Morning All,
Yesterday, I watched the first episode of This Old House’s current project, which is being worked in conjunction with a Washington, D.C. revitalization project to take an otherwise unoccupied POS and renovate it. I should also mention that this has to be the worse beginning-condition project I’ve ever seen. And the reactions or Norm was such to conclude the same exact thing.
Anyway, the property was purchased from the city for $1, which was below market value. I’d think the condition placed the property into a condemn-classification and wonder who in the city felt it was worth more than $1 even outside of the revitalization-project. 🙂
Anyway, this is not why I am posting. During the end of the first episode the TOH host (I can’t remember that kid’s name) is talking to an architect for the revitalization group and she has a floor layout of the row house. I always took row houses to mean they had shared walls. Well, this row house does have a shared wall on both sides, but the depth of the house showed it only had shared walls for maybe 50% of the property’s depth. Is this typical for row houses, or is it just a derivative–or my complete ignorance of row-house design?
Replies
I know this doesn't answer your question but I saw the same program and then went to the TOH website to look at the webcam. I was surprised to see that cabinets are in and paint being applied. It sure looked different!
Looking at the webcam spoils the fun of watching the episode-to-episode development. Of course, TOH does put in a lot of 'fluff' in terms of showing other properties, manufacturers, etc. that really deviate from the show's actualy project.
I think I would have gutted the entire thing, leaving only the exterior walls to form a shell. Then, to meet code I would have excavated the basement (which they are planning), pour concrete. Then, I would rely on bracing in-between opposing shared walls to tie-in a structure that would support the floors and roof system. Of course, one could use thick SIP panel walls for interior load-bearing needs. And since SIPs are already being used, let's use them for the floors and roof.
I must be crazy, this morning.
Center-city row homes often have rear sections that are less than full width. In many cases it provides for a walkthrough (mine was a few steps down and therefore beneath the living room) which in days past was used for milk and grocery deliveries to kitchen, which is almost always that rear room. It was rare for the row homes to be as flush along the rear as they are along the front.
Kitchen was, as you said, in the rear-most room, but the non-sharing extended into what was the family room (room identified by the revitalization rep). I wonder if it were for some sort of meek attempt to gather some sunlight into the room since it was interior, adjacent to the kitchen.
What I though was interesting was the budget.Many complaints have been made that TOH projects are not realistic for the average HO. That they are way over the top.It is being done by a non-profit organization and will be sold as an afordable house to moderate income HO. The budget for this is $200k, plus $50 development cost. Developement cost include arch fees, legal fees, but I don't know what such as demo or an hazard material remidenation.IIRC correctly the finished house is 2600 sq ft on two levels, plus the basement.It has a new roof, but requires some tuckpointing on the outside. All windows (non currently exists). Replacement/sistering of floor joists that are undersized and/or burned. Replacing of some interior walls that are rotten. Demo of remaining plaster (a large portion has fallen off from water damage). All new HVAC, plumbing, and electrical. New kitchen and bath.Hand digging out the dirt basement floor, 16 inches, and "hand" carring it out and pouring a concrete floor.A driveway, patio, and landscaping.The hope to salvage the kitchen sink (turely), 1/2 of the stair case, and fir floors. The floors where buckled and had wide gaps so I wonder about that.Other than those all they have is bascially a shell.And working in DC which is not cheap.So it will be a tight budget. Ok course they will get some donations so there might be security system and limited scene light, but don't expect $20,000 home automation system and a $50,000 home theater.
>So it will be a tight budget. Ok course they will get some donations so there might be security system and limited scene light, but don't expect $20,000 home automation system and a $50,000 home theater.And some people will still find a way to bitch about that, I expect!
I wonder if it would just be easier to gut the entire interior and start with a shell. And why do they have to hand-carry the dirt from the basement? Does the basement not extend all the way to the back of the house? Maybe creating an opening and then using a conveyor belt to large dumpster would be more cost effective. I cannot imagine even roughneck labor in D.C. is cheap.
BTW, what is the brick walls sitting on? After watching the TOH 2000 project in Milton, MA with the 250-year old home on a stone foundation I got really scared at what to expect. I cannot imagine what the masonry wall conditions are in terms of structural rigidity.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the 20% "development" cost. Maybe the organization putting the project together is a non-profit, but someone appears to have made out fairly decently there. It is DC, and maybe I'm cheap anyway, but sheesh.
While I hadn't mentioned it on this forum, I did discuss it with the wife yesterday. Here we expect TOH to donate some time and materials, but the architect, lawyer, and city are not waiving their fees. Sounds like a nice rub of a project they have there.
I only saw part of the episode, but this is exactly like some of the projects we do for the City of Boston. Burned out house, severe water damage from fire fighting, vandalism.....it gets purchased for a dollar, the city and state kick in some money, the non-profit CDC develops the project for next to nothing, we do the work for a reduced fee.
The episode replays this Thursday on NH public, I'll pay closer attention. We have renovated row houses like this where the house next door was completly lost to fire, so it leaves a missing tooth look along the street. We have done both complete gut (including floor framing) and selective demolition.
Better to have a missing tooth than whole neighborhoods gone. Have you ever seen parts of Detroit? Their molto 'if its empty tear it down'
BTW if you ever need some millwork done give me a holler. I have a shop in Somerville.
Saw the new TOH, and that is what I was thinking $250,000 budget and $50,000 going to the "development" cost. Ok you could get plans draw up for say $2000 to maybe 4000. What the other $46,000 going for permits? Would be nice to see a breakdown of the costs.
Then the scene in the kitchen and the arch wants to keep the sink! Something about how that sink has seen it all, yea the new owners can envision the time some crack addict hurled up in that sink.
Jeff
I think the $1 purchase was so they could provide a nice $49,999 kick-back to the city official. I need to run for local office in D.C. Ten places like this a year could mean a nice second income.
500K a year is your idea of a second income?
I'm not sure I follow you when you say, "500K a year is your idea of a second income?"
Well if you got that job in DC as a building inspector and got kickbacks of 50k for each rehab X "10 of those a year" that's 500K. A nice second income indeed.
O- the dreaded kickback!! Do they exist in the bosten area?
LMC
I thought the same thing when they were discussing the sink. Kevin (Howdy Doody) even commented on the fact that there was still a syringe laying in the sink. Something nice to ponder while you're cooking dinner beside your "sink with character." But, to each his own.... Life is short, go square drive.
TOH should have a sequence of shows where they ride piggyback with guys like us. Lets show the world what its really like out there.
LMC
How'd Norm go from one end of town where it was freezing and no leaves on the trees to the Mall where it was warm and green? Must have Professor Peabodys machine.
Yes didn't you know
Norm is Omnipotent! Master of The Woods and Keeper of the Great Router.
Keeper of the Great Router
<teehee> you said "the" like Norm could be caught with only th one router ever <g> . . .
The NYW shows on "router 101" had about a half dozen, just as examples.
Norm probably better qualifies as Lord highness or the Realm of Many Routers and power Tools, if we're to put a title to him.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
How'd Norm go from one end of town where it was freezing
Part of the TV 'magic' of knowing Rus Morash long enough likely to go film some NYW in the warm rather rather than hang out in the cold (especially with PAs to go shoot "one' shots in the snow)--but that's a cynical guess on my part. That an the Bostonians probably had some DC culture shock when the town shut down for that 1/4" of snow. With everything DC clesed, it was likely easier to go back to Boston and come back after the "snow emergency" lifted.
That, or it's the flannel shirts <g> . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
>wonder if it were for some sort of meek attempt to gather some sunlight into the roomHardly meek. Mine had windows on both floors where the notch was, and it provided significant light. There are likely many reasons for this configuration.
My PBS station also broadcasts Penn State women's basketball, so we are a couple weeks behind. They are still finishing up the modern house.
We're a week behind here so they don't start the Washington episodes until next week. It sounds like it will be similar to a project Bob Vila did on his Home Again show some years ago, a row house in Chicago I believe. It will be good to see them working under a tight budget again, they haven't had to do that for a long time.
Not to get off topic, but while we're talking about home improvement shows I saw an interesting episode of Hometime last night...as part of their 20th anniversary celebration, they're rehabbing the bathroom at Joanne Leibeler's house (she was the co-host 15 years ago.)
If one were to start with a shell-only condition (they gutted the interior of all walls and floors), how would you tie in a new structure is one didn't rely exclusively on interior load-bearing walls for elevation support? I'd be a little nervous driving fasteners into the share masonry walls.
I picked up the 2nd episode last night and it seems that the plans changed a bit from the 1st. I had to giggle all the way thru.
If you saw the 1st episode they talked about trying to save this, save that. I heard one comment from the GC in the 1st episode saying he wanted to save 70% of the rotted, undersized, fire charred, sagging, in some cases split and otherwise worthless floor joists for the second floor. I admire his intentions to watch costs but I disagree on skimming costs on vital structure. That’s something the project’s accountant would say while sitting miles away in some 90s built office. Well anyway…
The 2nd episode airs with the whole place gutted from top to bottom with absolute everything gone; even that rank sink. The only thing they had to keep, as a matter of structural safety was 5 of those nasty 2nd floor joists in order to keep the chimney and outside walls from collapsing in, but those 5 will need some work to make them doable in the new structure. Also, in the 1st episode they talked about saving the original wood floor on the first floor. 2nd episode comes and it turns out there’s no subfloor so that’s all heading into the dumpster also. Can’t even be salvaged for a reinstall because of odd board widths, rot, and fire damage.
Looks like they are going to start frest with just a two story brick shell.
Regarding a question above about what are the brick walls resting on in the basement. Turns out, absolutely nothing. The walls do not sit on any type of footer or anything, just dirt. Looks like the GC is built a concrete curb around a few of lower courses to give some “footer like” support.
I can’t wait to see the wake up calls in episode # 3.
That house has been sitting on dirt many years, seems solid still. I knew the crap would be gone. TOH will get some freebies, and it will still end up overbudget. And they will say it was worth the extra. I dont see low to middle income people buying it unless someone somewhere takes a bath. Still, I like this one because TOH seems to just be watching.
TOH will get some freebies, and it will still end up overbudget.
If I remember the first episode rightly, it can't actually. The sale price is locked in at $250K not a sou more.
Does not mean that more will not be spent, or that there may be some scrambling for freebies--just that, IIRC, the rules make it so.
Be interesting to see, though.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Did they ever give a cost on that modern home for the single guy.?I know thats what keeps the economy going but Im sorry that all seemed over the top. That guy just seemed like he wouldnt be much fun to work for if u didnt have a TV crew watching.
Hometime is fixing up all thier own places it seems like. Joanne and before the older guys place.New chick is pretty but needs a lil more meat on the bones.Robin now was Zena..man if she can carry one of those multi ladders around my hats off to her!
I recorded the shows in Cambridge with the modern house, and they never did give a final figure...I figured it had to top $2 million and then some.
The wife and I figure they're doing this one to salve their conscience from the Cambridge one.....
If I remember the first episode rightly, it can't actually. The sale price is locked in at $250K not a sou more.
I tend to be "hard of listening" but I thought in the first episode the project director said the budget was $250K and the selling price would be $500K - $600K. Priced for "moderate income" buyer.
I remember several years ago the city of Baltimore planned to sell off a bunch of brick row houses for a dollar each in hopes of kindling rehab of an area near the Inner Harbor and the McCormack Spice Factory. I've wondered how that project turned out.
No the selling price was $250k. Or maybe $250,001 as they had a 250,000 budget and had to pay $1 for it.The $500-600 was the open market price if some one did this for a profit. But I suspect that would not be a true comparision in that the open market unit would have different designs and materials.
I'll bet there are a few names on the list to buy that place.
This puzzles me. Unless I'm poor, or work for an outfit that will resell to the poor, what are the realities of the place being and staying in a condition worthy of the tax assessment post sale?For instance, let's say I go across the street and buy a similar condition row house not owned by the city. Let's say I buy it for $150K, with the intentions on putting in $300K, and then reselling it for $600K (making $150K profit).The city is going to assess the property accordingly, so what happens to the project house across the street when a home being sold for $250K is assessed for taxes at $600K? Is the city giving tax breaks, too? Also, is there any opportunity for investors, or just common folks to acquire the property--and if so, for how much?Let's say I wish to buy one of these condemned places, renovate it, and live in it for a couple of years. But let's also say I am not a low-income, but rather moderate income. Where is the incentive, if any? I could see buying a whole row of houses, renovating them, and reselling them loft-style for $750K. I'd feel sorry (but I would sleep at night) for that one low-income family that will soon not be able to pay their property taxes.
what are the realities of the place being and staying in a condition worthy of the tax assessment post sale?
You are asking if politicos can think farther along than a next election?
I'm still reeling a bit at what sort of "moderate" income a person has to have to get a $250K mortgage note. (But, then again, from a WP story, I'm earning $16K under the DC "poverty line," too . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I'm still reeling a bit at what sort of "moderate" income a person has to have to get a $250K mortgage note. (But, then again, from a WP story, I'm earning $16K under the DC "poverty line," too . . . )
I'm thinking I have one foot on poor and one foot on homeless.
Seems like they would be better to get some profit on the deal, even $25,000 then use that to finance the next project. I guess they have regulations and guidlines to adhere to.
It will be interesting to see what the place turns out to be.
I guess the next project for TOH is the final episode. It is going to be a total remodel of a nursing home in the Boston area. This will be the final resting place for the cast the new guy Kevin will be the caretaker for the others. I guess the place will have a 2000sft woodworking shop, some nice outdoor gardens and all the lasted in plumbing! )
Jeff
Growing up in Providence, Rhode Island, I witnessed the early 1980's Boston investors coming into South Providence, a slum at that time and a wealthy neighborhood during the 1910-1930, and bought up blocks of condemned, city-owned three-story apartment-houses.
They gutted the interiors down to their stick frames, put in all new mechanicals, roof, drywall, windows, etc., etc., etc. and turned them into pseudo-condo/loft places for big-business types making money during the 1980's. Only after this happened did the city come in and tear out 18" of old roadway straight down to the original cobblestone roads and repave everything.
Just before moving out of N.E., I watched a middle-school in my neighborhood stop being used by the city. It sat there for 2-3 years before I moved south. I always wondered what it would have taken to convert that smallish middle-school into a large home. :) I'd have to tear up the asphalt playground the surrounded the building, but dang that 20,000 SqFt or more living space would have been great!
Now I am down here in 'the south', specifically Buford, Georgia, and I noticed a smallish elementary school building (nothing in design-style like the N.E. schools from the 1930's and 1940's) that has been closed for five year. I have to wonder about its potential for conversion. Unfortunately, living within the city limits (I'm not, but this abandon school is) must be expensive--and a drawback.
So, I continue to take note of these places not in use, and with no one wishing to 'be creative' enough to revamp them into a new life.
We used to own 3 acres on lake Lanier just off the Buford highway, back in the 60's and early 70's. Ended up selling to buy the house that my sister has now. I think a developer divided the land up and built 3 houses.Wish I had that land now.
I'm trying to remember what Highway 20 looked like ten years ago when I moved to Atlanta (Gwinnett). Its like time-travel in how they can clear cut land, move rock, and make commercial districts in such little time.
Unfortunately, living within the city limits (I'm not, but this abandon school is) must be expensive--and a drawback.
The probably biggest hassle is also likely the least obvious one--getting the rezoning. Cities can get right protective of public property, especially with a school sitting on it.
Old school buildings have a real potential for conversion into multi-family. The trick of it is getting two government agencies to agree with you. The schools never but never want to give up physical plant (probably from the difficulties of getting bond elections passed). So, they'll saddle the City with a building the school has banned for use due to contaminents or some such, and the city can't give it away (or remediate) because it's the school district's property--Catch 22.
Which can be a real shame.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Another BIG problem with many of the old schools is asbestos. It was used frequently and in large amounts. As you know it's expensive to remove.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
As you know it's expensive to remove
No lie (especially under a gov't contract).
The other thing is that the unneeded facilities go vacant, then they have leaks or poor temperature control, then get moldy (or, more typically, mildew-y; but that's a distinction w/o difference to school adminstrators)--now the facility is no longer "fit for students."
City then has a hoof-and-mouth pig-in-a-poke; sure they could sell, but how can they sell some thing too unhealthy for schoolkids? Back to Catch-22.
Been to this game a time or two, I'm still amazed. Gets better when the School District needs offices for the staff of all the adminsitrators they've hired, and they'll move into some old, condemned, rotting, former-grocery store with, actual, real, toxic-to-humans, problems. That, jsut gets two coats of Kilz by lowest bidder, and cub farm over the lowest bidder, glued to the loose floor tile, unpadded carpet. Bathrooms to code? Certified barrier-free? Wazzat? Talk to my PA's PA, he's the slightly less green one over there . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Property tax hits everyone in the 'hood the same, at least in the sense that a rising tide carries all ships. The DC gov't is not giving out tax breaks other than a one-time 5000$ tax credit from the feds applied to income tax. Also, they used to, but I don't believe any more, offer 5 years of zero prop. tax if one qualified(low income, 'natch).
All this was pushed by over zealous realtors, who got rich, and approved by the city council, which grew tax revenue- tax appraisals are now done every year instead of each third year, automatically going up. And personally, I'm tired of seeing so many suits and ties and Volvos, but what are ya gonna do?
The guys I knew who used to flip houses are now looking at Baltimore...
Edited 2/22/2006 4:16 pm ET by jackplane
To those of you from the East Coast that like old houses, try looking at an outfit called Preservation North Carolina. The whole purpose of their existance is to save some old buildings. All kinds of buildings. Couple years ago, they had a run on old schools - could have bought one with like 50 rooms for 125K. But, you had to have a plan for it, and I kind of drew a blank. They do plenty of houses, some commercial stuff even did a couple of entire mill towns.
They also have a website, but I'm drawing a blank on the address. I love to look at some of the before and afters. And, it's a bunch more real than the tv stuff.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
I've always thought of buying a block or two of old row houses, and remodeling them. Here in Pittsburgh the ghetto runs right into some very affluent communities.
It would just be a matter of acquiring enough property to affect a few block radius. Then getting redevelopment to take hold. My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
Dustin -
I suspect that there are many people on this forum that would like to do the same thing, and some that have thought it through many times. It's really a development concept, just a little different. Developers get paid to take the risks, and risks there are. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. How much risk are you willing to take?
In this area - suburban New York - there are also some areas that need work. Depressed economic areas. I looked at one of them pretty seriously about 15 years ago, and now having seen what can happen, I'm glad I didn't risk it. Some streets turned out okay, and in some cases it was like chasing roaches from one dark corner to another. Landlords still need bodyguards to collect rent. Other areas, like Harlem in NYC have gone from slums to residences for former presidents.
You need some good research, some good insight, lots of money and lots of luck. An inside track on what's being grabbed for urban renewal doesn't hurt either. <G>. I wish you luck with your plan. Me, I'll wait until the area starts to come up before I invest. Or, more likely I'll pick a good area to start, with an ugly house. I don't have the budget of TOH to risk, or their connections to get the job done when the fit hits the shan.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
I worked on a large condo project in Harlem, around East 110 or 115 street. True, the prices have gone up, and crime down since Guliani, but I still would not live there. The presence of pubic housing projects and section 8 slums still keep the neighborhoods trashy. I had my windshield smashed, other problems, and was general not welcome there. This is just north of central park and will only truely become gentrified when the projects are torn down. My rule of neighborhoods, whatever that is worth, is projects=continued slums.
I don't know the particular area that you worked in, but many of the prices in Harlem in general have gone way up. Bill Clinton didn't move in because he wanted to deal with riff-raff. I suspect he may be a few blocks away from where you were.
Projects - I want nothing to do with them.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
Come to Columbus. We've got a number of blocks with your name on it. Provided of course that we can get the speculator sharks to part with them. They're just sitting on them.
http://www.presnc.org/
Right! The old property tax game. There has to be a more equitable way to tax. All along the coast up here the natives are getting squeezed as neighboring properties are being sold at high prices, thus changing the evaluations of the entire area.
It's getting to a point where some of the New England islands can't get services because the workers can't afford to live there.
Maine has a "circuit breaker" law which helps lower income people if their property taxes rise above a certain percentage of their income, but I don't think it amounts to a lot of $$.
One town in this area is comprised of two coastal peninsulars and is in a school district with some non-coastal towns. Because of the "value" of the peninsular town's realestate its cost per student is more than twice that of the other towns.
As far as the low income family in DC is concerned, I don't know...... they are getting a house for probably less that it's worth. Good deal. Taxed at higher value? Not such a good deal.
California has a system that values homes lower if the owner lived there before the new tax laws were passed. That means two identical homes sitting side by side may be taxed differently. (is there a Californian here to clarify this?) Fair?
Property taxes are a lousy way to raise revenues.
...about the California Prop tax....it is their infamous Proposition 13 that the "Governator" is trying to overturn and rip off the old folks.
Not all the retired old folks have "portfolios". My mother is 94 and still is fortunate enough to live in her own house on her own terms. Her taxes are locked in until the place is sold. She has been there for 33 yrs and the place has apprecaited in value 20 fold...but not to her....her income is a little pension and SS from my late Dad and she has $1100.00/month to live on. Her tax on it is $513 this year. Two doors down the house sold last year for almost 400k and the tax is 3800. Mom could not afford to stay if her rate was made to equal the neighbors.
And stay she wants to....we try to have her near us in the NW but she says NO and I have to respect that, for now at least. She is near Santa Cruz, Ca and I'm near Seattle....lots of freq flyer miles to do upkeep/shopping,dr apptments, etc.
Now the Governator wants to eliminate the Propostion to bail his own a-- out of the financial mud the big rich boys have created. Always on the backs of the 'worker bees". Yeah, Gov, tell me how you'll help my Mom then, along with thousands of others like her.
Oh, yeah, we can also rebuild the rest of the world on our backs, too. Sorry. I'm getting way off subject.
Jim
Bum, thanks for the reply.
I wish I had the solution to the problems of taxing property fairly.
Your Mom's neighbors are in effect paying part of your Mom's "share" simply because they purchased their home at a later date. Your Mom may also have some very wealthy neighbors who have lived there long enough to pay the lower rate, and the new neighbor is carrying the tax burden for them as well. How fair is that?
Yet why should she pay higher taxes because of a crazy realestate bubble?
I know there are good arguments against it, but I'd personally rather see taxes tied to income rather than to property. I'm guessing, tax-wise, that with her income your mom would still be OK.
PS. I'm no fan of the "Governator".
Eidited to say I certainly don't want to give the impression that I think your mom should pay more. Sounds like she has it plenty tough already.
Edited 2/28/2006 9:50 am ET by oldfred
Off topic, but the way to tax property fairly is...NOT AT ALL!Property cannot pay tax. Sales cannot pay tax. Estates cannot pay tax. Exises (whatever they are) cannot pay tax.Only income can pay taxes. That is a statement of fact. A statement of opinion is that we pay taxes to fund the government we want, and the tax code should not be used for social engineering.So the fair thing to do is have ONLY an income tax. And count ALL income and income-in-kind. Then your mother would be paying taxes based on her ability to pay taxes, not on the fact that she has a house that has appreciated in "value" but does not supply income.
Bryan,
I would have to dis-agree with you------unwillingly---but dis-agree all the same.
Let's say mom has a $800,000 house due to a property bubble----but a modest income
and her friend---has a $800,000 stock portfolio---but lives in an apartment.
Neither one of them is really hurting.
your system is gonna penalize one of them---and reward the other
what is so sacrosanct about owning a home?
"mom" benefited from social engineering via the tax code--------when she bought the house in the first place----the government encouraging home ownership via the tax deductability of home mortgage interest.
Stephen
Actually both those who live in owner-occupied housing and those who live in rental apartments pay property taxes. The difference is that the homeowner gets a property tax bill once a year and the renter pays a higher rent every month reflecting the fact that the apartment building has property taxes that have to get paid. No difference at all. The relevant question is why should someone with $800k in an investment portfolio be taxed differently than someone who owns a house worth $800k? The stock portfolio gets taxed on its appreciation only at liquidation (aside from dividends which are taxed as recveived) while the house is taxed both on its value every year and again at liquidation. For non-real estate assets the tax is an income tax when realized. For real estate it is both a wealth tax and an income tax. Screwy system.
Carlos
No, both of them would pay the exact same amount of tax, if their INCOME was the same. Now I imagine that a stock portfolio would have some income from it, depending on the mix, but it could be all growth stocks. As long as the stock is held, no income occurs (this is highly simplified, as there are all types of stock portfolios).But the fact that one had an asset of a house and one had an asset of a stock portfolio is of no consequence.Someone always benefits from social engineering by the tax code. That is a given. But I consider the tax code the biggest unfunded mandate in America. Everyone is supposed to comply, which means everyone has to figure out what the code says, what forms to file, etc, even if they don't get a benefit from a given rule. Take estate taxes for instance. Even if you fall below the cut-off, you still have to calculate the value of the estate to PROVE that you are below the cutoff.I get really annoyed when people like Bush speak as though the federal income tax is the only tax of consequence. I consider the total tax burden to include not only the taxes, but the cost of complying with the code.If I change careers, I'm thinking about going back to economics to study where ALL gov't revenues come from and go to. And the cost of collecting it.
bryan and carlos,
in my hypothetical example I am assuming the stock portfolio does generate income---- let's say only 1% of $800,000---- that would be just about enough here to rent a small safe apartment
" Mom"---owning the $800,000 house?
Well in fact her ownership of the house does ,in essence, produce an "imputed" income---that is, she lives in the house rent free. Her ownership of the house nets her in effect the same income it would take to RENT that same house====probably more than the apartment afforded by the $800,000 portfolio.
neither the existing system---or Bryans proposed system are particularly good
But--- I think I prefer( personally) the existing system. the existing system allows me to keep actual money in long term growth investments with minimal tax consequences
And it allows me to invest considerable time each year improving an " investment" in real estate with favorable long term tax consequences---- If I for instance spend 500 hours each year fixing up a property--- there will be property tax imact------- bucj much less impact to my wallet than if I spent the same 500 hours working for wages or earning income through my modest business endeavors.
and ---given the choice ( and I am given the choice) I much prefer to pay property taxes to local governments supporting local schools, libraries etc.------- than I prefer to pay federal income taxes to build federally funded bridges to virtually empty alaskan islands or to bomb Iraqui weddings
Ethically--- Bryans proposed system sounds good--- we should all be paying the same rate on income---all income
the problem is that people of modest means would be penalized in effect---as most of their work is compensated with income( wage and salary)
where as the really affluent ( or a few lucky folks of very modest means like myself)
can arrange things so that the rewards for their work come in the form of increased equity and not "income"
so---under Bryans system--- most little guys will still be screwed.
Stephen
Stephen -- you're right when you say that owner occupied housing provides imputed income to the homeowner. The question is whether we should be taxing it. To carry the example to an extreme, if I as a homeowner paint my house by myself, do I have imputed income reflecting the difference between cost of materials and what I would have to have paid to have a professional painter do it? Or even worse, do I have imputed income in the amount of what it would cost me to rent my house from myself?
No question that a portfolio spinning off income (dividends, interest) generates taxable income. And if the house generates income -- let's say that Home & Garden pays you for the privilege of being on the cover -- then it generates taxable income too. And tax would be paid.
Carlos
I never said that the RATE would be the same at all income levels, just that two people with the same income would pay the same amount. I think the rate should be progressive, because poor people don't have much money and it doesn't make sense for them to pay much in taxes. But that is exactly what happens now - they pay sales taxes and FICA and a bunch of other stuff.Nor have I said that the income tax would only be federal. There is absolutely no reason why states, counties, cities, municipalities, school districts cannot also be funded by income taxes. In fact, I pay income tax to the city and state now, but that is on top of my property taxes and sales taxes and "fees" for registering my car. Of course, everyone of these authorities has a different definition of "income". I have to count my 401(k) contributions for the purpose of city taxes, for example.So why should those of us who do not have "long term investments" be subsidizing you? Because that is exactly what is happening. We need some given level of tax receipts to pay for government. If some people get a break, then others have to pay more (either now or later in the case of deficit spending).
Bryan,
you are making some good points----in fact we are largely arguing the same thing
but---let's be clear
you aren't " subsidizing" me--- nor is anyone else.
recently my household made some changes. We sold a small modestely valued house---that had pretty much peaked in appreciation potential
and we bought a larger house nearby costing about twice as much------ but with much more appreciation potential.
you are far from subsidizing me----- I now pay MORE total taxes---factoring in the increased property tax bill. Despite the property tax bill, it's a good deal for the Hazletts' net worth
Now--- if we were to convert to a strictly income tax basis------- you would indeed be subsidizing me ,in effect.
My household is able to live comfortably on a very modest income----- I am more interested in net worth than income.Taxing me on my income---isn't going to net you much
most of the wage and salary earners in this country are between a rock and a hard place---because they spend approx. 2000 hours a year on an economic activity that is fully taxed.
but the " Asset owning " classes have a better deal currently---as they can put effort into increasing their net worth---without the inconvenience of taxable income.
If we were to convert to a strictly income tax basis---the " Asset owning "class will be comparatively even BETTER off.
Last year I spent 705.25 hours on directly billable income earning work.
I don't have an exact figure for" net worth building efforts"-- primarily work to improve real estate assets--- but it was somewhere between 350-400 hours.
If you converted to an "income tax only" system--- you aren't going to squeeze much more taxes out of my 705.25 hours------ in fact you would probably have to make the system even more graduated---and I would end up paying less than I do now in income taxes-----and MUCH less once you eliminate property taxes.
you remember I originally said that I was going to have to "reluctantly disagree" with you ?
that's because I sympathize with your intent--- but I know that your proposed system would be an even BETTER deal for me.
Best wishes, Stephen
Why does someone's "share" go up just because their property value did? Local goverment should work at increasing the tax base, not getting a windfall in taxes because interest rates are low. What do low interest rates that drive up home values have to do with increased tax revenue needs?
Why does someone's "share" go up just because their property value did?
Their "share" of the tax burden shouldn't go up if all property values go up in the same proportion so that each property remains at its original percentage of the city's taxable value.
I see what you mean, but in Philadelphia, where I live, increased property value means increased tax bill. Tax rates do not go down to reflect all boats rising with the tide. Past few years it's been a huge problem, especially for seniors. People who have lived in their homes for ages and kept neighborhoods together through the tough times are getting forced out. In some neighborhoods, even the middle class is threatened with being taxed out. In my mind, not right. City gets a windfall on the backs of the folks who made the neighborhoods desirable and just because interest rates are low so the rich are willing to pay huge prices.
Hey Jim,
<!----><!----><!---->
I’m sorry to hear about your Mom’s situation. It’s really tough for someone who is home equity rich, to live on the bottom rung of the financial ladder because of poor cash flow.
<!----><!---->
Has your Mom ever looked into getting a reverse mortgage? My aunt was in the same situation last year; elderly, widowed, tons of home equity but her only income was Social Security. She took out a reverse mortgage and tapped into her equity, tax-free. She has greatly improved her cash flow to help pay for everything from monthly bills to a lunch out with her neighbor every now and then. She can continue to live in her house for as long as she wants and someday when the house is sold the proceeds are used to pay off the accrued reverse mortgage balance and anything remaining is hers or is distributed to her airs.
<!----><!---->
This is very different from a home equity loan because instead of using your equity as collateral for a loan in which you have to pay back (with interest) a reverse mortgage allows you to use your home’s equity as a checkbook. You are basically taking money from your left pocket and putting in the right. The financial institution that you do this transaction thru will charge some interest but for seniors this can greatly improve their day-to-day life.
<!----><!---->
Your Mom may be in the same situation and unfortunately at 94 she probably won’t ever outlive her equity. If you do a Goggle search on “Reverse Mortgages” you’ll get tons of info.
<!----><!---->
Here’s one site for some basic info.
<!----><!---->
http://www.reversemortgage.org/Default.aspx?tabid=230
<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Good idea!
No Really.. Not my writing, but he speaks the truth
"..are any pitfalls to this cascade of free money. And, of course there are. Especially if you are planning on passing assets on to family members as part of your estate.
That's because a reverse mortgage is still a mortgage - complete with the kind of insidious interest charges that all mortgages are famous for. In this instance, you get the cash provided to you, and at that moment interest charges start to accrue (at a rate far higher than a conventional mortgage, by the way). Since you never make any payments on this debt, that interest continues to grow until you either sell your home, and repay interest and principal in full (potentially wiping away the value of the home), or you die. In that instance, your estate is required to repay the debt - which can have serious consequences on your ability to pass along wealth to loved ones.
That is why, I always say a reverse mortgage is an ideal strategy if you hate your children. ..."
That is why, I always say a reverse mortgage is an ideal strategy if you hate your children. ..."
If the elderly person has no money other than the equity of her home, what are her options if she needs money to stay in her home? Donations from her children?
In this particular case the lady is 92 and lives in CA where the property values are escalating, probably at a higher percentage rate than the rate of a reverse mortage. By borrowing on only some of her equity, she could possibly still leave more to her children than the house is worth now.
Example:
I believe the OP said a similar house just sold for $400K. If she were to borrow $100K today at 10% and live there five years her debt would be in the area of $160K.
If property values rise at 8%/yr. her house should be worth $600K in five years, leaving her $440K in equity after paying off the mortage.
That's a pretty simplistic example but it should explain my reasoning. I know neither what the rate for the mortage would actually be, nor the inflation rate of CA property.
A reverse mortgage isnt exaclty the same thing as borrowing on her equity. Its more equivalent to trading in a part of her equity, and running a tab till the rest is gone. Borrowing on equity would be more in line as a Home Equity LOC.
What about borrowing on her equity and then buying Income Trust shares, or stocks with dividends.
What about renting out a bedroom?
I'm not here to argue the merits of a reverse mortgage, just thought I would pipe up when something that isnt exactly a "good Idea" explained as one.
Besides nobody HAS to live anywhere, unless it happens to be the Playboy Mansion. Just because she does't WANT to move, doesnt mean she can't
I looked at it from the perspective of what could be good for the mother. Her comfort would be my choice over leaving a larger inheritance. I've never been a big fan of reversed mortgages, but in this particular case it looked like a viable option, so I simply said, "good idea".
Edited 2/28/2006 6:19 pm ET by oldfred
Just to be clearer, my intention was only to present an idea for improving her cash flow. I didn’t think it was necessary but I should have said that us0ing a reverse mortgage is very dependant on the individual circumstances. It may be appropriate, it may not, I don’t know any details of her life beyond the post but I didn’t say (or intent to imply) this was a “Good Idea” as a blanket statement for everyone, just an option. Just as you mentioned the viable option of renting a room; it may be good, it may be bad. It depends on the individual circumstances.
<!----><!----><!---->
There will always be people that will abuse reverse mortgages just as there are people that abused IO mortgages. IO mortgages are suitable for some (actually very few) but not all just as there are suitable situations for using a reverse mortgage or suitable situations for renting an extra room.
<!----><!---->
My aunt is elderly living in a house worth between $1 mil and $1.1 (no mortgage) but she as $1,200 per month in cash flow. She now pulls an extra $700 per month for some of the extras each month that she had to previously forgo such as extra groceries, upgraded her cable TV package, a lunch out every week with a friend, cab money to see her grandchildren etc. She will never come close to exceeding even a quarter of her equity and she’ll leave plenty to her children. She has hardly implemented a strategy of hating her children. As a matter of fact it was her son that presented her with this idea as he was putting her interests and comfort ahead of his inheritance, as it should be. Some elderly people like my aunt are very proud and don’t want hand outs from their children. This reverse mortgage makes her feel self-sufficient.
<!----><!---->
I understand and agree to a point when you say that reverse mortgages is an ideal strategy if you hate your children. This would be true if the person taking the reverse mortgage goes out and lives like a rock star and exceeds the equity in their home and leaves behind a real mess for their children to clean up. But to take one out to cover extra groceries is hardly inappropriate. It bothers me sometimes when a decision effecting a seniors quality of life is made purely from the standpoint of trying to leave the absolutely most to their children. These people have worked hard all their lives and the least they can have is a decent quality of life sunset years.
<!----><!---->
Again, a reverse mortgage is only one of many options to improve a senior’s cash flow; it may be good or bad, depending on each specific situation.
<!----><!---->
Sorry for not being clearer about suitability in my first post.
<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Thanks for the info but at this point she is OK. House is paid for, of course and expenses in hand. She is frugal and has managed to even save a few $. I was simply bemoaning the fact that many are, as you say, equity rich and cash poor. Mom has good health insurance and we are here for anything else that may come up. It';s just that the system is not geared to help those less fortunate unless you give up almost everything you have worked all your life for.
California (the people) have to choose now, this won't go away. Just an example how this can affect all of us. Especially you guys in the trades. Where she is is just opposite of Detroit and many urban areas, but we must be aware of the trends and guide ourselves accordingly.
As areas dry up, so to speak are you flexible enough or do you even want to consider moving your businesses and families to stay "busy" and how will it affect your bottom lines? Can a market be that fluid in a short span of time and force you to consider it? Being very busy, head down, daily routine and as in the Detroit case, can you hear the silence coming?
Jim
How many of you would jump at an opportunity like this row-house project if a) you get get the condemned property for $1 and not be constrained to selling to low-income buyer? I have to also wonder if the city isn't shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing exactly just that.
If the city were to take all existing condemned properties and sell them for $1 with no attached conditions, they might (speculative, here) find themselves into quite a few taxable renovated homes throughout the city.
<<If the city were to take all existing condemned properties and sell them for $1 with no attached conditions, they might (speculative, here) find themselves into quite a few taxable renovated homes throughout the city.>>Two problems with that. First, if you really mean "no attached conditions" at all, the city runs the risk of some of the purchasers buying the land to sit on speculatively. Why be the schmuck who runs the risk and incurs the cost of building a house? Let somebody else build on their $1 lots, push up land values, and then sell the land. So some portion of the land remains unproductive--and if enough of it does, it decreases the likelihood that the other properties will find buyers.Secondly, if the housing market is strong enough for these condemned properties to support market-rate development, that strongly suggests market value of the condemned lots exceeds $1. Why should the city lose a source of revenue by giving property away? Now, it may be that they could recoup some of that lost revenue if the properties are succesfully redeveloped and returned to the tax rolls. I don't know what the property tax rates in D.C. are or how long that recoupment could/would take. But if the area can really support market-rate development it seems the city should be able to secure both benefits--a greater sale price than $1 as well as tax revenue.Anyhow, any which way you slice it selling property for $1 amounts to a subsidy. My personal belief is that such subsidies are better directed at people for whom home ownership might otherwise be out of reach.
Natb, presently the city sits on property it gets zero revenue from, but a fair amount of liability for holding onto. Ok, I agree with your first point (conditionless). Let me revise it to say that the buyer must develop the property (ahem, renovate, not tear down and build new) within 12-18 months or risk foreclosure by the city at a substantial fine.
On your second point, we are not talking, really, about market rates for valuation. City seems to already be unable or unwilling to lose the property at any course. Last time I checked (never, hehe), what limits a city from selling off condemned property for less than what the free-market thought it was worth in the first place? I see no harm there.
are basically taking money from your left pocket and putting in the right.
Another description I like is that you are basically borrowing against your own estate. So, when the estate is probated, instead of being x, it is x less the drawn amount. There are some consequences for one's heirs, depending on when you take out the RM; but most of those are covered i nthe link you provided.
The only thing I don't like about the RM, is that it's just deferring the tax inequity to a different generation. This is a partially pedantic question, in that the next buyers will have to be in whatever the current "market" is to buy anyway; the government machinations influencing that market being the forces I'm not entirely keen on.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
“when the estate is probated, instead of being x, it is x less the drawn amount”<!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
I agree and would like to further add that instead of being x, it is x less the drawn amount + interest.
<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
“There are some consequences for one's heirs, depending on when you take out the RM”
<!----><!---->
I defiantly agree here, that is why is important to have everyone (RM beneficiary and heirs) included in from the beginning so that today’s benefit of the RM (to the bene) is greater than all negative consequences imposed on the heirs becasue of the RM.
why is important to have everyone (RM beneficiary and heirs) included in from the beginning so that today’s benefit of the RM (to the bene) is greater than all negative consequences imposed on the heirs
Too true. Which is why I shudder when I hear about "retired" folks using an equity line of credit. First off, I'm not convinced most of them know that ELoCs need a homestead waiver for Texas, which has immediate tax effects, as well as decreased protection in financial straights.
The worst thing is that a "senior" living off an ELoC is just writing a debt that the estate gets to "make right." There's usually enough "King Lear" grief over the silver & linens before starting up a "not me" cat fight on who's paying the tab. Bouncing the check for the cemetary plot for nana & pawpaw just not good thing to do, either.
But, then again, I know (probably too many) young h/o using that ELoC, too--with no clear party lined up going to pay that piper.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
This isn't specificly to WingNut, but rather to those who are in the inheritance discussion.
I'm curious. Without trying to sound too sarcastic, at what point in an elder person's life do you guys consider his/her posessions to be the future property of an heir? What's the magic age for me to start feeling that I should conserve my assets in order to leave more to someone else?
Most people hope to leave something for family and charity. They would also like to enjoy their retirement. Without guilt.
100
Here’s what I feel…
<!----><!----><!---->
“at what point in an elder person's life do you guys consider his/her possessions to be the future property of an heir?”
<!----><!---->
Not a second earlier than the moment of that person passing. Even more specifically, not a second earlier that the estate is settled after that person has passed.
<!----><!---->
“What's the magic age for me to start feeling that I should conserve my assets in order to leave more to someone else?”
<!----><!---->
That’s up to you. I don’t think you should conserve your assets in order to leave more to someone else if that means you are in any way making yourself uncomfortable. You earned those assets and you should enjoy them until the day you pass.
<!----><!---->
With that said, I feel some people may start to look to preserve some assets that are in are in excess of what they will need. For example if I had XY assets and I needed X to live all my dreams and desires for the rest of my days, I would look to implement a plan to preserve as much as of Y as I can in order to help my heirs, give to charity, start a foundation, whatever.
<!----><!---->
“Most people hope to leave something for family and charity. They would also like to enjoy their retirement. Without guilt.”<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
I couldn’t agree more. Living a comfortable, guiltless retirement is goal #1, everything else is a distant #2. I think the heirs have some responsibility also, above just collecting a check some day. It is the responsibility of the heirs (assuming children but could be anyone) to make sure their parents are as comfortable as possible during the final years. If a parent is struggling to live because of a poor situation (bad cash flow as talked about earlier) I feel it the children should present all possible solutions to their parents even if one of those solutions will reduce or even eliminate any future inheritance. I also feel that any solutions should not put any negative burden on the children when the estate is settled such as covering the tab.
I agree with you , and can't think of anything to add to your thoughtful reply.
Hey, can we steer this back to the TOH Row House project? :)
Oops! :)
Sorry, I had a part in it too. I'll stop the hijack now -- back to TOH.
Prices in DC are hard to guess in advance. The Mayor seems to have been 200 million off on his ballpark estimate of the cost of the new ballpark
I'll stop the hijack now -- back to TOH
Oops, me too--but it's not but day after tomorrow before episode 4 airs here locally, not that much more to talk about <g> . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
--but it's not but day after tomorrow before episode 4 airs here locally, not that much more to talk about
Yes there is. I asked all of you if you would be interested in a zero-condition (or near conditionless) $1 sale of a row-house if you were not constrained to a low-income as in the current TOH project.
If I could sell it for more than 8% to 10% above fully loaded cost, I'm in. If not, it ain't worth a $. Where do I sign? ;-)
in a zero-condition (or near conditionless) $1 sale of a row-house if you were not constrained to a low-income as in the current TOH project.
Well, other than it'd have to be a $10 ("and such other consideratio") deal to be a legitimate contract, it would depend on the location & economics.
Locally, there are some locations where one unit just wouldn't sell, so, you'd need to get an entire block to make it a decent deal. Some of the other locations are dodgy for having built-in constraints like no parking and the like.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
“at what point in an elder person's life do you guys consider his/her possessions to be the future property of an heir?”
<!----><!---->
Not a second earlier than the moment of that person passing. Even more specifically, not a second earlier that the estate is settled after that person has passed.
It's a good point, but, having more than my fair share of experience with estates (meant to as well as dealt by fate), a certain amount of planning, when the financial planning occurs, only seems right.
I may know of a case where the parent "retired," no brakes on how they lived out their last days, either. Maxed every source of cash all the way out, right to the end. Six children (17 g/c) got to sort out the mess of a house, a ranch, and three rental properties in an dual intestate estate. Taxes were not paid on the ranch, and were in arrears on the rent properties. About a dozen credit cards & LoC owing, too. Total value of the estate well up into major bucks under "death" taxes, too. Did I mention almost all the vehicles were new and still under notes? Taxman does not brook delays; details like selling property with outstanding mortages is complicated. It's presently in its fifth year of being resolved.
A day's time with an estate attorney, maybe another day ciphering amongst the kids about who gets/wants what; a grand or two in fees--that would have prevented the sherrif's auction of the ranch property (and belongings, like the heirlooms) and the thoudands spent (and owed) right now. Looks like a race pending, too--whether one of the kids beats cancer before one of the g/c's is no longer a minor . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
...at what age?
I think it depends on the family/individual. We all have a little something 'special' from someone in the family and a certain thought how you want it handled later. For everyday type planning....when you set up a will or estate plan would be a good time. Most should consider this as part of retirement planning, too, I would think.
There is no single, perfect answer. Some may never be comfortable even thinking about it never mind planning.
Bum...keep smiling...makes 'em wonder what you're up to !!
nuke,
in my city we have at least one former junior high----- that became senior citizen apartments. Talk about changeing demographics !
actually-- some months ago FHB was planning their 25 anniversary issue and trolling for stories about the impact their mag. had on us.
that started me thinking about How I came to be doing what I am doing.
I came up with 4 major influences( although at the time I didn't know they would be so important to me)
1 of the 4 -------- I took a metro bus across town to highschool. Every morning the bus went past this construction site.
A former Quaker Oats Grain silo( the cereal shot from Cannons !!!!!) was being converted into a Hilton Hotel. the attached brick building became a small mall of shops and resteraunts and the huge concrete silos ended up with windows cut into 'em and became rather nice Hotel rooms. ( In fact a few years later my wife and I spent our wedding night in that hotel).--- the rooms were round !!!!
Very cool re-use of an already cool, but obsolete building.
Stephen
Dang, maps.google.com is good! I found that old school I mentioned about in R.I.!
Caught the second episode last night, especially interesting to me was the bit about pouring the foundation footing/curb. This is something I would consider doing to my basement, it's about 600 sq ft. with about 6.5' of headroom, additions and house-lifting are non-options for me.
What was interesting was that the slab was poured, while they were still working on getting the 'curb' done. I would think you'd do the curb, and then the slab would butt right up to it, and possibly on top of it, the way a footing/slab would be done for a new home. Maybe it was more beneficial to have the solid floor down asap, to make working on the basement easier?
It seemed like the hard clay soil made it harder to excavate, but also made it safer to get right up next to the wall to pour the curb. Typically, how far down would the curb go, I guess would need to be at least as deep as the slab. I'm guessing the curb should also be as thick as the wall it's holding or as thick as the curb is deep?
PJ
Edited 2/24/2006 8:47 am ET by pjmcgarvey
I think they poured the slab first because it would have been more monolithically rigid than clay once they started pouring the curb footings. Just guessing, here, but I was impressed as well.
Here is an article about Ft Lauderdale and discusses afordabile house for middleclass. "-- People making moderate incomes -- up to $69,720 a year -- might soon join the ranks of the city's poor in being eligible for housing welfare.
""City commissioners have tentatively endorsed requiring future residential developers to offer at "affordable" prices at least 15 percent of homes or condos, or to pay an "in-lieu of" fee of up to $100,000 for every affordable unit not built. The money would be used to help buyers afford new homes.
""Money would pour into a housing trust fund that would be similar to city housing programs using federal dollars for lower-income people. The new trust fund would be open to people making anywhere from 20 percent less than the median income, to 20 percent more.If developers opt to pay fees rather than build affordable housing, the city could use the resulting trust fund to give buyers second mortgages. The money could also be used to make down payments, help landowners fix up rental properties or buy land to help subsidize entire projects.The median household income in Fort Lauderdale is $58,100. Those with total household incomes from $46,480 to $69,720 would be eligible.For a person making the median income of $58,100, "affordable" would be a house or condo that costs about $238,000, assuming a 6 percent interest rate on a loan. The median cost of a Fort Lauderdale house or condominium apartment is the same at $339,000."http://tinyurl.com/nfgzo
"Still, I like this one because TOH seems to just be watching. "On most of their out of town progjects they usualy have very limited hands on activity.On the reruns on commercial TV they are doing a project in Hawaii and it is about the same.
I can’t wait to see the wake up calls in episode # 3.
Even better, I'm waiting for when that "new" roof was just to patch where the DCFD ladder truck guys chopped holes through as part of the smoke removal/ember check process after the last fire.
I have this mental picture that someone will be setting a skylight or plumbing jacks only to find the roof is a vague collection of felt paper haphazardly stuck together with roof-repair "tar." <g> (Or, that the "patched in" places are just that, just patched in--how much effort would you have put in as low bidder on a muni fire repair of an empty/condemned building contract?)
Less tongue-in-cheek, it will be interesting to see what plan "features" will evolve now that the plans are a blank slate. After all, this is a cash-limited project--may be lucky if it goes as a 2/2 or 2/2.5.
I'm kind of curious to see if the "dining room" as "family room" (i.e. separate from the "living room"/parlour) like the original idea seemed to want to shape up as. Me, I'd likely make an "away room" using the bay window & fireplace as features for some simple (paint grade) built-ins. Then segue into a larger, combined-use space, that would have the tv, space for eating, etc. I'd likely just let the floor/roof change set the kitche off of the rest of the 'family' space. But I have to admit to being very tempted, in such a small space, to "wanting" to create a potential private space in the kitchen area. I'm just not sure it could be done.
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
nuke,
I have seen the 2nd episode
this looks like the coolest project since the 1980's toh
their usual current projects make me wanna puke---- this one has redeeming social value
Stephen
BTW------ some of your assumptions on what "they otta do" come to fruition.
Boy was I surprised in episode when I got to see them really gut the place. In fact, had it not been the need for multistory and multi-house fireplace support, they would have pulled the five remaining joists, too.
I was also surprised to find nothing but a crawlspace under the floor of the narrow (rear) portion of the house. This explains why the excavation took place from the front. Is anyone surprised they haven't found any dead bodies in that crawlspace yet!?!
They’ll probably dig out some OD crack head in episode # 3 and finally put to rest the question as to where Bob Villa has been all these years.
Maybe they'll put Bob Villa and Steve Thomas in that crawlspace.
To answer your original question, most rowhouses in DC share common or party walls front to rear, but at the rear, many houses are dog-legged to provide a kitchen window/kitchen door and walkway to a patio or backyard.
I haven't seen the episode, but have tried to purchase a similar abandoned property thru the city's lottery system- they basically want to give it to a motivated but extremely poor person/family. Most times these properties and the construction loans go belly up due to poor planning and ability, and re-appear the next go round...
I ended up getting one the old fashioned way, I bought it.
I think the one I watched this week was the third? But very exciting stuff at the solar decathlon on the Mall. NYTI entry which placed 5th really got my attention.
I just think this is the way we are going to head in the future. Photo voltaics and hydrogen fuel cell. Nice endless loop of energy.
That was very cool. Too bad they didn't give any info on pricing, even recognizing it is a prototype system. Probably plenty spendy.
The phase change salt heat/cool storage was also very nifty....and no doubt expensive. --Ken
I went to the NYIT site and FQ answered that the house cost about 500,000 not including labor.
If you go to this site you can hunt around and find the winners and info about their projects. http://www.energy.gov/news/542.htm
After finding the NYIT site I watched a video about the hydrogen fuel cell but couldn't make out the manufacture. I'm gonna go back and do some more hunting.
I mean come on people, do we really need to be making dead bodies to fuel our future.
Just look at all this beautiful clean tech just waiting for someone at the top with vision to turn on.
I found this from the link you gavehttp://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=NavPage/cat=32
Thanks! At first I thought you were replying to an earlier message about the cost of the Cambridge, MA house....and $500k wasn't going to touch that job! --Ken
Too bad they didn't give any info on pricing, even recognizing it is a prototype system. Probably plenty spendy.
What is worse is that they said something about not using any fossil fuels (or oil?) to run those systems, but said nothing about how much fossil-fuel energy was needed to make those solutions to begin with.
It would be interesting to see that cost differential, but until we develop an alternate source of energy, that isn't going to change. Sort of a chicken and egg problem.