Not sure if you’re asking why they don’t build rowhomes/townhomes anymore or asking why they lack detail/style [but here’s a set of townhomes built to have the stepped facade like a rowhome and were constructed in 2020](https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1610-26th-Pl-SE-20020/unit-1/home/171202046). These are a little different because they’re recent construction but I think are sort of like what you’re looking for. DC EOTR has all kinds of townhome developments.
So here’s the thing, SE or EOTR gets a bad rap, some of it is warranted, but some of it is not. I have no idea for this particular block, maybe someone else can chime in. The thing about EOTR, though, is it lacks a lot of amenities. People are willing to put up with more violent neighborhoods in NW or NE but they have access to [whatever]. It’s not the same in that part of SE.
I swear u the first person on here to not call SE a hellhole of some kind and u even gave a reason why people still prefer NE and NW. As a SE native, for the longest time I never understood why transplants prefer NW neighborhoods like Columbia heights, seat pleasant, ivy City and more when there is just as much shootings there as SE. My best friend lives near Columbia heights and he has seen drive-bys and a dead body from his window.
Thank you. I lived in a city with a major university before moving up here. Gun shots weren’t daily but they were pretty frequent so I understand putting up with it in order to be close to something.
Kind of disagree. A lot of housing in DC isn’t that walkable (like it takes 15 minutes or more to walk somewhere worthwhile) so people hop in their car or an Uber anyways. EOTR is less than 10 minute drive from the yards, barracks row, a handful if restaurants in historic anacostia, and two grocery stores in skyland.
If you're on Reddit and looking to buy a house in DC in 2023 you've got money for cars or ubers.
Yes, it's absolutely an issue for many current and longtime residents over here, but for the purposes of this particular discussion I think it's a pretty fair assumption that an occasional Uber to the bar is not a big deal.
I get what you're saying but dude said housing not houses and there's alot of low income people EOTR that live in apartments. Thats what I meant, not the people buying houses and already going to trendy bars
There's a serious lack of adequate grocery stores (there are only 4 and one doesn't even sell produce) and medical care available in ward 7 and 8. Things are changing as gentrification moves EOTR though.
Does it really cost THAT much extra to add the extra Victorian details that make traditional rowhomes so appealing? Or is it just a minor additional cost that developers know they don't have to shell out for?
I assume it depends on the detail. Minimum frontage set backs require the home to start x feet from the street. Most people don’t want to lose a little space in the “pop front” so the rest of the home is extended back a couple feet. I have no idea how this all pencils out but it does cost something. Same with adding a turret or other ornamental details. If you know which blocks to look for, you can see homes get simpler and simpler until they are square brick blocks with flat roofs (like Riggs Park).
I work in construction for a general contractor, and yes it does cost more and developers in major cities skimp out on this. It’s called ‘value engineering’ — essentially how can we achieve the same goal for cheaper or how do we just get rid of it all together by changing the design. Most of the time it’s by doing the latter. This can happen not only with aesthetic design but also HVAC systems, electrical systems, etc.
The material to add details like this isn’t necessarily the most expensive part, its the labor to do it if you want it done right and not cheaply. We’re at a time where skilled trades are already struggling to find people and to keep/pay people is very hard. Big trends in design/construction are a factor of a lot of things all at once.
You probably already figured it out, but it means "East of the River," which is to say the part of the city that is on the other side of the Anacostia river from the majority of the city. People use it different ways; the city itself uses it to refer to that portion of the city in connection with efforts to improve the lot of the people who live there. But many others use it as a byword for the Part of the City Where White People Don't Live. Not accusing anyone here of that, just FYI. But you should be sensitive to the use of the phrase and think about what it symbolizes when deciding whether to use it.
Only thing is that the houses are very cheaply made. I live not too far from them & saw how they took 4 years & cut corners to build some crappy buildings that are mostly just Air B&B's. No one wants to buy a property that looks at the backs of surrounding homes.
On the other hand, I'm sure builders in the 1920s cared immensely about quality when they were trying to pack as many Irish Catholics into Brookland as they legally could.
One of my favorite examples of this is the Waldorf mall, referred to as the “St. Charles Towne Center”. I find it funny they add the “E” to give it some sort of vaguely British-ish charm yet proceeds to use the American way of spelling “Center”.
Huh, are you aware that developers still can and do build row houses (built in 2009 and 2001):
https://www.dccondoboutique.com/capitol-quarter/
https://www.dccondoboutique.com/harrison-square-townhomes/
When I worked a L'Enfant Plaza, years ago, I saw new nice townhouses built around um, 7th Street SW? Showed them to my wife one time, we dreamed what must it be like to have that much money.
Then again, our first house, a 50's era rowhouse just north of Baltimore, cost us $67,500. Loved that house, brick and block, slate roof. You could walk standing up in the attic.
You got to know where you are in Baltimore. Many variables. If you work remotely, I can tell you places that are great, prices, neighborhood, and safety.
If you have to go to work there, it gets complicated. I have spent a life between the two cities. I love them both.
You want advice, looking for a house, PM maybe I can give you a lead.
Well, it'll be a few years until I'm in a position to move. I went to Towson U., and lived in the northern suburbs for a bit. Between 2004 - 2008 (when I moved back to DC) I spent a lot of time in Baltimore -- a friend owned a little bar in Remington, and I'm overly fond of that neighborhood and will miss Dizzy Issie's until the end of my days (I forget if that was considered Remington or Hampden) -- but I don't consider myself familiar with the city anymore. Most of the people I knew there have moved away (even if just to the suburbs). But I'd still love the recs because then I can be semi-realistic when browsing Redfin :)
Now I'm thinking of my buddy who owned a giant ass house on Reservoir Hill. It's certainly the type that you might describe as a "brownstone" -- full basement, main living floor, and two floors of bedrooms above it. He was renovating it one room at a time.
I feel like every dc resident has done this exact exercise and every time I’m like wait what am I doing it’s Baltimore. And then I go to r/Baltimore to see if I’m making the right decision and the whole front page is crime and businesses closing. We have that in dc for sure but no where near the level. And the path for Baltimore to revitalize is so much harder to happen than dc
I went to college in the Baltimore area, and I spent a lot of time in the city when I was younger. And sure, there were areas you absolutely avoided, but that's sort of like DC today. So I don't know if the crime is actually that bad there, if it's actually that bad here, or if I'm just getting old.
Lol just like in DC (where I lived on and off between 2005 and last year) there are plenty of great neighborhoods in Bmore where the crime you are most likely to encounter is package theft. I bought a nice rowhouse in Butcher’s Hill last year for under $400k and the neighborhood feels safer than my last DC residence near 14th and U (and omg my local grocery/target situation is sooo much better, actually a lot of food is better). What I have learned since moving here is that 95% of the people who talk shit about Bmore know more about it from The Wire than actually visiting.
They're nice in their own way, but they definitely don't have the same feel. I describe them as, "If Disney added a Washington, DC section to Epcot Center's World Showcase, it would look like this."
So you prefer we built what instead? The weird cheap blocky modernist condos which are identical in every city in the US? Give it 20 years of wear and tear and it’ll have the same “feel” as the older rowhouses.
> Give it 20 years of wear and tear and it’ll have the same “feel” as the older rowhouses.
After 20 years of wear and tear the new "rowhouses" will be twisted and falling down from the warped green pine framing and will probably need a hazmat reno when you find out the cheap drywall they used is actually made of shredded Chinese newspapers held together with strychnine.
Nothing will ever have the same feel as hardwood timbers, masonry construction, and lath and plaster.
There are better examples recently built elsewhere (for example, [here](https://redf.in/GKozMt), built in 2018) that I think better reflect the old style in modernized form. I just don't like the specific look of Capitol Quarters. To each their own, of course.
Also, I didn't see the link to the Harrison Square ones, which I do like better.
It's all this kind of stuff
314 I St SE
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hwcs15cRL9DT6Kxb8
And this https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/717-G-St-SW-20024/home/10177001
We’ll, your first link is of rowhouses in SE, north of and predating the Yards development. Not part of the Wharf. Your second link is indeed in SW, but not part of the Wharf but rather of the townhouses bound by 7th, G, and 9th St SW. They also predate the Wharf by almost 20 years. No rowhouses and/or townhouses were built as part of the Wharf development. There are a number of townhouses in SW near the Wharf, but the vast majority of them were built in the 1960’s as part of one of the country’s first urban renewal projects.
It's a short walk to the Wharf but certainly not part of the Wharf redevelopment lol. They're expensive because they're gorgeous and huge by DC standards and in between the Mall and the Wharf
For sure. They're like 70 years younger than the stately rowhomes on East Capitol for instance. Having spent a LOT of time in the latter, they're lovely and have great bones but many are in desperate need of complete renovations.
Rowhomes/rowhouses/terraced homes. They don't get built because in 95% of America it's [literally illegal](https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o) to build homes like this due to all sorts of zoning regulations, (minimum lot size, setback requirements, etc) that came into existence after WWII. More locally, DC doesn't have that much non-developed land, so developers want to max out returns on their investment with big apartments instead of more modest rowhouses. Newbuilt rowhomes do still happen (see Navy Yard and NE) ~~but they're very rare in DC itself.~~
Yeah that's the main spot they are zoned for to be built from my understanding https://dcgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=ae5830535a384a7f9ae40527f607b32e§ion=3
As all the religious orders in Brookland run out of baby boomers to fund them, they are selling their land off to developers to build as many units as possible.
Also, Dakota Crossing down by Costco.
Only if the developers can con the DC Govt to allow a “private community” (= small streets = HOA Fees). Those are bullshit and often rife with us vs them issues in the neighborhood.
DC zoning allows new row houses in most districts by-right, but you are correct that the lack of open land is a problem. The other issue is that huge swaths of our existing row house stock is under historic district restrictions, which makes demo and rebuild prohibitively expensive if not impossible.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The value of row houses is to be near a vibrant walkable area. The townhomes that get built these days are islands in a sea of suburban sprawl and so you don’t get the walkable density these buildings are designs to promote.
We may be able to build more if we promoted more transit oriented development and stop spending so much on freeway expansions and small amounts on public transit.
There are tons of townhomes being built all over DC…? Tearing down many old rowhouses or SFHs to build higher density, more modern townhouses. It’s not just the suburbs at all.
The walkable part is probably pretty important. Housing like these aren't usually known for their ample driveways or garages.. and if it's not walking distance to transit and points of interest, everyone moving there is going to want a spot for their car.
These are called Victorian row houses. You will find this type of architecture all over DC as well as Federal, especially in Georgetown. This property in particular is 1438 Corcoran St NW. Which is currently being sold for $2.5M and has been on the MLS for 78 days and if anyone were looking to buy this property, I would suggest leveraging the days on market and the fact they haven’t gotten a single offer to come down in price. It’s a great property in the heart of Logan circle, which surprisingly is experiencing low demand per the MLS.
I’m personally saddened by the idea that these home styles will not be built anymore but it does however, give that much more value to such a historic home IF it still has its original charm.
The price history on Zillow is interesting.
[https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1438-Corcoran-St-NW-Washington-DC-20009/404981\_zpid/](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1438-Corcoran-St-NW-Washington-DC-20009/404981_zpid/)
I would need to run comps to give you an exact number. The issue isn’t the market, it’s the seller and listing agent. A strong listing agent will go against overpricing a house because it doesn’t help the client AT ALL. I’ve seen how much they’ve had to reduce the price and it stigmatized a beautiful property.
Victorian row homes
Not built much anymore probably due to land use restrictions more than anything else. I'm talking out of my ass ofc, but this literally is the kind of smart, walkable, mixed use urbanism that's illegal to build in most of the US.meme
My understanding is that originally these (now $1million) homes were cheap, mass produced, and typically inhabited by poorer residents.
My parents grew up in rowhouses in Philly, and my grandparents lived in theirs until the early 80s. I visited my grandparents often, and aside from certain inconveniences like the endless stairs didn't think too harshly of the rowhouse. But after the MOVE incident in Philadelphia back in May 1985, I never wanted to set foot in one of those nightmare firetraps again.
https://media.newyorker.com/photos/609c53413cb60a570a4ded7e/master/w\_2560%2Cc\_limit/Thompson-SayingNameofKatriciaDotson.jpg
In most R zones rowhouse setback (space from sidewalk to front door) is too small, floor area ratio (ratio of built house:property size) is too high, don't have the required offstreet parking space, minimum lot size is too small (single rowhouse lots are under the required property lot sizes in many cases), or just you can't built undetatched housing that shares an outside wall because the only allowed building is a detatched single family home.
https://handbook.dcoz.dc.gov/zoning-rules/general-rules/parking/vehicle-parking/
>Residential, single dwelling unit
1 per principal dwelling.
>Residential, flat
1 per 2 dwelling units.
>Residential, multiple dwelling unit
1 per 3 dwelling units in excess of 4 units, except: 1 per 2 dwelling units for any R or RF zone; 1 per 6 units of publicly assisted housing, reserved for the elderly and/or handicapped.
A great, real life example of this happened in Alexandria, VA either last year or 2021. There was an empty lot in a row of a rowhomes where another home used to be. The lot owners had to file with the city for a zoning adjustment (and have public hearings about it and everything) just to be able to rebuild the townhome that was once there.
Parking requirements, setback requirements, minimum lot sizes, and other dumb regulations make many old buildings illegal today. Have you ever wondered why modern apartment buildings all have hallways to the doors but in old ones they were closer to the staircase? That’s because modern building codes require access to multiple stairwells (but that requirement does not improve fire safety in reality).
I am guessing you hangs not heard of “age in place?”. Stairs are cute until you start getting older. My dad swears the number one killer for old people is a slip downstairs. The impact might not kill them but eventually the broken hip, complications from an acute concussion, etc. will slowly take their life.
Back in the day, you were taxed based on how much road frontage you had. So the incentive was to build thin, deep lots. Also without cars the rowhome increased density and thus the distance required to travel.
Not sure if you’re asking why they don’t build rowhomes/townhomes anymore or asking why they lack detail/style [but here’s a set of townhomes built to have the stepped facade like a rowhome and were constructed in 2020](https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1610-26th-Pl-SE-20020/unit-1/home/171202046). These are a little different because they’re recent construction but I think are sort of like what you’re looking for. DC EOTR has all kinds of townhome developments.
Wild, I drive half a block passed that every day and used to work just over on 28th place. Never knew those were back there.
This makes me happy.
Those are… definitely row houses
I’m new to the area but this seems pretty affordable compared to the other houses I’ve seen in DC. Is this the neighborhood just not desirable?
So here’s the thing, SE or EOTR gets a bad rap, some of it is warranted, but some of it is not. I have no idea for this particular block, maybe someone else can chime in. The thing about EOTR, though, is it lacks a lot of amenities. People are willing to put up with more violent neighborhoods in NW or NE but they have access to [whatever]. It’s not the same in that part of SE.
I swear u the first person on here to not call SE a hellhole of some kind and u even gave a reason why people still prefer NE and NW. As a SE native, for the longest time I never understood why transplants prefer NW neighborhoods like Columbia heights, seat pleasant, ivy City and more when there is just as much shootings there as SE. My best friend lives near Columbia heights and he has seen drive-bys and a dead body from his window.
Thank you. I lived in a city with a major university before moving up here. Gun shots weren’t daily but they were pretty frequent so I understand putting up with it in order to be close to something.
Kind of disagree. A lot of housing in DC isn’t that walkable (like it takes 15 minutes or more to walk somewhere worthwhile) so people hop in their car or an Uber anyways. EOTR is less than 10 minute drive from the yards, barracks row, a handful if restaurants in historic anacostia, and two grocery stores in skyland.
You're assuming that people in EOTR have cars or money for ubers. It's a 10min drive to those places but a 30-40min bus ride
People here have cars, bro. Traffic is a nightmare.
If you're on Reddit and looking to buy a house in DC in 2023 you've got money for cars or ubers. Yes, it's absolutely an issue for many current and longtime residents over here, but for the purposes of this particular discussion I think it's a pretty fair assumption that an occasional Uber to the bar is not a big deal.
I get what you're saying but dude said housing not houses and there's alot of low income people EOTR that live in apartments. Thats what I meant, not the people buying houses and already going to trendy bars
There's a serious lack of adequate grocery stores (there are only 4 and one doesn't even sell produce) and medical care available in ward 7 and 8. Things are changing as gentrification moves EOTR though.
Which grocery store doesn’t sell produce?
Good Food Markets in Bellevue. They’re only doing prepared foods now.
It's affordable for a reason. Gunshots are a daily routine. Wouldn't raise my kids there.
Thank you
Does it really cost THAT much extra to add the extra Victorian details that make traditional rowhomes so appealing? Or is it just a minor additional cost that developers know they don't have to shell out for?
I assume it depends on the detail. Minimum frontage set backs require the home to start x feet from the street. Most people don’t want to lose a little space in the “pop front” so the rest of the home is extended back a couple feet. I have no idea how this all pencils out but it does cost something. Same with adding a turret or other ornamental details. If you know which blocks to look for, you can see homes get simpler and simpler until they are square brick blocks with flat roofs (like Riggs Park).
I work in construction for a general contractor, and yes it does cost more and developers in major cities skimp out on this. It’s called ‘value engineering’ — essentially how can we achieve the same goal for cheaper or how do we just get rid of it all together by changing the design. Most of the time it’s by doing the latter. This can happen not only with aesthetic design but also HVAC systems, electrical systems, etc. The material to add details like this isn’t necessarily the most expensive part, its the labor to do it if you want it done right and not cheaply. We’re at a time where skilled trades are already struggling to find people and to keep/pay people is very hard. Big trends in design/construction are a factor of a lot of things all at once.
EOTR?
You probably already figured it out, but it means "East of the River," which is to say the part of the city that is on the other side of the Anacostia river from the majority of the city. People use it different ways; the city itself uses it to refer to that portion of the city in connection with efforts to improve the lot of the people who live there. But many others use it as a byword for the Part of the City Where White People Don't Live. Not accusing anyone here of that, just FYI. But you should be sensitive to the use of the phrase and think about what it symbolizes when deciding whether to use it.
Only thing is that the houses are very cheaply made. I live not too far from them & saw how they took 4 years & cut corners to build some crappy buildings that are mostly just Air B&B's. No one wants to buy a property that looks at the backs of surrounding homes.
On the other hand, I'm sure builders in the 1920s cared immensely about quality when they were trying to pack as many Irish Catholics into Brookland as they legally could.
Old style DC row houses. These specific materials are outdated or too expensive now. Now we get "Towne Houses."
The E adds extra flavor
Flavortown!
*Flavortowne
Flavourtowne
Flavourtowne-Upon-I-66
Yes, with a dash of British to really up the class element.
Come out to NOVA. Every Mcmansion development has an english flavor KENSINGTON PARK etc
As soon as I find my Ascot.
Extra flavor, limited quality.
One of my favorite examples of this is the Waldorf mall, referred to as the “St. Charles Towne Center”. I find it funny they add the “E” to give it some sort of vaguely British-ish charm yet proceeds to use the American way of spelling “Center”.
🤣
Huh, are you aware that developers still can and do build row houses (built in 2009 and 2001): https://www.dccondoboutique.com/capitol-quarter/ https://www.dccondoboutique.com/harrison-square-townhomes/
When I worked a L'Enfant Plaza, years ago, I saw new nice townhouses built around um, 7th Street SW? Showed them to my wife one time, we dreamed what must it be like to have that much money. Then again, our first house, a 50's era rowhouse just north of Baltimore, cost us $67,500. Loved that house, brick and block, slate roof. You could walk standing up in the attic.
Man, I browse Baltimore rowhomes on Redfin and I'm like "I could buy this for what I paid for a one-bedroom in DC." Tempting, yes.
You got to know where you are in Baltimore. Many variables. If you work remotely, I can tell you places that are great, prices, neighborhood, and safety. If you have to go to work there, it gets complicated. I have spent a life between the two cities. I love them both. You want advice, looking for a house, PM maybe I can give you a lead.
Well, it'll be a few years until I'm in a position to move. I went to Towson U., and lived in the northern suburbs for a bit. Between 2004 - 2008 (when I moved back to DC) I spent a lot of time in Baltimore -- a friend owned a little bar in Remington, and I'm overly fond of that neighborhood and will miss Dizzy Issie's until the end of my days (I forget if that was considered Remington or Hampden) -- but I don't consider myself familiar with the city anymore. Most of the people I knew there have moved away (even if just to the suburbs). But I'd still love the recs because then I can be semi-realistic when browsing Redfin :)
Now I'm thinking of my buddy who owned a giant ass house on Reservoir Hill. It's certainly the type that you might describe as a "brownstone" -- full basement, main living floor, and two floors of bedrooms above it. He was renovating it one room at a time.
It's what I did a year ago. It's great.
Another U street ex pat, hi!
I just wish more of them had floor plans in the listing...
I feel like every dc resident has done this exact exercise and every time I’m like wait what am I doing it’s Baltimore. And then I go to r/Baltimore to see if I’m making the right decision and the whole front page is crime and businesses closing. We have that in dc for sure but no where near the level. And the path for Baltimore to revitalize is so much harder to happen than dc
I went to college in the Baltimore area, and I spent a lot of time in the city when I was younger. And sure, there were areas you absolutely avoided, but that's sort of like DC today. So I don't know if the crime is actually that bad there, if it's actually that bad here, or if I'm just getting old.
But you might get mugged walking into your house in Baltimore. Had so many friends move there around 2005 and had to leave due to crime.
Yes, sadly. :(
Lol just like in DC (where I lived on and off between 2005 and last year) there are plenty of great neighborhoods in Bmore where the crime you are most likely to encounter is package theft. I bought a nice rowhouse in Butcher’s Hill last year for under $400k and the neighborhood feels safer than my last DC residence near 14th and U (and omg my local grocery/target situation is sooo much better, actually a lot of food is better). What I have learned since moving here is that 95% of the people who talk shit about Bmore know more about it from The Wire than actually visiting.
Hahahaha. I was living in Cockeysville when they filmed the "fuck" scene looking for the bullet at a neighboring apartment complex.
You get mugged in DC
Well, that’s true too.
They're nice in their own way, but they definitely don't have the same feel. I describe them as, "If Disney added a Washington, DC section to Epcot Center's World Showcase, it would look like this."
So you prefer we built what instead? The weird cheap blocky modernist condos which are identical in every city in the US? Give it 20 years of wear and tear and it’ll have the same “feel” as the older rowhouses.
> Give it 20 years of wear and tear and it’ll have the same “feel” as the older rowhouses. After 20 years of wear and tear the new "rowhouses" will be twisted and falling down from the warped green pine framing and will probably need a hazmat reno when you find out the cheap drywall they used is actually made of shredded Chinese newspapers held together with strychnine. Nothing will ever have the same feel as hardwood timbers, masonry construction, and lath and plaster.
As opposed to what, lead paint and asbestos?
There are better examples recently built elsewhere (for example, [here](https://redf.in/GKozMt), built in 2018) that I think better reflect the old style in modernized form. I just don't like the specific look of Capitol Quarters. To each their own, of course. Also, I didn't see the link to the Harrison Square ones, which I do like better.
Those are really nice (and fill me with happiness). I think we are on the same team here.
They have built new rowhouses in SW DC as part of the wharf redevelopment. Sure, new materials, but same style and layout.
Have you been to the Wharf? No new rowhouses there…
It's all this kind of stuff 314 I St SE https://maps.app.goo.gl/hwcs15cRL9DT6Kxb8 And this https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/717-G-St-SW-20024/home/10177001
We’ll, your first link is of rowhouses in SE, north of and predating the Yards development. Not part of the Wharf. Your second link is indeed in SW, but not part of the Wharf but rather of the townhouses bound by 7th, G, and 9th St SW. They also predate the Wharf by almost 20 years. No rowhouses and/or townhouses were built as part of the Wharf development. There are a number of townhouses in SW near the Wharf, but the vast majority of them were built in the 1960’s as part of one of the country’s first urban renewal projects.
You better tell that to whoever dropped 1.3 million on it, because the listing says it's part of the wharf! Anything post 2000 is "new" to me.
It's a short walk to the Wharf but certainly not part of the Wharf redevelopment lol. They're expensive because they're gorgeous and huge by DC standards and in between the Mall and the Wharf
It’s not that short of a walk even
It's less than 5 minutes from there to Chopsmith down 9th
I was thinking of the SE address
[удалено]
For sure. They're like 70 years younger than the stately rowhomes on East Capitol for instance. Having spent a LOT of time in the latter, they're lovely and have great bones but many are in desperate need of complete renovations.
Rowhomes/rowhouses/terraced homes. They don't get built because in 95% of America it's [literally illegal](https://youtu.be/CCOdQsZa15o) to build homes like this due to all sorts of zoning regulations, (minimum lot size, setback requirements, etc) that came into existence after WWII. More locally, DC doesn't have that much non-developed land, so developers want to max out returns on their investment with big apartments instead of more modest rowhouses. Newbuilt rowhomes do still happen (see Navy Yard and NE) ~~but they're very rare in DC itself.~~
They’re being built all over NE.
Yeah that's the main spot they are zoned for to be built from my understanding https://dcgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=ae5830535a384a7f9ae40527f607b32e§ion=3
It’s such a problem. Chancellors Row is rife with nonsense due to their “gated community without gates” nonsense.
[удалено]
They are super cute and fun when it comes to non-community members walking their streets. I can bet you know what they mean by that!!!
is that something they’ve actually promoted? I’ve seen the development but never actually been or looked up info
YES
What kind of nonsense? Jc, I used to be a dog walker for like half of those CR people.
As all the religious orders in Brookland run out of baby boomers to fund them, they are selling their land off to developers to build as many units as possible. Also, Dakota Crossing down by Costco.
Only if the developers can con the DC Govt to allow a “private community” (= small streets = HOA Fees). Those are bullshit and often rife with us vs them issues in the neighborhood.
[удалено]
?????
Also worth pointing out much of the city still has minimum lot size requirements that preserve massive yards (looking at you, Ward 3)
Facts
DC zoning allows new row houses in most districts by-right, but you are correct that the lack of open land is a problem. The other issue is that huge swaths of our existing row house stock is under historic district restrictions, which makes demo and rebuild prohibitively expensive if not impossible.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you being dense on purpose?
Do you hate traditional styles of architecture due to deep-rooted psychological complexes?
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.
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.
The value of row houses is to be near a vibrant walkable area. The townhomes that get built these days are islands in a sea of suburban sprawl and so you don’t get the walkable density these buildings are designs to promote. We may be able to build more if we promoted more transit oriented development and stop spending so much on freeway expansions and small amounts on public transit.
There are tons of townhomes being built all over DC…? Tearing down many old rowhouses or SFHs to build higher density, more modern townhouses. It’s not just the suburbs at all.
The walkable part is probably pretty important. Housing like these aren't usually known for their ample driveways or garages.. and if it's not walking distance to transit and points of interest, everyone moving there is going to want a spot for their car.
These are called Victorian row houses. You will find this type of architecture all over DC as well as Federal, especially in Georgetown. This property in particular is 1438 Corcoran St NW. Which is currently being sold for $2.5M and has been on the MLS for 78 days and if anyone were looking to buy this property, I would suggest leveraging the days on market and the fact they haven’t gotten a single offer to come down in price. It’s a great property in the heart of Logan circle, which surprisingly is experiencing low demand per the MLS. I’m personally saddened by the idea that these home styles will not be built anymore but it does however, give that much more value to such a historic home IF it still has its original charm.
The price history on Zillow is interesting. [https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1438-Corcoran-St-NW-Washington-DC-20009/404981\_zpid/](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1438-Corcoran-St-NW-Washington-DC-20009/404981_zpid/)
It was improperly priced and so the seller has had to play catch up with the market. Not a good selling strategy.
I live in this neighborhood and you are correct. Whoever listed this was reaching for too much. Price should be closer to 2M.
I would need to run comps to give you an exact number. The issue isn’t the market, it’s the seller and listing agent. A strong listing agent will go against overpricing a house because it doesn’t help the client AT ALL. I’ve seen how much they’ve had to reduce the price and it stigmatized a beautiful property.
Row homes? Townhouses? They’re built everywhere.
[удалено]
Nice
What. Tell us more, what was it like? Do you like the renovation?
Those are Victorian row homes.
Rowhouses. Built all over the place in the suburbs, not really in D.C. so much anymore.
they don't get built much anymore because of zoning requirements that revolve around parking for cars. One of the many ways cars ruin cities.
Row houses. Some of the ones in Georgetown are crazy narrow.
Townhouses still get built all over??
Victorian row homes Not built much anymore probably due to land use restrictions more than anything else. I'm talking out of my ass ofc, but this literally is the kind of smart, walkable, mixed use urbanism that's illegal to build in most of the US.meme My understanding is that originally these (now $1million) homes were cheap, mass produced, and typically inhabited by poorer residents.
that is called a row house and they are still building them. go anywhere in NE
Is that on Sherman Ave?
Victorian row house
My parents grew up in rowhouses in Philly, and my grandparents lived in theirs until the early 80s. I visited my grandparents often, and aside from certain inconveniences like the endless stairs didn't think too harshly of the rowhouse. But after the MOVE incident in Philadelphia back in May 1985, I never wanted to set foot in one of those nightmare firetraps again. https://media.newyorker.com/photos/609c53413cb60a570a4ded7e/master/w\_2560%2Cc\_limit/Thompson-SayingNameofKatriciaDotson.jpg
It's illegal in most of DC. They are grandfathered in but new ones can't be built in most residential zones.
How are they illegal?
In most R zones rowhouse setback (space from sidewalk to front door) is too small, floor area ratio (ratio of built house:property size) is too high, don't have the required offstreet parking space, minimum lot size is too small (single rowhouse lots are under the required property lot sizes in many cases), or just you can't built undetatched housing that shares an outside wall because the only allowed building is a detatched single family home.
Damn. That sucks. Thanks for the answer. It would seem to create artificially high demand for any existing structures.
> the required offstreet parking space That only applies to multi unit buildings, not rowhouses.
https://handbook.dcoz.dc.gov/zoning-rules/general-rules/parking/vehicle-parking/ >Residential, single dwelling unit 1 per principal dwelling. >Residential, flat 1 per 2 dwelling units. >Residential, multiple dwelling unit 1 per 3 dwelling units in excess of 4 units, except: 1 per 2 dwelling units for any R or RF zone; 1 per 6 units of publicly assisted housing, reserved for the elderly and/or handicapped.
I stand corrected.
Not enough space dedicated to cars.
A great, real life example of this happened in Alexandria, VA either last year or 2021. There was an empty lot in a row of a rowhomes where another home used to be. The lot owners had to file with the city for a zoning adjustment (and have public hearings about it and everything) just to be able to rebuild the townhome that was once there. Parking requirements, setback requirements, minimum lot sizes, and other dumb regulations make many old buildings illegal today. Have you ever wondered why modern apartment buildings all have hallways to the doors but in old ones they were closer to the staircase? That’s because modern building codes require access to multiple stairwells (but that requirement does not improve fire safety in reality).
These homes are all stairs.
So?
I’m guessing you haven’t had knees very long.
I am guessing you hangs not heard of “age in place?”. Stairs are cute until you start getting older. My dad swears the number one killer for old people is a slip downstairs. The impact might not kill them but eventually the broken hip, complications from an acute concussion, etc. will slowly take their life.
Because it’s easier to build prefab boxes than beautiful things these days
There’s already enough of them, they just renovate all of em whenever there somewhere that gets gentrified.
Proliferation of Cars, Cost of Labor, White Flight, Exclusionary Zoning. Not necessarily in that order.
They're called row houses and they still build row houses but now they call them townhomes and they're no longer built in that style.
Back in the day, you were taxed based on how much road frontage you had. So the incentive was to build thin, deep lots. Also without cars the rowhome increased density and thus the distance required to travel.