In the most recent issue of FHB, I was troubled by an excerpt from a forum discussion on how to find a vacant lot on which to build. Some of the published solutions suggest finding a rundown house to buy, tearing it down, then building on the lot.
This is not the best advice. It does a disservice to the older housing stock of cities, as well as to the buyer who may erroneously think he or she can demolish an old house when historic district regulations or other ordinances prohibit doing so.
Instead, the best advice is to drive the neighborhood, identify vacant lots of interest (NOT vacant houses!) then do the research at your local city hall to find out who owns the lot. You can enlist the aid of an attorney or Realtor to approach the buyer for you, or you can do it yourself. Please make sure you understand the applicable zoning and building codes for new construction in the area you choose, and be sure to find out early if your lot is an historic district and therefore if new construction will be subject to design review.
Some cities have a “redevelopment authority” that maintains a list of vacant lots that can be obtained by a legal “taking” because of the owner’s neglect. Although these lots are most often situated in transitional neighborhoods, they nonetheless are an excellent resource for those interested in new construction. You may want to check to see if your municipality has a similar agency.
And if you are looking for an old, rundown structure to RENOVATE rather than DEMOLISH, contact your local preservation nonprofit. Although many vacant rehab-candidates are not listed with Realtors, many preservation nonprofits are active in identifying the location and ownership of vacant buildings and helping buyers acquire and renovate them.
Replies
I would love it if more builders/DIYers/developers would remodel or demo/rebuild run-down houses in my area. A 1970's 2-bedroom tract house (never repaired after a house fire) may be 10 times older than my toddler, but I don't feel that its "historic value" is worth more than the blight it is upon the landscape.
I doubt the author or editors were suggesting that you bring your D-8 to Old Sturbridge Village, MA and raze everything.
Those are good ideas about redevelopment authorities and preservation nonprofits are sources of project sites.
I think we agree overall.
My main point is that many vacant and run-down houses are seen by some people as tear downs when in fact they are terrific renovation candidates. I have attended many a meeting at which applicants for demolition permits have described houses as having "no architectural or historic value" only because the applicant can't see it.
Sometimes, the distinction between a tear down and a treasure is obvious (such as the example you cited). Other times, the distinction may be more subtle and a mistake can be made by the untrained eye. With vacant lots being plentiful in many old cities due to earlier demolitions, the best planning strategy is to encourage infill construction on already-vacant lots.
I was looking at a "renovator's special" in Salsbury, NC. It was such that you got the house for a couple grand and a ten year tax break, BUT it would have taken perhaps God himself to resurrect that place! The porch, completely rotten, there was a hole from the top of the house to the entry way right through the second story floor that was at least 6' across and all the elements were comin' on in. That meant the floor was questionable because there were several seasons worth of leaves and stuff. Then the house had been modified in the past with a few minor additions that looked like uncle festus put them up. The final no deal for me was that as I was there, three different groups of young toughs walked by the house. I decided it wasn't a place I wanted my wife alone at night and I couldn't see spending $200k to fix a house that would be less than $150k if it were in perfect condition. Sometimes, the decay and damage negate the value of repair. Much like the Vulcan in BHM, AL. They still aren't sure what to do with that thing. It's going to cost millions for it to be rebuilt and you will pay some small piece in your Fed taxes...
Hey Wilburn, you live in Salsbury? I'm in Chapel Hill and see the same thing...sometimes a D9 is the unfortunate cure...othertimes, the house movin' man is the ticket. When the Corps of Engineers flooded a bunch of farmland around here, a bunch of still sturdy homes were moved to vacant lots, and all for way cheaper than building new ones.
I like old stuff, but it takes someone with deeper pockets than mine to fix up one that's past the point of no financial return, and they've gotta be a little crazy, too. It's okay, I can fix it!
Not in Salsbury. I was in Kannapolis, NC for a year with Lockheed Martin at the Fieldcrest Cannon, er uh, Pillowtex, uh whatever they are now, outsource. I'm in Rock Hill, SC now. Just talked to SC state about getting AL credentials accredited here. (trying to avoid having to go work as a carpenter or framer for someone else for a year first)
Anyway, my wife and I were looking for advantages in getting a home. My aunt and uncle had owned a pre-civil war era home within 7 blocks of the one we saw. It was a nice place. He redid it very nicely.
That's my field of dreams...y'all come by, ya heah! It's okay, I can fix it!
Instead of doing all the looking and driving for vacant lots. Use your computer. Most jurisdictions now have their public tax records on the Web. I have used the ones for VA, DE and MD, but the MD one is indexed in my Favorites.
Try the following address for the state of MD. It will take you a little while to get the hang of it, but in the end it is a lot easier than driving, and you even get the name and address of the owner.
http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/rp_rewrite/
This is the site for the Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation data base and the door is open to the public.
The record plats for Maryland can be found at http://www.plats.net User name: plato Password: plato# The plats generally download as .tiff files and will open automatically or can be saved and opened at a latter time.
Not every old structure is worth renovating. Some can be so far gone that the only real option is to knock down and build anew. In areas where it is difficult to demo a house, many of the worse structures are left standing and vacant and become an eyesore. Or have a cheaply done DIY type renovation which is only partially completed (not all DIY redos are done poorly). Which is better for a community, to have an assortment of vacant or partially completed renovations sprinkled through-out the neighborhood or new homes with a complimentary design built on those lots?
Having owned and currently owning an older home, I would rather have a new nice structure next to me rather than the orginal home if that home is in poor condition.
While even wetter behind the ears, had the opportunity in high school to listen with a small group of students to Buckminster Fuller. Still remembered how he described current residential housing as primitive, both under(strength) and overbuilt (weight) and short-lived. Compared a house to an aircraft; stated that when you feel a bit of "turbulence" while flying, the forces involved were equivalent to being in the Queen Mary and sailing over Niagra Falls. Whereas house roofs were flying wings waiting for takeoff. He was advocating housing primarily made of aluminum. While appreciating the craftsmanship exhibited in interior/exterior finish work; believe Bucky had a point. Most housing stock will deteriorate due to the materials and techniques used...
Regards,
Rework