Preservation
McMansions affect community character in Montgomery
Teardowns and mansionization are a nationwide problem. Montgomery County has few regulatory controls to prevent property owners from demolishing older homes and building new houses that are out of scale and character with neighboring buildings.
Silver Spring McMansion. Photo by the author.
Although Montgomery County has a historic preservation ordinance, not all old homes are historic and there are few tools currently available to residents to prevent speculators from building McMansions like the one under construction in my Silver Spring neighborhood.
Starting in 2006, the National Trust for Historic Preservation began promoting a toolkit on teardowns and mansionization. Among the references are some visual guides. Under "McMansion" in the Trust's "Teardowns Glossary" are several terms applied to the houses: faux chateaux, starter castle, and big box Victorian.
None of these terms truly captures the bricolage of stylistic elements attached to the surfaces of these buildings so I began calling them Cliffs Notes houses.
Cliffs Notes houses are buildings that are out-of-scale and character of the settings where they are built. They draw from a wide array of architectural vocabularies and present them in greatly abbreviated fashion: Revival styles (Colonial, Tudor, Mediterranean), Craftsman/Bungalow, Victorian, and even modernist styles.
Elements are sampled from these historical sources and are reconfigured in the exteriors of single homes. For example, a single Cliffs Notes home may have a Queen Anne tower attached to a main block that features a clipped gable roof with false half-timbering details, quoining, Italianate window surrounds, Palladian windows, and a Greek Revival full-height front porch.
Woodmoor McMansion (right) juxtaposed with a 1930s house (left). Photos by the author.
Teardowns and McMansions of all shapes and sizes are common throughout Montgomery County's affluent neighborhoods, especially Chevy Chase and Potomac. But as a 2006 Montgomery County Planning Department report shows, teardowns are becoming widespread throughout all of Montgomery County's southern suburbs.
2006 Montgomery County Planning Department map of existing residential teardowns.
Over the past few months, workers have been transforming a lot at the corner of Dennis Avenue and University Boulevard West in Silver Spring into a new Cliffs Notes home. Up until earlier this year, the 7,636 square-foot lot had been occupied by a 936 square-foot one-story frame house built in 1952.
1952 home. Photo Captured by Google Streets.
Located in the Four Corners part of Silver Spring, the lot was part of a farm owned by Charles and Virginia Clements. In 1951, the property was carved up to create the Northwood Knolls subdivision.
1948 Montgomery County Real Estate Atlas. Original property tract highlighted.
Maps published in the mid-20th century show the suburbanization of Four Corners with the appearance of subdivisions like Northwood Park (1936), Indian Spring View (1937), Fairway (1934), and Woodmoor (1937).
North Four Corners subdivisions and dates. Adapted from plats
on file with the Maryland State Archives and Google Maps.
By the early 1940s, the subdivisions off of Colesville Road and Bladensburg Road (now University Blvd.) were well established. Transportation and public utilities infrastructure dissected the former agricultural landscape. Sales within the early subdivisions were so successful that developers added adjacent tracts for more homes. This was the case with Northwood Park's Garden Homes.
Typical 1930s Cape Cod in Northwood Park subdivision. Photo by the author.
1950s Northwood Park cooperative house. Photo by the author.
According to Maryland state property tax records, the lot at the corner of University and Dennis was assessed in 2008 at $386,430. Typical of all teardowns, the land ($293,230) was worth far more than the building ($93,200) on it.
After the 1951 subdivision, the property at the corner of Dennis and University was sold in April 1952 to Benson Investment Company, Inc., along with nine adjacent lots in the Northwood Knolls subdivision. Owned by Morris Benson, the Benson Investment Company paid for the lots with a $7,500 mortgage and it borrowed an additional $9,700 for development.
Northwood Knolls plat with McMansion site highlighted.
Original plat in the Maryland State Archives.
After building five homes along Dennis and University, in 1953, Benson sold five of the undeveloped lots along Dennis Avenue to Rosewood Homes, Inc. Rosewood had bought many of the other Northwood Knolls lots from the Clements family at the same time that Benson bought its lots.
Rosewood built brick ranch houses it called "Belvedere" ramblers on its lots along Dennis Avenue (then it was known as Belvedere Avenue). Advertisements for the new homes touted them as houses "with all the extras, located in a fine luxury neighborhood, in close-in Silver Spring." Selling points were proximity to schools, retail, and public transportation. The streetscape the company created in 1952-53 remains intact.
1950s Rosewood Homes houses along Dennis Avenue. Photo by the author.
1952 Washington Post ad.
Benson described its homes as "3 bedroom contemporary homes" with "advance design, combined with thoughtful site planning." In addition to three bedrooms, each home had a fireplace and a dining ell, finished basement, tiled bath and a kitchen outfitted with the latest appliances, including a garbage disposal. Benson was selling its houses starting at $15,950.
Many of the Benson houses stayed on the market for more than two years. The first house sold in 1954 and it was on Dennis Avenue, one lot in from University Blvd. The house at what later became 415 University didn't sell until October 1955.
The teardown house's first owners were Lawrence and Zelma Lee Sweeney. They financed the house through a mortgage that was not filed with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds. Lawrence died in 1961 and his widow sold the property.
Between 1955 and 2009, the property had six owners. The last owner to live in the house at 415 University defaulted on the mortgage and the property was foreclosed. In 2010 the Bank of New York sold the property to United Investments, LLC, for $209,000.
Residents of the North Four Corners neighborhood recall the teardown house as an unremarkable building. Several people who responded to an email query sent to the neighborhood association's listserv described the 1950s house as nondescript. Others commented on the appearance in the mid-2000s of a masonry and metal fence with gates that one writer described as "quite ugly and incompatible with the neighborhood."
University and Dennis intersection showing teardown. Image adapted from Bing Maps.
Most of the people who responded to my email query were satisfied with the scale and style of the new Cliffs Notes home. Several people wrote that the new home, with its architectural embellishments, would be an improvement to the neighborhood. One person wrote about the porch columns, "The new columns in front of the house are distracting as they don't look like anything I've ever seen."
Teardown house (left) and new McMansion (right). Teardown house photo from Google Streets.
Another person, who declined to be quoted by name, wrote about the new house:
It's not a bad house in and of itself… And compared to other fill-ins I've seen… the monster with the turret on University just down from Woodmoor … but then that Victorian door…. With that vaguely Craftsman lookMy reading of the new Cliffs Notes house is that it looms over the existing homes built after the creation of the Northwood Knolls subdivision and that its architectural bricolage— they're trying. However IMHO the house is just too large in proportion to the yard. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be virtually sitting in the intersection. It kind of looms, especially since the surrounding houses are those low profile houses.
New McMansion, University Blvd. (front) facade. Photo by the author.
New McMansion looms over neighboring 1950s homes. Photo by the author.
According to a spokesperson for builder Stony Creek Homes, the new house's style is unique. In a telephone interview, he explained how his company decided to finish the house in what he described as a "cross between craftsman and bungalow" styles. Stony Creek's spokesperson explained that the teardown was necessary because of termite damage to the older house.
Besides the issue of the new Cliffs Notes home's architectural incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, there are environmental and economic issues raised by the new out-of-scale house. I have identified four major issues:
- Embodied energy waste. The 1952 home had embodied energy. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, this is "the energy required to extract, process, manufacture, transport, and install building materials." The total embodied energy for the new Cliffs Notes house includes the resources expended to demolish the teardown, remove the waste, and construct the new house.
Preservation architect Carl Elefante, a Montgomery County resident who serves on the county's Zoning Advisory Panel, is a nationally recognized expert on embodied energy. He coined the now popular phrase, "The greenest building is ... one that is already built."
- Larger homes have greater energy requirements. Although the new 1076 square-foot Cliffs Notes home is being built roughly in the same footprint of the earlier house, it has greater floor space than the teardown and there are more rooms to heat and cool. The new building may use some energy efficient appliances and construction techniques, but I doubt the house being built conforms to LEED Platinum standards.
- Artificially inflated property values. The new home at 415 University Blvd. West will go on the market in early 2011 with a price tag in the upper 500 thousands to the mid-$600 thousand range, according to Stony Creek Homes. If the property sells for $575 thousand, that is nearly $200 thousand more than its last assessed value.
Adjacent lots with 1950s homes may be more vulnerable to teardown pressures after the new Cliffs Notes home sells in the estimated price range. As the number of moderately priced homes diminishes, Montgomery County faces further erosion of its middle class.
Professionals like public safety employees, teachers, and government employees who might be able to afford a $390,000 home would be left looking elsewhere if more Northwood Knolls homes were to become teardowns. Also, more homes with higher values mean higher property taxes. This could displace existing residents unable to afford the higher taxes.
- Barriers to aging in place. Montgomery County, like the rest of the region and nation, has an aging population. Cohousing in residential communities and institutions has become less desirable and Montgomery County recently has begun looking at how to make its communities more conducive to aging in place.
The older one and 1.5-story houses are more architecturally compatible with an aging population that larger two or 2.5-story houses. Also, seniors on fixed incomes would be faced with economic challenges paying taxes and for maintenance on a house like the new Cliffs Notes home.
The Cliffs Notes home under construction in my neighborhood does not appear to be a concern to current residents. Attitudes may change, however, if more of the older building stock is torn down to make way for additional McMansions.
Infill McMansion under construction elsewhere in North Four Corners. Photo by the author.
Although there are many old homes in the neighborhood, there is not sufficient integrity for a large historic district that would provide some aesthetic and environmental protections for the existing building stock and landscapes.
Besides historic preservation, other tools identified in the 2006 Montgomery County Planning Department report on teardowns and mansionization include building height amendments to the zoning ordinance; neighborhood conservation district legislation; proposed stormwater management amendments; and, the creation of overlay zones.
Neighborhood conservation districts may hold the key to stemming the tide of Montgomery County teardowns. According to a 2003 National Trust for Historic Preservation Preservation Law Reporter article, conservation districts are created in neighborhoods "with a distinct physical character that have preservation or conservation as the primary goal." The article continues,
Although these neighborhoods tend not to merit designation as a historic district, they warrant special land use attention due to their distinctive character and importance as viable, contributing areas to the community at large. Accomplished through the adoption of a zoning overlay or independent zoning district, neighborhood conservation districts provide a means to protect character-defining streetscapes in older areas threatened by new development or governmental policies that undermine rather than encourage neighborhood preservation.Sometime down the road, my neighbors may elect to explore creating a conservation district to protect the community's character: the features of the neighborhood that drew its initial owners and occupants to own property and live there.
Fortunately, a modest historical record survives that documents how the North Four Corners subdivisions were created, to whom they were marketed, and who has lived in neighborhood for more than 75 years.
What attracted owners and occupants historically are the same amenities that continue to draw residents to North Four Corners: affordability, access to schools, retail, transportation, and well-built homes with character and stories to tell if anyone is listening.
The subdivision where I live, Northwood Park, is the largest and oldest in the community. Platted in 1936 by Garden Homes, Inc., it is full of ordinary homes in an ordinary twentieth century suburb. Some notable exceptions, however, include the only licensed 1939 World's Fair Town of Tomorrow home.
A neighboring 1950s subdivision is one of only two single-family housing cooperatives built in Maryland under 1950 amendments to the federal Housing Act.
We have a neighborhood association that has been active for more than half a century and our buildings, streets, and open spaces provide the occupants and owners who have moved here, been born here, died here, and who have moved away with the raw materials for community building.
Efforts to preserve community character in Montgomery County may be assisted by a Planning Department with new development and review standards rooted in a new form-based zoning code. As the region's economy bounces back from the recession, it is impossible to speculate what teardowns lie ahead and what the community and planners' responses may be.
David Rotenstein is the proprietor of Historian for Hire, a historical research consulting service based in Decatur, Georgia, and blog about history and culture in the Greater Washington region. David has a doctorate in folklore and folklife from Penn and is a former chairman of the Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission. Between 2009 and 2011, he served on the Montgomery County Zoning Advisory Panel.   |
Comments
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
As for the mishmash of styles found on these buildings, there where identical criticisms of the original victorian period. For better or worse, that genie's out of the bottle. Unless we go back to a James Kunstler vision of a pre-industrial existance, we will always have a heterogeneous aesthetic environment. Personally, I'm happy to put up with experimentation that might grate the nerves to allow some freedom of choice, but for those who don't, there are options like historic districts or super strict HOA neighborhoods.
by Thayer-D on Jan 6, 2011 4:21 pm • link • report
Outside of historically designated buildings, who cares what someone else does with land that they purchased legally? We must resist our control-freak tendencies on this one. Telling someone what to do with their land as long as they follow applicable zoning and building codes would make us no better than a NIMBY.
by Cavan on Jan 6, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report
by William on Jan 6, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
by Alex on Jan 6, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
Likewise, I don't see the rationale for claiming these teardowns and new houses encourage "artificial" inflation of property values. If the house sells on the open market at a higher price, what's artificial about that? That's the entire reason the teardown occurred in the first place - the existing land uses were undervalued.
Now, dealing with the costs associated with this kind of change is a valid question, but I'm not sure that the fact change is happening is noteworthy at all.
by Alex B. on Jan 6, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report
http://tinyurl.com/37lv2eh
The property values in this part of the county are less than half of those a mile or so down Rt. 410 in Silver Spring so it makes even less sense to build this monstrosity. It stands out horribly with its surrounding neighbors.
by Scott on Jan 6, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report
This is an ideal location for such a house - it is as transit-accessible as a house can possibly be in Montgomery County, located at a busy intersection on one of the best-served bus corridors in the county. Under some versions of the proposed zoning code rewrite now being developed by the Planning Board, this site would be among the transit-accessible locations where two-family houses could be built of right.
by tt on Jan 6, 2011 4:50 pm • link • report
by Fritz on Jan 6, 2011 4:54 pm • link • report
If the land is worth $300k and you're building a house to sell for $600k, there's not really a budget for an architectural masterpiece.
by David desJardins on Jan 6, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report
1-Embodied energy: while its correct that the greenest building is one that is already built, an existing building that is infested with termites at best requires remediation and rehab and at worst is structurally deficient. An existing building that is unusable without extensive repairs has lost its embodied energy and stands in the way of the highest and best use of that land because it isn't being used. I would argue that use is better than disuse in the urban environment.
2-Larger houses require more energy: True, but the change from 936 feet to 1076 is hardly enough to get excited about. Especially when one considers the efficiencies gained in heating and cooling of late. Plus the added efficiencies of modern windows, doors and insulation. With a programmable t-stat, I would not be surprised if the new house uses less energy day to day than the one it replaced.
3-Inflated property values: If building one McMansion forces the neighbors out of their homes, then they were living too close to the edge. I can't argue this point too much, but if you have no room in your budget for unexpected expenses then you bought too much house. Plus everyone knows that taxes are pegged to appraised values and you have to know they change. I feel like its on you to buy what you can afford. As for gradual appreciation in value: isn't that what every homeowner hopes for?
4-Barriers to aging in place: If you're aging in place, you're staying in the home you already own, not buying a new McMansion. The upkeep and taxes on a new house are therefore moot.
I do agree with you that the new house is pretty awful looking. That's unfortunate, but its a slippery slope to dictate what types of houses can be built in an area. When I was shopping for a house I consciously avoided neighborhoods with HOAs. IMHO its my house and I'll do as I damn well please within the law.
I think the bigger problem is that no one wants to live in a 1000sft house that is dwarfed by a neighboring McMansion at 2,500sft as I have seen in Arlington and Falls Church. In that case your energy concerns would be warranted as well.
This has got to be my longest comment ever.
by dano on Jan 6, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report
by tt on Jan 6, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report
The authors well intentioned concern over the size of our homes is not really the issue here. Go protest any of the millions of large (2000sqft+) new or existing suburban homes. Infill versions of the same only indicate the value that person puts on a shorter less, consuming commute.
The comments from the neighboor who can't quite come up with a problem other than its to big and I don't want it here is typical. He even says "Frankly, I wouldn't want to be virtually sitting in the intersection.". Well the previous house was there and it was OK.
RE the four points
These are good points until you try to apply them. The main point being don't dispose of anything unless I say its OK. They require forcing others to do things your way with their property. If you like the old home that was there. Buy it. Otherwise, others will and do with it what they legally can.
The part about rising property values is applicable to almost every urban gentrifier reading this article.
The article seems like preaching to the choir. I don't think it convinces anyone who wants to build such a house. It also depends on subjective taste and sets a tone of condescension with the term "Cliff Notes" home.
by leeindc on Jan 6, 2011 4:59 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Jan 6, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report
What if two or three townhouses had gone up in its stead? They could be designed in a complimentary manner to the rest of the neighborhood, rear parking off Dennis Avenue, and perhaps even help define the intersection a little better. It would generate more tax revenue, but each unit would remain affordable and tax-friendly. A little added density at the intersection isn't such a bad thing, considering the nearby retail, the ample bus service, and parks and other walking destinations in North Four Corners.
Anyone else for townhouses on tear-downs?
by Dave Murphy on Jan 6, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report
by David desJardins on Jan 6, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report
More density. Absolutely.
There are two separate issues here - the decision to tear down, and the decision on what replaces it.
by Alex B. on Jan 6, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report
I live in California where we have design review. Every new house has to have its appearance approved by the planning commission, who have essentially arbitrary power (you can appeal to the city council). This does have the downside of elevating their own inflated notion of their own taste. But their taste is certainly better, on average, than what you get from spec builders.
That said, we're also used to spending $300/sf for construction, which dramatically increases the budget for purely aesthetic features.
by David desJardins on Jan 6, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report
by Emil on Jan 6, 2011 7:35 pm • link • report
by deaf90 on Jan 6, 2011 7:51 pm • link • report
Also, screw old people if you are retired and don't have a job gtfo to the countryside. You don't need to be within a mile of Metro or 495 to sit around in your pajamas and watch matlock all day. "Aging in place" is a direct cause of the suburban sprawl that people are always complaining about.
by Doug on Jan 6, 2011 8:04 pm • link • report
by mark on Jan 6, 2011 8:08 pm • link • report
First of all, because less and less people are gonna get mortgages that will allow them to build one.
Secondly, the general economic misery will push builders to go back to smaller houses.
Furthermore, I think McMansions on "new" ground as much worse. If you want to see ugly McMansions, drive up US-15 in Loudoun County towards MD. Beautiful hills with pastures dotted with ghastly McMansions. Yuk. I much prefer them replacing older houses that are at the end of their lives.
Finally, having McMansions spread through other neighborhoods prevents them from clustering and taking over entire neighborhoods/suburbs/cul-de-sacs. Personally, one of the saddest urban sights is a bunch of very similar McMansions close together. The sadness of lack of creativity is beyond words. There's a bunch being built on Hooes Road between Silverbrook and 123, accros from the Lauren Hill Golf Club. Brrrr...
by Jasper on Jan 6, 2011 9:15 pm • link • report
by spookiness on Jan 6, 2011 10:58 pm • link • report
It's like arguing that a 19 story building is out of scale in a neighborhood with 10 story buildings. Um, wasnt the first 10 story building out of scale with the (at the time) 4 story neighborhood....?
And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If this is a custom home, don't you think the owner is pretty fond of the design? Why else would they ask for that? I find some of those ranch homes to be very ugly from the outside, although I am a fan of the ranch house plan.
My one major complaint about the modern home is that the garage is front and center. In fact, it's the centerpeice. Want to walk to the front door? It's hiding behind the garage area, and you need to walk on the driveway to get there....impossible if someone is parked.
Meanwhile, old homes had the garage off to the side, with the front door in the middle.
As for the author, I feel like he'd have a heart attack if he visited key biscayne florida.
You might want to sit down for this.
Look who's at the end of the block
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=33149&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.626896,69.873047&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Key+Biscayne,+Florida+33149&ll=25.686687,-80.175487&spn=0.004709,0.008529&z=17&layer=c&cbll=25.686642,-80.175418&panoid=lkIZF9xG9rMOmY1aesilQw&cbp=12,277.8,,0,12.58
New neighbor
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=33149&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.626896,69.873047&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Key+Biscayne,+Florida+33149&ll=25.686542,-80.171249&spn=0.00467,0.008529&z=17&layer=c&cbll=25.686754,-80.171415&panoid=U7yVGZPPykTfXUx9NfV5Bw&cbp=12,60.42,,0,8.7
Turn around to look who is across the street.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=33149&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.626896,69.873047&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Key+Biscayne,+Florida+33149&ll=25.689197,-80.17269&spn=0.002354,0.004265&z=18&layer=c&cbll=25.689197,-80.17269&panoid=RfsZfMEoE0H6FulZpBttPg&cbp=12,283.77,,0,9.53
Although at $5million+ these aren't mcmansions, theyre the actual thing.
by JJJJJ on Jan 7, 2011 1:00 am • link • report
by Jeff on Jan 7, 2011 1:42 am • link • report
By building a new home on the same lot, we update the housing stock for modern tastes, which include closets, master bathrooms, kitchens with convenient appliances and modern safety codes.
It may cost energy to build a new home, but it costs more to have people move further away and become fully car dependent.
I have seen some really ugly tear downs in my neighborhood and some really great ones.
In the end, its their property, and I don't think the issue of being out of character with the neighborhood is large enough to warrant stepping in with regulations. if there are specific homes that should be preserved like the one for the World Fair, then perhaps that specific house should be preserved, but not the whole neighborhood.
by Michael Perkins on Jan 7, 2011 6:20 am • link • report
by Sligo on Jan 7, 2011 7:47 am • link • report
by jcm on Jan 7, 2011 7:49 am • link • report
In particular, complaints about teardowns and McMansions miss the point-- large investments in low-density areas are problematic, but the answer is to encourage investment in high-density areas.
by MattF on Jan 7, 2011 8:04 am • link • report
In answer to the folks who advocate wiping clean the mistakes of 20th century car-dependent suburbanization, there are ways to preserve the scale and character of the North Four Corners subdivisions while achieving more density. If the Planning Board ever goes forward with the temporarily shelved proposed development standards that include tandem houses, cottage courts, etc. proposed during the zoning rewrite process, there will be many opportunities to replace small, older houses with affordable, transit (bus) accessible options that don't completely eradicate the neighborhood's character and inherent values built up over more than 75 years.
by David Rotenstein on Jan 7, 2011 8:09 am • link • report
by Fred on Jan 7, 2011 8:33 am • link • report
A side note on the aging in place. Some of you guys need to ask yourself the same question 30-60 years from now, when you may need to be put in a facility. Unless nursing homes and other senior options improve, why should we deny a person the right to live where they own property until they die. Why not gradually add density and teardown as property becomes vacant. That end of the "health" economy doesn't need any more thousands when we could keep that in the real estate and community amenities economy.
by Kristen on Jan 7, 2011 8:56 am • link • report
Who is "denying them the right?" Just because they aren't "economically fit" enough to handle rising assessments (even with senior tax credits), doesn't mean they're being denied their "right" to stay.
by ChrisW on Jan 7, 2011 9:24 am • link • report
by Mark Washburn on Jan 7, 2011 9:33 am • link • report
My next door neighbor and her next door neighbor are both elderly widows living alone in houses that haven't changed noticeably in decades. What a waste of two nice pieces of property. Eventually they'll move on and I guarantee the new owners will expand if not rebuild the houses which will benefit the neighborhood.
by movement on Jan 7, 2011 9:38 am • link • report
They have two options. Buy a huge house 20 miles from the city, thus making for a long car driven commute. Or buy something closer tear it down and build new. Even if its in a neighboorhood without good mass transit, its still closer to DC = less driving.
by Matt R on Jan 7, 2011 9:43 am • link • report
I've seen much uglier McMansions driving down River Rd. on my way to Potomac.
by JustMe on Jan 7, 2011 9:55 am • link • report
No, it doesn't fit within the existing architectural vernacular of the neighborhood, but I'm not sure I'd argue that it's overtly offensive in context. It looks like a pretty nice house with a decent design that was built with good quality materials.
It's not even particularly huge, even given the lot size. If anything, those neighboring 1950s homes are unusually tiny, even for their era (although I must say that they also look surprisingly well-maintained compared to most homes from that era. It looks like a nice place to live).
by andrew on Jan 7, 2011 10:14 am • link • report
That said, these examples are really ugly. The University Blvd. house doesn't look that huge (I wouldn't say it's "looming" over the neighborhood in that picture) but it is pretty ugly. What is it supposed to be architecturally? It's like some neo-craftsman thing, and those columns are hideous. That's my problem with it. The house it replaced was absolutely nothing special - ugly in its own right.
That house you have in the second picture is an absolute monstrosity. Garages FRONT AND CENTER! A mishmash of architectural styles. Ridiculous ugly granite facade. And enormous and out of proportion to the house next to it.
The North Four Corners house you have in that last picture doesn't look too terrible, but it's not the best picture.
by MLD on Jan 7, 2011 10:29 am • link • report
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2226/silverspringforestglen.jpg
The 4 houses in red are new. The house to the left of the blue square was actually MOVED about 40 feet to the west to split his lot in two to make room for a new home, which has now finished construction but isn't in this photo. The cute little Cape Cod at the corner of Forest Glen on Forest Grove Drive just to the west of this picture was also just purchased for a major reno. They tore down the side porch and just built a new addition to the home that is larger than the existing building. It looks a little ridiculous and was not a creative design. Full discloser: my parents tore over half the roof off our 1950s rambler down the street from here to add a second floor and new vestibule out front 10 years ago, but we've received many positive compliments from neighbors over the years at how well-done it is. Considering it makes our home still just under 2,000SF (not including the basement), it still fits in with the neighborhood.
by Eric on Jan 7, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report
I meant "Full disclosure" not discloser.
by Eric on Jan 7, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report
Even if some houses are structurally deficient enough to be torn down, though, why do they have to be replaced with houses with so many levels and steps? The more two- and three-story mansions, townhouses, etc. we build today, the more elderly people we're going to have incapacitated for falls and broken hips in the next couple of decades.
One of my Massachusetts cousins and his wife had the right idea, I think. Once their younger kid got married, they sold the two-story house they raised their family in and had a one-story home built in a new development. Most of the other houses in the development are big two-story suckers, but my relatives put their foot down and got what they wanted. It's a lovely, energy-efficient home and they should be able to live in it -- without falling down the stairs -- long after they retire.
by Greenbelt Gal on Jan 7, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report
Tear-downs are a fact of life, and many of these postwar homes (the one I lived in was built in 1948) are in need of replacement, which implies a tear-down and construction of a new home.
I cannot agree with the complaints raised in this article. As long as the new structure complied with setback requirements for this zone, and was otherwise built to the relevant building code, I do not see what the issue is here.
by C. P. Zilliacus on Jan 9, 2011 10:14 pm • link • report
by Squalish on Jan 9, 2011 11:51 pm • link • report
What is your evidence for that? I live in a community with design review for new homes, it has some annoying effects and some beneficial effects, but it doesn't really affect urban planning at all.
by David desJardins on Jan 10, 2011 12:15 am • link • report
That implies that planners in the 1940's were already considering the alignment of the road which was later to become the Capital Beltway - and had this route been followed, there would not have been the extensive tear-downs of homes in Fairway area of South Four Corners that came in the late 1950's, when an early segment of the Circumferential Highway (as it was called before it got the name "Beltway") was constructed through Fairway, the Indian Spring Country Club (site of Blair High School and the Silver Spring YMCA today) and the Sligo Creek Golf Course.
by C. P. Zilliacus on Jan 10, 2011 11:31 am • link • report
the one that was there before was REALLY UGLY n was falling apart like the ones next to it.
a lot of the houses in that area need a lot of repair anyways
so new better looking house is a much need improvement
by D on Jan 11, 2011 8:11 am • link • report
by Mike on Jan 11, 2011 8:44 am • link • report
That said, what person that could afford this house would want to live on this incredibly busy, noisy road? If you can afford $600,000 wouldn't you either opt for an area with more amenities or one that's quieter? Why live in this awful no-man's land on a six-lane road?
by Chris on Jan 11, 2011 9:40 am • link • report
by Mike on Jan 20, 2011 12:13 pm • link • report
by David Rotenstein on Feb 23, 2011 11:49 am • link • report
Add a Comment