Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Developers are approaching Fairfax County Homeowners and offering them 30% over the market to sell their home so the developer can tear it down and redevelop. Are you interested?
A number of options are available to the developer:
1) Tear down the 1950-70s era home and replace it with a large modern home. (It's happening all over Vienna and McLean)
2) Tear down the house on 1/2 or 1 acre lots and replace it with 2-4 homes if they can get the County to rezone the property.
3) Buy out the whole subdivision and replace it with townhomes or apartments. (You see it in the Vienna Metro area and near Fairfax Corner off of Lee Highway.
Would you sell and what do you think about replacing the old homes and neighborhoods with huge homes or high density? Would you feel guilty if the developer destroyed your neighborhood with the clear-cutting of the neighborhood or putting a home that did not fit with the rest of the neighborhood?
I will let other people discuss "McMansions"
I just want to address number 3.
It is in fact rather rare. I am not aware of any other examples in this region, besides Metrowest. (were there really SFH developments torn down at FFX corner? I do not recall)
In general such developments face huge obstacles - both the difficulty in managing to buy out an entire HOA, and zoning restrictions.
The reasons it happened at Metrowest were A. It was right across the street from a metro (which made the county particularly supportive, and also impacted the economics. B. The houses were pretty generic mid 20th century
houses C. The HOA was already surrounded by townhouses and apartments, most of which had been constructed before 1980, I believe. There were very few adjoining SFHs outside the HOA to complain about the change of charecter from SFH's. Even then the developer's original plans were modified in the approval process.
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 05-20-2013 at 09:37 AM..
Don't larger developers typically buy options rather than actually buy and hold the property? This greatly minimizes their need for capital and their liabilities.
In the end, money determines the outcome. I find it ironic that people on the one hand complain about cookie cutter housing designs with the derogatory "McMansion" term, and on the other hand complain about homes that clash with their surroundings.
People build poor looking houses in more affordable parts of McLean and Pimmet Hills because land is cheaper there so it attracts people who are really squeezing their budget to make it happen. If someone could only swing $800k, they may choose to build a $300k home on a $500k lot, ending up with a "new large home inside the beltway" that sounds great on paper. You can take a look at the available plans for a $300k home from builders in that budget range; they are not pretty.
In the end, money determines the outcome. I find it ironic that people on the one hand complain about cookie cutter housing designs with the derogatory "McMansion" term, and on the other hand complain about homes that clash with their surroundings.
I imagine some people want homes in a neighborhood to be in a variety of styles, by different builders, etc that are still more or less similar to each other in size and placement on a lot. There are many older SFH areas around here that look like that. Thats different from either A. a development built at one time by one developer with a few different plans or B. A neighborhood where 5000 Sq ft house sit adjacent to 1600 sq ft houses.
Once upon a time row houses were built in small groups - which means a variety in styles in a neighborhood, even as the heights and sizes matched - you can see that in parts of Capital Hill, for example. I'm not aware of that being done with rowhouses in recent generations - I think the economics strongly militates against it.
Carlingtonian, I'm not saying that the act of smaller footprint or height on a neighborhood basis does that. I'm saying using the Zoning Ordinance, a county wide element that often has overreaching effects, is a bad way to do so.
The best way to do this is an overlay district, not via zoning ordinance modifications. It may seem like semantics but legally its very different. What you think is the right choice in your neighborhood, 4 miles away might be the 180 opinion of that neighborhood. Hence why it should be done via the overlay not county wide zoning.
OK, guess I misread.
I would be all for one giant historic overlay covering all of Arlington*--but even on a neighborhood basis, it's very hard to do. Maywood got it done, amazingly. Cherrydale wrung its hands and went through all kinds of silly debate and ultimately failed--and so is now being McMansionized like you wouldn't believe. (Or maybe you would if you've driven through there. Oh, wait--forgot who I was talking to--if you've taken the ART bus through there or ridden through on your fixie. ) Cherrydalers were worried some inscrutable and arbitrary HOA-like board would tell people what color their shutters could be (which I as well would find too Orwellian to tolerate). I don't think it's turned out that way in Maywood.
Anyway, my point is that historic overlays are hard to get done. I don't see why it would be so hard to have zoning that says you can't have a house whose peak is more than 10 feet higher than your next-door neighbors, nor closer to the street. And then make that set in stone--none of these baloney "variances."
Last edited by Carlingtonian; 05-20-2013 at 04:00 PM..
Reason: *In truth, the entire USA, but let's be realistic.
I would be all for one giant historic overlay covering all of Arlington*--but even on a neighborhood basis, it's very hard to do. Maywood got it done, amazingly. Cherrydale wrung its hands and went through all kinds of silly debate and ultimately failed--and so is now being McMansionized like you wouldn't believe. (Or maybe you would if you've driven through there. Oh, wait--forgot who I was talking to--if you've taken the ART bus through there or ridden through on your fixie. ) Cherrydalers were worried some inscrutable and arbitrary HOA-like board would tell people what color their shutters could be (which I as well would find too Orwellian to tolerate). I don't think it's turned out that way in Maywood.
Anyway, my point is that historic overlays are hard to get done. I don't see why it would be so hard to have zoning that says you can't have a house whose peak is more than 10 feet higher than your next-door neighbors, nor closer to the street. And then make that set in stone--none of these baloney "variances."
I'm a high rise in Ballston, middle of the urban core no where near any homes, next to another high rise. Now I have to be within 10' of that building, even if otherwise I'd be able to be upwards of XX' if otherwise.
Are there ways to write zoning to be specific? Of course, but you'd be surprised how handcuffing they can be when poorly or vaguely written, something that almost always happens in county ordinances.
Overlays, are specific, they have geography associated to them, so that no one can mistake it for applying to urban cores, etc. Also, what if someone owns 4 acres (Someones gotta somewhere in Arlington) and is no where near their neighbor. Would they now be forced to remain within 10' of the height of their neighbor? What constitutes a neighbor? Does a road separating the two entities count? What about a 30' wide park, how about 100' wide park?
Specific regulations specific to a neighborhood reduce bad governance and cause no question as to what was meant by the code.
Good points. Tomorrow, I will sell 3 of the 7 houses I bought this weekend based on CAVA1990's prediction/inside tip/expert commentary/fantasy/wishful thinking/etc.
I just want to see my place turn back into a self-replenishing ATM.
I imagine some people want homes in a neighborhood to be in a variety of styles, by different builders, etc that are still more or less similar to each other in size and placement on a lot. There are many older SFH areas around here that look like that. Thats different from either A. a development built at one time by one developer with a few different plans or B. A neighborhood where 5000 Sq ft house sit adjacent to 1600 sq ft houses.
Once upon a time row houses were built in small groups - which means a variety in styles in a neighborhood, even as the heights and sizes matched - you can see that in parts of Capital Hill, for example. I'm not aware of that being done with rowhouses in recent generations - I think the economics strongly militates against it.
These tear-down rebuilds are happening mostly on a lot-by-lot basis, versus build-outs of entire neighborhoods with new construction by one or a small collection of builders. Additionally there is much more architectural diversity possible now than before at a given price point. It is then natural to have such a variety of home styles. I believe it is still important to separate out the issue of building homes that are unattractive in general, versus an attractive home but in an otherwise old neighborhood. I find that people are much more receptive to the latter based on my observation of what happens in Vienna.
I know this comes down to personal preference, but I'd also raise the point that very few people find the style of old homes attractive or even practical. People mostly don't like the short, rectangular, with red brick look of these homes. Just having shutters and dormers don't cut it anymore for "architectural features". Instead people want complex roof lines, arches, columns, circular bump outs, sun rooms, patios, eaves, porches, stone work, etc. Other than square footage, look at what else is important to people shopping for a SFH in the modern day:
- Tall 9' ceilings, at least on the main floor, though better homes are now going with 10' on main floor and 9' basement and second floor.
- Large expansive windows in every room.
- Open floor plans with smaller formal rooms (living+dining) and larger casual rooms (family, breakfast, kitchen), full basements.
- Two car garages at a minimum
There are very very very very very few affordable homes built prior to 90's that offer all these features for less than $1M current dollars in the desirable parts of Fairfax. It is also cost prohibitive to modify those homes to have these features.
These tear-down rebuilds are happening mostly on a lot-by-lot basis, versus build-outs of entire neighborhoods with new construction by one or a small collection of builders. Additionally there is much more architectural diversity possible now than before at a given price point. It is then natural to have such a variety of home styles. I believe it is still important to separate out the issue of building homes that are unattractive in general, versus an attractive home but in an otherwise old neighborhood. I find that people are much more receptive to the latter based on my observation of what happens in Vienna.
I know this comes down to personal preference, but I'd also raise the point that very few people find the style of old homes attractive or even practical. People mostly don't like the short, rectangular, with red brick look of these homes. Just having shutters and dormers don't cut it anymore for "architectural features". Instead people want complex roof lines, arches, columns, circular bump outs, sun rooms, patios, eaves, porches, stone work, etc. Other than square footage, look at what else is important to people shopping for a SFH in the modern day:
- Tall 9' ceilings, at least on the main floor, though better homes are now going with 10' on main floor and 9' basement and second floor.
- Large expansive windows in every room.
- Open floor plans with smaller formal rooms (living+dining) and larger casual rooms (family, breakfast, kitchen), full basements.
- Two car garages at a minimum
There are very very very very very few affordable homes built prior to 90's that offer all these features for less than $1M current dollars in the desirable parts of Fairfax. It is also cost prohibitive to modify those homes to have these features.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heck, I think a roofline tax might be a good idea
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:
Last edited by JD984; 05-21-2013 at 01:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Cherrydalers were worried some inscrutable and arbitrary HOA-like board would tell people what color their shutters could be (which I as well would find too Orwellian to tolerate). I don't think it's turned out that way in Maywood.
