Homeowner? Would you sell your home for 30% over market to a developer? (Victoria: renting, condos)

[NovaOne]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

1. By older homes I take it you mean 1950s ranches, ramblers, etc? I was thinking more pre-WW2 neighborhoods, like parts of Arlington, Del Ray, etc. Guess not too much of that in Vienna, and even less in the most of the rest of Fairfax County. Certainly the developments filled with standard issue post war red brick homes seem to me to be as cookie cutter as the mcmansion subdivisions.

I am not familiar with Arlington, so I don't have any idea what those neighborhoods look like. If they are anything like the architecturally rich brownstones in DC, I do understand your point about maintaining the unique look and feel of a certain architectural style. However, I took a look at some Google street view of Del Ray and didn't see anything other than rather old and utilitarian looking homes.

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

2. Your bullet points are all inside attributes. IIUC some of the criticism of these newer homes is that they are built "from the inside out" IE they determine the insides that sell, and the outside is whatever results. With results that some people find displeasing.

You are very correct! But it does make a lot of sense since a home's function is far more important than its form. People want homes that fit to their lifestyle. Where people depend on builders, and where builders often fall short, is wrapping the interior with an attractive, coherent, and well executed exterior. I've seen some pretty bland looking homes with awesomely spectacular interiors. There seems to be a severe disconnect between the attention paid to the inside versus outside of a home. But it is what it is and people vote with their dollars. Unfortunately when homes are being built on a one-by-one basis, there is no counter balance for poor taste.

3. People really want complex rooflines? I'm surprised, I thought that was mostly a result of the inside requirements. I personally usually do not find them aesthetically pleasing. But then I'm not in the market for a new SFH, and my aesthetic tastes don't have any impact on that marketplace.

Right, people equate a complex roof line with a sophisticated or expensive look - kind of like creases and bevels on a car's body that could otherwise be rather flat and featureless. Many of these complex roof lines are added on rather than necessitated by the floor plan. Most of the eclectic busy looking home designs with an incoherent mixture of shapes and textures tend to have this "feature", like this one:

http://zzportal.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/front.jpg

That is one confused looking house and you can tell that the extra complexities in the roofline are completely artificial. It has 4 different gables on the front of the home alone, five if you count the single dormer (what the heck?). The largest of two gables are dominant and viewer's eyes are confused by which one marks the center of the home, especially when they are different shapes and cap over different colors.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by NovaOne

I am not familiar with Arlington, so I don't have any idea what those neighborhoods look like. If they are anything like the architecturally rich brownstones in DC, I do understand your point about maintaining the unique look and feel of a certain architectural style. However, I took a look at some Google street view of Del Ray and didn't see anything other than rather old and utilitarian looking homes.

There are a bunch of neighborhoods in North Arlington, that were more or less street car suburbs - if you go to the Rosslyn Ballston corridor and walk a few blocks north or south from the main drag, you come to them. they are not brownstones - there were few if any townhomes in Arlington pre-ww 2.

Del Ray was a working class neighborhood near an old railroad yard, so naturally its homes are more utilitarian, in contrast to the more upper middle class "suburban" homes of places like Lyon Village, say. Both are examples of older areas with a mix of styles - IE not "cookie cutter", despite having most houses of similar scale.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by NovaOne

You are very correct! But it does make a lot of sense since a home's function is far more important than its form. People want homes that fit to their lifestyle. Where people depend on builders, and where builders often fall short, is wrapping the interior with an attractive, coherent, and well executed exterior. I've seen some pretty bland looking homes with awesomely spectacular interiors. There seems to be a severe disconnect between the attention paid to the inside versus outside of a home. But it is what it is and people vote with their dollars. Unfortunately when homes are being built on a one-by-one basis, there is no counter balance for poor taste.

I suppose one might suggest that social pressure would to some degree "internalize the externality" and I guess one could say thats the economic function of the folks sneering at their neighbors' taste. Some people do not find that appropriate however.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I suppose one might suggest that social pressure would to some degree "internalize the externality" and I guess one could say thats the economic function of the folks sneering at their neighbors' taste. Some people do not find that appropriate however.

I guess one could question whether, apart from being somewhat uncouth, it's an efficient way to achieve that goal, insofar as people might actually (1) like the "externality" when shown examples ("wow, I never knew before you could build such a big house on such a small lot so close to the Metro!") and/or (2) ask more questions about the messenger's motivations than about the message.

To me, it seems like a fairly passive-aggressive tactic compared to just trying to address the issue head on by working to seek changes in zoning or building codes, if one truly feels strongly about it. But, of course, internet forums are often vehicles to vent rather than seek actual change.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I guess one could question whether that's an efficient way to achieve that goal, insofar as people might actually (1) like the "externality" when shown examples ("wow, I never knew before you could build such a big house on such a small lot in [name of town]") and/or (2) ask more questions about the messenger's motivations than about the message. It seems like a fairly passive-aggressive tactic compared to just trying to address the issue head on by working to seek changes in zoning or building codes, if one truly feels strongly about it.

if the house has "positive externalities" than social encouragement seems like a great idea. In many respects I think its a much better idea than trying to write aesthetics into zoning codes, which I think has obvious pitfalls (and my impression is that it often does not work at all well even in historic districts - where at least there are historic standards to make things more objective - its not "is it attractive" but "does it fit the period") The principle disadvantage will be that it will over balance the opinions of those less shy about expressing their opinions - OTOH the political process, especially I think wrt local zoning, has similar inequities.

note Novaone and I are discussing the "Wrapping issue" not the size. Size of course could be addressed through zoning.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

To me, it seems like a fairly passive-aggressive tactic compared to just trying to address the issue head on by working to seek changes in zoning or building codes, if one truly feels strongly about it. But, of course, internet forums are often vehicles to vent rather than seek actual change.

I suppose. I don't know the motives who those who vent about the appearance of McMansions on the internet. While I'm no great fan of them, discouraging their construction is a very very low priority for me, as compared to range of other urban design and planning issues facing our county and our region. Here in Annandale we face much more serious issues (like how to push redevelopment forward on LRT forward) than the number of rooflines someone wants on their imitation of a 17th century French manor house.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I guess one could question whether, apart from being somewhat uncouth.

I guess when you build a house based on your property and zoning rights, thats out of character with an established neighborhood, you have to expect what comes.

I'm sure if we ever move to a condo in Ballston (no deadline on that, in case the Nova CD deadline police are watching), say, Carlingtonian and some of his neighbors might call the place we move to "tacky" or "cookie cutter" or even worse things. We would, in that case, need to be prepared for that kind of backlash against change. I personally would laugh at that.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I wouldn't be too surprised if some of these houses with complex rooflines (only 250 or so miles away and built only 100 years ago or so) inspire some of the more recent homebuilding styles in the DC region:

is that Ditmas Park? I guess my architectural vocab is not good enough to explain why those differ from the neoGeorgian McMansions. I do think those latter often have more rooflines - and I guess with less "justification". Maybe my roofline tax needs to be "progressive" and be low (or even zero) until we get to the "one percent". And include deductions for certain features.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I guess when you build a house based on your property and zoning rights, thats out of character with an established neighborhood, you have to expect what comes.

I'm sure if we ever move to a condo in Ballston (no deadline on that, in case the Nova CD deadline police are watching), say, Carlingtonian and some of his neighbors might call the place we move to "tacky" or "cookie cutter" or even worse things. We would, in that case, need to be prepared for that kind of backlash against change. I personally would laugh at that.

But it's all tit for tat, isn't it? The response then is "I guess when you buy in a neighborhood that has limited property and zoning restrictions, you have to expect someone may build something out of character with the current housing." And then at some point everyone is looking over their shoulders at their neighbors at the annual Memorial Day party to make sure they aren't dissing your house for being too old, too new, too big or too small.

BTW, the houses I posted (admiringly, and not for violating a Gables Policy) on the prior page are from a recent trip to Ditmas Park in Brooklyn. I would love to live in such a house, even though they arguably would be out of character in my current neighborhood.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

But it's all tit for tat, isn't it? The response then is "I guess when you buy in a neighborhood that has limited property and zoning restrictions, you have to expect someone may build something out of character with the current housing." .

well of course. IE you accept that social pressure is the only substitute for zoning or a historic district. There are LOTS of behaviors that are, well, uncouth, but not really suitable for regulation by the state. Social pressure is precisely how we deal with those.

But it certainly has its limits. In which case we are left with the situation that NoVaOne outlined.