Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Jan 25, 2000 12:46am | #1

   *
   Andy,

   It's a case-specific toss-up.

   I've seen instances where a property owner has done what you wrote about...teardown followed by a rebuild. First, they tok care of liability issues. then, they essentially opened the house up to "scavengers" or should I write, "salvagers".

   I don't recall the specifics, but they put price tags on some items...ten bucks for a toilet, $15 for a sink, $10 for a door, etc. Essentially, they bid out the house for piecemeal demolition. Towards the end, they just opened it up and let anyone take whatever they wanted. In the end, they ended up with a naked foundation, several thousand dollars from the sale, and a few yards of debris to be carted away.

   Now, on the flip side, I personally considered the same idea you are bringing up. In this case, however, it was an old, run-down house, a few hundred years old. Unsalvagable, but a terrific lot. Problems? Septic was undersized and would have needed to be replaced. Water well was contaminated with coliform from the bad septic. Old oil tank was buried outside the foundation. Utilities were also undersized. All would have needed removal and replacement. Much lead paint and some asbestos. Town would have required the men in spacesuits to come in and clean that up for me. $$$$

   So...I've seen both sides, cases where the owner was able to do a tear-down (actually making money off it) and rebuild, and cases where it wouldn't have made economic sense. It always pains me to see a tear-down of a habitable house, but if it's going to be done the method used depends on the specific property you're starting with.

   I don't know how rural you are in VT, but I've also seen cases where the house was sold, but had to be removed from the property. You could sell the house for a few thousand and a mover would come in and relocate the house to a new foundation across town, and then turn the house around himself. Some house movers do this as a side-business. Or, when I lived in Tucson, someone donated a house to charity. The organization bought a lot, poured a new foundation, moved the house, then resold and made a nice profit. The original property owner got a clean lot and a nice write-off.

   There are many ways to skin this one. I'd hate to see the wrecking ball/dumpster approach, that would be my last choice.

2. 
   Andy_Charron | Jan 25, 2000 02:20am | #2

   *
   Mongo, thanks for your reply. In my case the age of the house isn't an issue. It was built in the early 70's so lead paint isn't a problem, the well (which I would have to dig on a new lot) is OK and I could probably reuse the water heater and the furnace. The house was built in the 70's as a second home. I guess 25 years ago it was considered a really groovy ski weekend getaway pad, but for a family that plans on living there year round, which is what I would do, it is not only the ugliest thing, but totally impractical. The entire house is chopped up into little bedroom/bathroom areas (one bathroom is literally in a closet), there is a spiral staircase rising right smack dab in the middle of the kitchen, all of the windows leak, including one two story wall of windows....you get the picture. I want the lot, but the house is in such bad shape that to even try salvaging the shell and redoing just the inside probably wouldn't be worth the effort. Anyway, thanks for the info. It was helpful.

3. 
   Andy_Charron | Jan 25, 2000 02:55am | #3

   *
   I am in the process of looking for a building lot. I recently came across a fantastic piece of property that unfortunately has one of the worst houses I've ever seen built on it. Everything about this house-- exterior design, interior layout, materials, construction--is absolutely awful. But the lot is in an expensive neighberhood and has one of the best views in town. This is truly a case of "the worst house on the best street." My question is, would it cost me more to tear down this house and rebuild a new one than it would to start from scratch on a vacant lot? On a new lot I would have to clear the land, (I'm talking about in the woods of Vermont) bring in the utilities, (which would include either putting in a septic system or hooking up to town sewer depending on the lot)dig the foundation, put in a driveway and do the landscaping. On the existing house, I'd already have the utilities and sewer, a paved driveway and landscaping. I would probably have to do at least some work to the foundation, if not replace it entirely. So what do you think?

4. 
   Guest_ | Jan 25, 2000 02:55am | #4

   *
   Lead paint wasn't banned until 1978. If the house was built prior to that, chances are you have some lead paint in it, especially in the New England area.

   If I were you, I'd call in a demolition contractor and get a price for demolition and haul off of the debris. I'd have a "sale" first to get rid of all that you can. You'd be surprised at the things people want out of old houses. Door trim, crown molding, wainscotting, fixtures, etc... are big sellers.

   After I got a price for demolitioon and haul off, I'd compare this cost to the cost of all of the landscaping, driveway, well, sewer, etc... (the things already in place that you would have to do somewhere else)

   Also get in touch with the local building department and find out if any factors are going to be a serious problem. Best to know about them BEFORE you get in too deep.

   Good luck...

   James DuHamel