthetically.

It has nothing to do with cost. We could have spent less on a new build than what it cost to buy, renovate and add on to our old house. But we love the charm and character of our house and wouldn't trade it for most of the new homes built these days.

You have a survivor bias. There were just as many shitty quality homes built at the time when your house was built. But only better-quality homes have survived until today. This leads you to believe that older homes=higher quality in general. That is not true.

Whoa. I've been arguing for charming old homes, but this seems very legit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate all new builds. Some are nice. However, much more often, they're built cheaply and not built to last. They are almost always built with lesser quality materials than older houses and often lack any charm and are unpleasing aesthetically.

It has nothing to do with cost. We could have spent less on a new build than what it cost to buy, renovate and add on to our old house. But we love the charm and character of our house and wouldn't trade it for most of the new homes built these days.

You have a survivor bias. There were just as many shitty quality homes built at the time when your house was built. But only better-quality homes have survived until today. This leads you to believe that older homes=higher quality in general. That is not true.

That's an excellent point. We can only hope the worst of the new builds get torn down in turn. Unfortunately the economics of very large houses on small lots will make that difficult, unless these areas are rezoned for multifamily, or the areas decline to slums, or both. Which is your bet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with new homes in general. I've seen some that I'd love to buy. In fact, our last home was new construction.

My problem is with (regardless of age, but tends to be newer homes):
- poor aesthetic (windows off scale, yuck siding, big box, all garage up front, etc.)
- doesn't fit in neighborhood
- doesn't fit in lot

And it doesn't bother me if someone else has this because it doesn't affect me, but I prefer smaller, well-thought-out floor plans for my family. 3000 would be the largest I'd go and I'd be fine with less.

your reasoning is stupid and subjective

Your insult is vapid and lacks creativity

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Brick is still around but commands a premium
http://www.district-properties.com/35250preview_6521+Dryden+Dr_Mclean,_VA_.html


http://www.kw.com/homes-for-sale/22101/VA/MCLEAN/6713-WEAVER-AVENUE/3yd-MRIS-FX8539556.html

wow those houses are ugly

I love how there's a tiny rambler as the next door neighbor in both pictures.

Probably the people who complain about new construction and call them ugly.

I love new construction and say they are ugly.
But my tastes just differ, I like a subtle 10,000 sg. ft home not a towering monolith inviting robbers.

Anonymous wrote:I don't hate all new builds. Some are nice. However, much more often, they're built cheaply and not built to last. They are almost always built with lesser quality materials than older houses and often lack any charm and are unpleasing aesthetically.

It has nothing to do with cost. We could have spent less on a new build than what it cost to buy, renovate and add on to our old house. But we love the charm and character of our house and wouldn't trade it for most of the new homes built these days.

You have a survivor bias. There were just as many shitty quality homes built at the time when your house was built. But only better-quality homes have survived until today. This leads you to believe that older homes=higher quality in general. That is not true.

Anonymous wrote:Housing is very expensive in the DC area so high earners who live in old cruddy tract homes from the 20s-60s have to talk down on new construction to make themselves feel better.

I am not sure why we conflate all the houses from the 20s to the 60s. I think a very large number of the (surviving) small houses in this area from the 1920s are charming. I would suggest that most post war small houses are not. Though at least they are not overwhelming in scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

Exactly,my neighbor 3 houses down has the first one in mauve. And the second one is the same old twist on post mid-century modern we have seen before. Same old same old. The second house is also in Miami. Is this nor DCUM?

other than the color mauve, what is wrong with the first house?

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with new homes in general. I've seen some that I'd love to buy. In fact, our last home was new construction.

My problem is with (regardless of age, but tends to be newer homes):
- poor aesthetic (windows off scale, yuck siding, big box, all garage up front, etc.)
- doesn't fit in neighborhood
- doesn't fit in lot

And it doesn't bother me if someone else has this because it doesn't affect me, but I prefer smaller, well-thought-out floor plans for my family. 3000 would be the largest I'd go and I'd be fine with less.

your reasoning is stupid and subjective

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Not only has the price of brick as a material increased dramatically as compared to other exteriors, but as labor expenses have increased, the increased labor involved in doing a brick façade as compared to anything else (which typically comes in larger units so you can cover the space much faster) has driven the price up so that covering a house with brick rather than Hardiplank can easily cost 2-3x as much. For your typical new build around here, by the time you add in the increased materials and labor costs, along with the builder premium so they make a profit, it can easily increase the price of the house by $100k, and lots of buyers aren't willing to pay that much more for brick instead of Hardiplank. Some still do brick, but it's rare, and you see it more in custom builds rather than spec houses, where the ultimate homeowner is known and willing to pay that premium.

I live in DC & some one near me just built a new house that is all natural stone with a standing seam metal roof. Must have cost a ****ing fortune. Not all new builds are the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Brick is still around but commands a premium
http://www.district-properties.com/35250preview_6521+Dryden+Dr_Mclean,_VA_.html


http://www.kw.com/ homes-for-sale/22101/VA/MCLEAN/6713-WEAVER-AVENUE/3yd-MRIS-FX8539556.html

wow those houses are ugly

I love how there's a tiny rambler as the next door neighbor in both pictures.

Probably the people who complain about new construction and call them ugly.

They get to see very up close how ugly new construction can be!

I definitely think this second one is the uglier of the two. They chose concrete for their driveway while the other chose really nice looking pavers. In my opinion, that concrete driveway just looks bad.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's this: http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-11-16/1116_mcmansion_630x420.jpg

And then there's this: http://www.miamitenniscamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/modernist-architecture.jpg

I'd rather live in my 650 sq ft condo forever than the first one.

I guess taste is subjective, but I think you picked a really bad example for an ugly house. The first link is a beautiful old classic colonial design - hardly the typical McMansion with many roof lines, many different structural aspects and different materials. It is a timeless house. The only negative to me would be the siding, but I cannot tell if it is hardeeplank or something plastic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my ONLY problem with new construction is the design. Why are Craftsman the only style and why no more brick colonials? Even when price is less of an object ($1.5MM and up)?

Brick is still around but commands a premium
http://www.district-properties.com/35250preview_6521+Dryden+Dr_Mclean,_VA_.html


http://www.kw.com/ homes-for-sale/22101/VA/MCLEAN/6713-WEAVER-AVENUE/3yd-MRIS-FX8539556.html

wow those houses are ugly

I love how there's a tiny rambler as the next door neighbor in both pictures.

Probably the people who complain about new construction and call them ugly.

They get to see very up close how ugly new construction can be!