Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate them so much to the point it becomes some religious or political movement.

I wonder if housing was cheaper around here that there would be less complaining and hate for them.

If housing were cheaper, people might be less self-aware on this issue. But I am glad if they are self-aware.

We have become a society of ridiculous, conspicuous consumption. We are consuming resources at an astronomical, unsustainable rate, and our children will have to pay the price for that. Not to mention the rest of the world.

Building more reasonable-sized homes is ecologically responsible, both in the raw materials required to build and the ongoing maintenance and heating/cooling of the structure.

The trend to question home size asks us to think about whether we really need a "room" for all our different daily functions - is it worthwhile to have entire rooms in a home that are rarely if ever used? Like a formal dining room, formal living room, media room, sun room, play room.... do we have to go nuts with the size of our homes just because we can? Do we have to keep our thermostat on 75 degrees all winter just because we can?

You seriously cannot understand why a person would feel highly motivated to oppose yet another stand of trees being bulldozed to make room for 5000 SF, ugly, overpriced mcmansions? Do you not understand that some people feel that we all have an obligation to consume more responsibly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old house lover here. I think the two crowds here are misunderstanding each other due to a definitional difference alluded by recent PPs. I would bet that people that say love old homes mean pre-ww2 homes. I find homes built between the 1940s and the 1979s to be generally terrible, and I would very much prefer to live in a newer home than in those older ones.

Agree. I'm an old-home lover who grew up in Georgetown and now live on the Hill. I find the post WWII housing to be mostly ghastly.

New construction can be great, but too often it comes in Stepford-ish subdivisions or grotesquely outsized homes on teeny lots. Not to mention the cheap, builder-grade finishings.

People need to get over the "finishes"

Do you realize that old home had builder grade finishes before years of updating? In fact the builder grade finishes of today are much better than those of pre ww2.

Wrong. Unless you think that, say, molding in new construction is of better quality that original plaster molding in a Georgetown home. Just to name an example.

Plaster molding sounds like a maintenance nightmare

I dislike ugly houses. There are beutiful, modern homes in DC, although not too many.

Yes, well, I don't want to buy a new house and have to go through and replace all the doors, carpets, and faucets. I'm glad that the houses you build are all awesome, but that is not the case with all new construction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old house lover here. I think the two crowds here are misunderstanding each other due to a definitional difference alluded by recent PPs. I would bet that people that say love old homes mean pre-ww2 homes. I find homes built between the 1940s and the 1979s to be generally terrible, and I would very much prefer to live in a newer home than in those older ones.

Agree. I'm an old-home lover who grew up in Georgetown and now live on the Hill. I find the post WWII housing to be mostly ghastly.

New construction can be great, but too often it comes in Stepford-ish subdivisions or grotesquely outsized homes on teeny lots. Not to mention the cheap, builder-grade finishings.

People need to get over the "finishes"

Do you realize that old home had builder grade finishes before years of updating? In fact the builder grade finishes of today are much better than those of pre ww2.

Wrong. Unless you think that, say, molding in new construction is of better quality that original plaster molding in a Georgetown home. Just to name an example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Old house lover here. I think the two crowds here are misunderstanding each other due to a definitional difference alluded by recent PPs. I would bet that people that say love old homes mean pre-ww2 homes. I find homes built between the 1940s and the 1979s to be generally terrible, and I would very much prefer to live in a newer home than in those older ones.

Agree. I'm an old-home lover who grew up in Georgetown and now live on the Hill. I find the post WWII housing to be mostly ghastly.

New construction can be great, but too often it comes in Stepford-ish subdivisions or grotesquely outsized homes on teeny lots. Not to mention the cheap, builder-grade finishings.

People need to get over the "finishes"

Do you realize that old home had builder grade finishes before years of updating? In fact the builder grade finishes of today are much better than those of pre ww2.

Anonymous wrote:Old house lover here. I think the two crowds here are misunderstanding each other due to a definitional difference alluded by recent PPs. I would bet that people that say love old homes mean pre-ww2 homes. I find homes built between the 1940s and the 1979s to be generally terrible, and I would very much prefer to live in a newer home than in those older ones.

Agree. I'm an old-home lover who grew up in Georgetown and now live on the Hill. I find the post WWII housing to be mostly ghastly.

New construction can be great, but too often it comes in Stepford-ish subdivisions or grotesquely outsized homes on teeny lots. Not to mention the cheap, builder-grade finishings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I was thinking of houses built after 2010 vs houses from before WWII (even before WWI). No experience with 1950-1970s houses.

so most of the "old" homes around here, Arlington, Alexandria, MontCo, are built post-WWII. If you are talking close in NW, or Old Town, that is a different story. This is not an old town. Until WWII, there was not a lot here. The housing here sucks. Tearing down 1950s ramblers and putting up 2014 building code houses is an improvement (though I can argue with the architecture of the hideous craftsman style houses).

The new Craftsmans are much prettier than the pointy mixed-media things in Pimmit Hills and McLean

You mean traditional brick front colonials?

I find the Craftsman to be much more appealing myself but in the long run I think they are a fad and will have more maintenance costs with painting the siding and trim.

I wouldn't call them traditional.

The first one is in arlington and looks like that because of the narrow lot.

The second one is a brick front colonial and will has appeal through out fads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I was thinking of houses built after 2010 vs houses from before WWII (even before WWI). No experience with 1950-1970s houses.

so most of the "old" homes around here, Arlington, Alexandria, MontCo, are built post-WWII. If you are talking close in NW, or Old Town, that is a different story. This is not an old town. Until WWII, there was not a lot here. The housing here sucks. Tearing down 1950s ramblers and putting up 2014 building code houses is an improvement (though I can argue with the architecture of the hideous craftsman style houses).

The new Craftsmans are much prettier than the pointy mixed-media things in Pimmit Hills and McLean

You mean traditional brick front colonials?

I find the Craftsman to be much more appealing myself but in the long run I think they are a fad and will have more maintenance costs with painting the siding and trim.

Most of the new homes in McLean right now are styled as Craftsmans.

I don't really care if they meet the aesthetic standards of an anonymous person on DCUM I've never met. I do know that my house has plenty of space and light, is low-maintanance, and has appreciated over $200,000 in a few years. Overall, not a bad deal when you think about it.

Good for you, but, then, why are you posting here if you don't care?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a place where all of the houses date to the 1920s and earlier. These houses have period details, e.g. foyers with sidelights; built-ins in the living areas and bedrooms; wonderful old hardwood floors; funny little rooms and nooks here and there. They sit on 1/4 acre lots surrounded by mature trees and landscaping.

I could never consider living in a new, large home because it would feel cold and un-homey to me. I want a yard that has been gardened for decades, and trees that soar over me. I want plaster walls and interesting built-ins. Yes, I know you can have e.g. built-ins and crown molding in new houses, but the feel of them is altogether different from the feel of a house built in 1920.

No thanks.

strange. Do you commute via horse and buggy?

Good one.

You two probably think that being inside the National Cathedral in DC is nicer than being inside Notre Dame. After all, 20th century construction beats 13th century construction.

Most of the old housing in this area is not notre dame material.

Agreed, but the PP those two were making fun of wasn't referring to old housing here. He was referring much more generally to certain 1920s construction with character. Comparing that preference to horse+buggy is silly.

Old house lover here. I think the two crowds here are misunderstanding each other due to a definitional difference alluded by recent PPs. I would bet that people that say love old homes mean pre-ww2 homes. I find homes built between the 1940s and the 1979s to be generally terrible, and I would very much prefer to live in a newer home than in those older ones.

Anonymous wrote:I'm an architect and I generally find that the opposition to new development comes from small, bitter, jealous people. I can't fathom having nothing better to do with one's time than attempting to squash some other family's dream. Live and let live.

Architect, your expertise is in design and aesthetics, not psychology. I'd be more interested to hear your opinions related to your area of expertise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I was thinking of houses built after 2010 vs houses from before WWII (even before WWI). No experience with 1950-1970s houses.

so most of the "old" homes around here, Arlington, Alexandria, MontCo, are built post-WWII. If you are talking close in NW, or Old Town, that is a different story. This is not an old town. Until WWII, there was not a lot here. The housing here sucks. Tearing down 1950s ramblers and putting up 2014 building code houses is an improvement (though I can argue with the architecture of the hideous craftsman style houses).

The new Craftsmans are much prettier than the pointy mixed-media things in Pimmit Hills and McLean

You mean traditional brick front colonials?

I find the Craftsman to be much more appealing myself but in the long run I think they are a fad and will have more maintenance costs with painting the siding and trim.

Most of the new homes in McLean right now are styled as Craftsmans.

I don't really care if they meet the aesthetic standards of an anonymous person on DCUM I've never met. I do know that my house has plenty of space and light, is low-maintanance, and has appreciated over $200,000 in a few years. Overall, not a bad deal when you think about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I was thinking of houses built after 2010 vs houses from before WWII (even before WWI). No experience with 1950-1970s houses.

so most of the "old" homes around here, Arlington, Alexandria, MontCo, are built post-WWII. If you are talking close in NW, or Old Town, that is a different story. This is not an old town. Until WWII, there was not a lot here. The housing here sucks. Tearing down 1950s ramblers and putting up 2014 building code houses is an improvement (though I can argue with the architecture of the hideous craftsman style houses).

The new Craftsmans are much prettier than the pointy mixed-media things in Pimmit Hills and McLean

You mean traditional brick front colonials?

I find the Craftsman to be much more appealing myself but in the long run I think they are a fad and will have more maintenance costs with painting the siding and trim.

I wouldn't call them traditional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a place where all of the houses date to the 1920s and earlier. These houses have period details, e.g. foyers with sidelights; built-ins in the living areas and bedrooms; wonderful old hardwood floors; funny little rooms and nooks here and there. They sit on 1/4 acre lots surrounded by mature trees and landscaping.

I could never consider living in a new, large home because it would feel cold and un-homey to me. I want a yard that has been gardened for decades, and trees that soar over me. I want plaster walls and interesting built-ins. Yes, I know you can have e.g. built-ins and crown molding in new houses, but the feel of them is altogether different from the feel of a house built in 1920.

No thanks.

strange. Do you commute via horse and buggy?

Good one.

You two probably think that being inside the National Cathedral in DC is nicer than being inside Notre Dame. After all, 20th century construction beats 13th century construction.

Most of the old housing in this area is not notre dame material.