Anonymous wrote:New builds may look nice, but they're slapped up in no time at all by cheap (likely illegal) labor that doesn't care about leaky windows, crap ceilings, and so on.

Quality is hard to come by.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Soullessness is an intangible. To some people, a house is soulless if no one has lived there before. This cannot be mitigated until a couple of generations come and go. To others, any house located in a neighborhood they see as undesirable or lacking in substance or too remote, is soulless. It cannot be defined in architectural, or quality-of-construction terms. What's soulless to one person is a welcome blank slate to build memories to another. What's charming and full of character to one person is suffocating to another.

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.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/9000-Fernwood-Rd_Bethesda_MD_20817_M65255-16488?row=1

Your house is terrible, you know it's going to be bad when the exterior is the last picture

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with a new build with a talented architect. But, most new construction use crappy plans that get changed by a builder with few design skills. So you get boring ugly houses that satisfy marketing needs, that are a testament to lots of money but no taste.

You think the levvitt style homes that wart our landscapes utilized talented architects?

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with a new build with a talented architect. But, most new construction use crappy plans that get changed by a builder with few design skills. So you get boring ugly houses that satisfy marketing needs, that are a testament to lots of money but no taste.

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.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.

We saw this house. Very nicely designed and laid out, much nicer than the average spec build - the builder is an architect. (Though I question the choice of plastic water supply pipes, are all spec builds using them instead of copper now? Ugh.)

All of those ramblers near downtown McLean will eventually be town town.

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.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/9000-Fernwood-Rd_Bethesda_MD_20817_M65255-16488?row=1

Anonymous wrote:town town

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.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:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't have a crystal ball, but if some of the new builds are constructed as poorly as you say, then time will definitely tell the winners from the losers. Eventually, a certain type of newer houses will become known for their maintenance or other problems, and buyers will begin to avoid them or buy at a discount (unless location is good enough to close your eyes to quality issues). But as I said, no crystal ball...

Anonymous wrote:Pp- well is sounds to me that you are doing good construction. There is definitely good construction out there. Certainly you could open up an old home and find a shit show of old wiring and turn of the century newspapers as insulation.
My point is that it really does come down to taste.
I could have bought a huge, new house a little further out. Commuting isn't an issue for us. I prefer something that's been around and seen some stuff.
If I had had over a million I would have looked to renovate closer in, not find new construction close in.
It's ok to prefer new things, but many people don't like the soullessness of new homes.

Anonymous wrote:

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?