define McMansion (foreclosure, unemployed, wedding)

[wingerr8]

So what does one call an infill house that was put up after the box that was there before was demolished?

Now what stands is a castle among shanty homes.

Would you call it a bad investment?

[normie]

Originally Posted by wingerr8

So what does one call an infill house that was put up after the box that was there before was demolished?

Now what stands is a castle among shanty homes.

Would you call it a bad investment?

Depends on what's lie in the future for the neighborhood. If you look at historic photos of DC, once upon a time some of the priciest streets of today had shanties built on them, not to mention chicken roosts and sheep pens. Some of the nicest embassies were built where shacks once stood. Those buildings are prime real estate today.

[springfieldva]

Originally Posted by wingerr8

So what does one call an infill house that was put up after the box that was there before was demolished?

Now what stands is a castle among shanty homes.

Would you call it a bad investment?

I think it would depend on where it was located and the quality of the lot. A luxury home built on an infill lot in a busy, walkable section of Arlington makes sense even if it's current neighbors are small shacks. Many families want to live in Arlington, but not all families want to live in small shacks - so there would be a real market for that home.

[ZakAttack]

Hmm, I think we are living McMansion-tastic then. I think what pushes us over the edge is owning a large house, and not being able to afford finishing the whole basement!

[lchoro]

Originally Posted by normie

Great point... I was going with that theory myself, but as I looked through the Lowes Island photo tour it started to feel as elusive as the other definitions. Ponder these homes.









And what about other homes that are not usually called McMansion even though they also have small (or sometimes smaller) lots? If it's just about lot size, does that mean these homes are McMansions?

Alexandria photo tour

Those are similar to McMansions but a lot of the space is devoted to higher ceilings and not to livable space that would accomodate more people. I see very similar homes in Reston that were constructed in the 60's and 70's but the height is more proportional to the floor space.

[wingerr8]

Originally Posted by normie

Depends on what's lie in the future for the neighborhood. If you look at historic photos of DC, once upon a time some of the priciest streets of today had shanties built on them, not to mention chicken roosts and sheep pens. Some of the nicest embassies were built where shacks once stood. Those buildings are prime real estate today.

True, if you have 40-50 years to wait.

[wingerr8]

Originally Posted by springfieldva

I think it would depend on where it was located and the quality of the lot. A luxury home built on an infill lot in a busy, walkable section of Arlington makes sense even if it's current neighbors are small shacks. Many families want to live in Arlington, but not all families want to live in small shacks - so there would be a real market for that home.

Potential for appreciation is lower though.

[adolpho]

Land in Shanghai is going for 5000 USD per square meter=20 million per acre. They were slaughtering animals there--recently. I think DC has always missed something by not having skyscrapers.

[South Jersey Styx]

Originally Posted by springfieldva

A luxury home built on an infill lot in a busy, walkable section of Arlington makes sense even if it's current neighbors are small shacks. Many families want to live in Arlington, but not all families want to live in small shacks - so there would be a real market for that home.

Actually, I heard differently. If the market value of a house is determined and/or influenced by the neighborhood it is in, then a giant house amidst shacks will not bring the same value as one sitting amongst its peers.

[South Jersey Styx]

Originally Posted by ICS67

Now can somebody explain to me the sense in all this? I know to each their own, and the McMansion is nice enough, but why do two senior citizens need a 4,000+ square foot house?

Sounds like sheer waste to me but heck, I'm not the one living there nor would I do such a thing when I get close to retiring . . . .

When these folks get even older, like turn 80+ they'll barely be moving room-to-room. They won't be going upstairs and downstairs, mowing their lawns, cleaning the place, and maybe not even driving their cars, cooking, or visiting people. Why would they need so much space?

* to have a place big enough for familyo to live in who will do these things (listed above) for them;

* to have a place big enough for a live-in caretaker who will care for them (since it's better than going to a nursing home)