Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BrightThru2014 t1_j5lzggj wrote

Modern developers/architects are opposed to building in classical styles, in part due to their bias, in part because it’s likely to get rejected by the DC planning boards for “giving a false sense of history.” Bizarre because rowhouses are almost universally celebrated by the public for their beauty and character.

https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/DC%20New%20Construction%20Reformatted.pdf

PS anyone saying that it’s prohibitively expensive to build in that style doesn’t realize that: 1) the vast majority of the expense of building consists of the land and internal constructions; 2) a number of new rowhouses have been built in the last few decades (see Capital Quarter in Navy Yard, Harrison Square in Shaw, etc.).

It’s weird, almost like a deliberate decision to make DC more ugly…

77

NOOBEv14 t1_j5o4gpf wrote

Most of the cost to build is in land, development, and structure, but as always, the money is in the margins.

Homebuilding is very competitive these days, especially in areas where land supply is as limited as DC.

The extra $15k you’re dropping on relatively useless space and a “traditional aesthetic” is just wasted money. You’re not seeing the $20k increase in price that needs to offset it.

And for all that residents seem to prefer the classical look, someone dropping a million bucks on a new townhouse wants the thing to look modern. Builders are always looking to appeal to the meat of the market.

Regardless, anyone with beef about home aesthetic in their jurisdiction should, as you say, always look to the local planning department. These guys have absolute power with regard to architectural approval. They can request whatever they want, take as long to make their decisions as they want, and can’t really be held accountable in any way. New homes will look the way they want them to look.

4

BrightThru2014 t1_j5onayw wrote

Lol modern/contemporary homes are more expensive to build not less: https://nehomemag.com/the-cost-to-build-a-contemporary-home-why-its-higher-than-a-traditional-one/

And if it’s “just the market,” why are developments like this built at all: https://www.chevychaselake.com?

The reality is that a lot of it has to do with the imposition of top-down elitist architectural tastes which abhors all traditional design out of some egotistical pretentiousness.

5

NOOBEv14 t1_j5oocdv wrote

You’re making the wrong comparison here, this is just a difference in facade with a three-story bump-out, it’s still a contemporary home. But perhaps you’re getting ahead of yourself with modern/contemporary - we’re talking about aesthetics, not architectural overhauls. Where do you see an ultramodern townhome community being built in DC? Look at the pictures in that link you sent. That’s obviously not the comparison point. Go look at what EYA is building at Michigan Park, look at NV Homes in Aspen Square - that’s what’s being built.

You just linked condos - Ritz Carlton condos, no less - what point are you trying to make there? That’s a completely different product and market.

3

BrightThru2014 t1_j5oowpq wrote

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing that there isn’t a substantive difference between the costs associate with a townhouse/rowhouse facade and the monstrous modernist popouts that are being built around the city.

That’s it’s economical to build high density buildings in a traditional style.

1

NOOBEv14 t1_j5q4it4 wrote

Are you being dense on purpose?

1

BrightThru2014 t1_j5q835v wrote

Do you hate traditional styles of architecture due to deep-rooted psychological complexes?

0

lalalalaasdf t1_j5pp9ai wrote

The article you linked is misleading and not particularly relevant to this discussion. Of course that house costs more to build than a normal “traditional” house—its a custom built, high end house with a lot of custom details and high end finishes/appliances. When you’re talking about multifamily housing, “modern” developments are much cheaper because there isn’t as much decoration and the structure is far more efficient. If you wanted to build an exact replica of the townhouses in OPs post, you would have to shell out a ton of money for the decoration, partially because labor is more expensive than when they were built and partially because there are very few companies that could manufacture decorative elements at this point.

I’d encourage you to drop the straw man of the elitist architect too—architects in multifamily construction have very little say over what style the building will be—a combination of what the developer wants and what zoning requires determines the shape and style of the building. Developers generally speaking are incredibly conservative as well—they are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a project and they don’t want it to tank due to a bad decision. If they want modern architecture, chances are that’s because the market wants modern architecture.

2

braaaaaaaaaaaah t1_j5p7f55 wrote

I would pay premium for ornate exterior detailing. When I bought, I made sure to replace oak with oak when replacing damaged trim and the things that mostly had to be replaced were the cheap windows and shingles that had been added in the meantime. I dream of those rowhouses in Bloomingdale on Rhode Island with the awesome lintels/keystones over their entryways, and those seem relatively simple compared to some of the brickwork in Dupont. I think they're cast, so it shouldn't be all that expensive if a builder/supplier already had the molds.

1