Many folks consider buying older homes. Sometimes it’s because of price, or a desire to live in the city or even an intent to make some repairs and resell at a profit. Sometimes, it’s a love of an older architectural style.
For the purposes of this thread, I will NOT discuss things that are worn out, broken, or that need work.
Rather, I almost want to make a blanket statement: Any house built before 1960 needs to come down. You will be better served if you start over. Here is my reasoning:
First of all, look at a ‘home inspection’ report. Chances are that the vast majority of things found are the result of attempts, over time, to add to / alter / improve the original house. This alone suggests that the original house was not considered suitable for today’s lifestyle.
Rather, the older house can never satisfy today’s resident. The rooms are too small. The layout is inappropriate. Utilities are inadequate. Nothing is “standard.”
Let’s look at the details just a bit. I’d like to start by re-writing an old adage:
“It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven … than it is to get your SUV in THAT garage!” It gets better …. the drive probably will break up under the weight of your ‘bigfoot’ as well!
For plumbing, the trouble starts at the very beginning. The water and gas supply lines are likely too small; look for 1″ supply lines, minimum. Most drains will be 1 1/2″ … too small for a washer. You’ll be lucky if there’s even one outside hose bib.
While you’re under the house, you’ll likely find an old oilburner that has sat there and quietly rusted ever since the gas line was run. That, in turn, suggest an oil tank that will eventually need to come up.
Inside the house, I just bet you’ll want more toilets, bathrooms, and sinks in the kitchen than the place has …. and no plumbing in place for them. Chances are, all the plumbing is along one side of the house. When the water heater wears out, chances are that a new one won’t fit in the same spot.
You’ll never get the energy efficiency you want from those 2×4 walls – even though insulation has improved a lot since then. The whole house is likely controlled off one thermostat – something you will want to change. (This means you’ll need to re-do the ducts). If the air conditioner is more than a couple years old, you’ll need to replace it the first time it needs servicing.
Around 1960, we began to standardize window and door sizes. For stuff built before then, every opening was ‘custom.’ This will have an impact on any upgrades you might want.
The electrical …. well, suffice it to say that there is not a single part of the old system that will make you happy. There won’t be enough circuits, enough outlets, and receptacles will all be in the wrong places. I’ve seen places with ONE receptacle in the living room, the only kitchen receptacle was part of the stove, and no receptacles in the bathroom.
I submit that there is no way telephone wiring installed when Eisenhower was President can survive the internet revolution. Nor will you want your phone to sit in that nice little nook in the hallway.
So .. cut to the chase … knock it down, and start over.
Replies
I have never owned a house built after 1960. I had one built in 1957. I have owned or invested in about 20 houses over the years. I sure would have lost a lot of money following your advise. DanT
So my pre 1860 Should be torn down? Ok, forgetthat, It probably should have been..LOL
But, historic structures and quirky charm , don't cut it in your view?
To each his own..I love my place, it ain't all fancyized and new, but neither am I.
Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
"If you want something you've never had, do something you've never done"
You want charm, visit Colonial Williamsburg :) Seriously, though .... my personal tastes aside ..... I see far too many eager new owners set out to preserve that 'quaint old place,' only to be pulling their hair out and taking a second mortgage months past the date where they THOUGHT it would have been sold. Likewise, I see too many folks begin to doubt their decision the moment they try to get the king bed up the marrow stairs and into the tiny master bedroom. The real crime, though, is what I see in older homes. I see all manner of downright dangerous jury-rigged work, stuff that was done in desperation to try to make the place adequate for even a modest lifestyle. Just for a smile ... let's return to that quaint Williamsburg cabin. Or, for that matter, any of the several royal palaces that are still standing, some last occupied by royalty as recently as 1900.
None of us would ever expect someone to live in them today without extensive modifications. That one room log cabin is a thing of the past ... and for good reason. Perhaps I am being myopic in looking at houses as places to live in ... first and foremost. They're not investments or museum displays - they're called 'homes' for a reason. Plus, this site is called "FINE Homebuilding" .... not "Fine Flipping' or "Profitable Speculating" or "Preservation Trends." I have heard the POV of the investors before .... I have done work for some ... and I will concede that they do nothing more than supply something that the market will pay for. I also note that none of them -except where there is a tax angle- would ever dream of actually living in one of the quaint marvels they sell. That alone speaks volumes....
Yeah, I worked there for a summer, I know W-burgs charms (G)
I have NO plan of flipping this place, so my mindset was not following what you were getting at.
As far as "second mortgage " and that scenario, I didn't have a first one so the $$ is all gone anyway LOL.
Finehomebuilding or not, I have a fine home, for me. I bet anyone else would quiver and shake just thinking about the task of making it finer...but hey, it takes a differnt kind of carpenter to actually try it, and that is me, to a T.Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
"If you want something you've never had, do something you've never done"
your statements are silly. most fixtures and finishes in todays home have a life expectancy of 25 yrs max. todays mechanical systems will be obsolete in 45 more years. todays homes are all about more features, to compensate, materials are crummier all the time. clueless contractors use details that cause building to fail before their time. If we replaced all these 45 yr old homes with what we build today, just think what our housing stock would look like in 45 more years!!!
Well, there goes my livelihood down the drain
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
I live in a 100 year old house. I've upgraded all the systems over the years much more cheaply than starting over. Plus property taxes on new construction are much higher than on existing houses.
In and around Plainfield, NJ. there's a lot of wonderful old homes that, IMO, it would be a crime to tear down. And to replace them with any semblance of the original would be prohibitively expensive.
It may sometimes be worthwhile to tear down an older home.
But not often.
I think you are painting with too broad of a brush.
I'm living in a late 1800's house. Average room is 15x15 with 9' ceilings. Second floor bathroom is 9x13. Landing is about 9x20. Not small rooms. The only areas where that's different are two rooms downstairs (kitchen and a second bath) where the prior owner tried to squeeze. I could likely fix both nicely for under 20K. house already has central air and heat. It does need some insulation blown in.
The last one I did was a portion of an old school from 1886. Good sized timbers, good sized rooms, full basement. Had more character than most any new home. True, the utilities and such had to be upgraded, but it still cost way less than a new home would have.
Sure, old houses have problems. And some have been butchered. But there are many redeeming features too. One consideration is the poor quality of the new building materials, another is the amount of energy that is already in the property. It makes no sense environmentally to keep tearing stuff down and filling landfills with it.
But, we each have our own opinions...
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
I suppose my view is also influenced by the 'logic' behind 99% of what's built, as well. The original was usually built - as are most places today - for the fewest dollars, with just barely enough to pass inspection - back then. Since then, our expectations have changed - a lot. It takes far more than a nice coat of paint. A design that was barely adequate fifty years ago cannot be adequate today. It's just not possible. I will also concede that various tax and zoning laws ... governmental interference ... can, and do, twist the market into making 'sensible' all manner of silliness. That is another issue, one pretty much beyond our control.
Still, it's been my experience that the contortions folks go through to avoid permits and inspections are largely misguided and unnecessary. Let's look at a typical house of 50 years ago. The first thing that stands out is the electrical ... there probably isn't a ground wire. There surely aren't enough circuits, or receptacles. So, you get to open up every wall. Since the lath& plaster won't mesh well with drywall, you might as well remove the entire face. Then there's the plumbing. Before you know it, you've had a guy living in your crawl for a month, re-doing it all so you can have a washing machine. You're not happy with the rooms, so you start moving walls. All your doors and windows are oddball sizes, so you wind up reframing them. This leads to you having to repair the obsolete asbestos cement siding. At this point, there's not much left of the original house. I submit that it would have been quicker, easier, and cheaper had you just started over, with a cleared piece of land.
You do have some points, but if everyone followed your prescription theere would be a whole new set of problems to deal with, like landfill space.I really don't get your take on the windows though. Here, from the best to the worst of houses, there are probably no more than about five basic sizes of double hungs. From one house to the other, there is less variation in the windows here ranging over forty years of construction back then, than in any other item on these places
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>I see far too many eager new owners set out to preserve that 'quaint old place,' only to be pulling their hair out and taking a second mortgage months past the date where they THOUGHT it would have been sold.
The folks I know who are serious about "preserving that 'quaint old place' aren't doing so with a sale date in mind
>>I suppose my view is also influenced by the 'logic' behind 99% of what's built, as well. The original was usually built - as are most places today - for the fewest dollars, with just barely enough to pass inspection - back then.
I'm curious as to how old you are. Attitudes about real estate and ownership have, I believe, changed significantly over the past 20-30 years or so.
I believe the two worst things to happen to our housing stock were (a) the idea that real estate is, primarily, an investment, and (b) the realization most folks only stay in a house 7 years or so.
Building, maintenance and upgrades are now (often) planned with those two factors playing a predominant role. And that has harmed the average quality standards and expectations.
(Third thing: far fewer folks these days understand how homes work or how to maintain them. That hasn't helped, either)
May your whole life become a response to the truth that you've always been loved, you are loved and you always will be loved" Rob Bell, Nooma, "Bullhorn"
"We Live" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kuBgh0VCqI&mode=related&search
And Annie Ross's "Twisted" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lqivrCIRGo&mode=related&search=
While I agree with some of what you have to say about making old layouts and rooms work, I disagree on the whole.Myself and the company I work for would be out of luck and out of business without pre-1960 homes, nevermind pre-1900 or 1800 for that matter. A lot of people have found that they like their basic layout or location (property, city, etc) and find it cheaper or easier to remodel and rehab what they have.
Building, maintenance and upgrades are now (often) planned with those two factors playing a predominant role. And that has harmed the average quality standards and expectations.
Excellent point.
The older homes I work on don't have asbestos siding- more likely old growth claps or shakes.
And the electricians I know wouldn't have much of a problem re-wiring an entire house without damaging the plaster- even with adding outlets. One great thing about balloon framing is its easy to pull wires.
Yes, older homes frequently need upgrade. But by your line of thought, when the homes built today need upgrading at some point in the future, will it be time to get the bulldozer out again?
heh heh I'm thinking renosteinke must be Blueeyeddevil's brother.
Or reno's probably sitting back laughing now during his break from working on the 1900s era house he's living in and loving it.
Just a bait post to get everyone's blood pumping a bit.
Actually, if he were serious he'd have to go further up than 1960's housing stock. Even a large number of presentday shouldn't be considered presentable in the respect of durability. Ghetto or a white elephant in 20years.
Hey, really in that respect the whole idea of building woodframe houses sitting on top of earth like a zit on a forehead exposed and waiting for weather to pop by is pretty ignorant if someone wants to go to the extremes of planning a rewrite of architecture design for the masses.
be we all's en masse anyhoo
Edited 8/28/2007 10:56 am ET by rez
you're probably right that this is simply one of those baiter questions, and I bit.
But if any generation of home should be knocked down, its the ones built right after WWII. They've required much more work to update than most 100 YO houses.
Probably depends a lot on the location. In many parts of the country those GI loan homes were of slab construction, making any sort of mod difficult. In other areas slabs were rarer, and the homes more resembled those produced pre-war. Eg, my MIL's house. The original part is ca 1950 (added on ca 1965), single floor on a basement. Maybe 700 sq ft. Plaster walls, hardwood floors, no serious structural problems still.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
stinkie....
our housing stock on the island runs from 1650 to yesterday
with aprox. half built before 1960... 1/4 built from '60 to say '85... and the rest since then
we've been remodeling , restoring and putting additions on them since '75...
in that time i've seen about 20 that deserved bulldozing.. the rest had good bones, decent foundations, nice siting on the lots
ALSO... don't forget zoning, water, & sewer issues
tear-downs usually have to conform with all current requirements.. sometimes that means TS
i often advise my customers to remodel or add-on to avoid the tender mercies of their fellow citizens, who sit on these boards, who think it is their god -assigned duty to say NO
zoning & other regulations aside... i find basic structures good starting points for renovations... more than one three story neo-colonial has a 1957 ranch sitting in the middle of it
your premise is too broad by 90%Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
OK, I made something of a blanket statement, much like the OP.
There's several developments around here built in the 50s/60s that used 5/16" ply for the roof and exterior walls, and 3/8" sheetrock on the interior.
I've resheathed several of them over the years, installing new windows and siding while we're at it.
That's the kind of construction I was alluding to.
Yeah, several of the houses behind us (dating from the 60s, I suspect) had 3/8" ply for the roofs. About half have had the ply replaced at one time or another due to it either falling apart to begin with or not standing up to reroofing. Never seen a house that obviously had 3/8" in rock. But then this was not a big building boom area -- small town with small developments (10-20 lots at a time) for "escapees" from the "big city" to our east. Crummier construction in the new McMansions next to the new golf course.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
As to the original posters question if he hadn't been so adamant as to the intent of the thread ie
For the purposes of this thread, I will NOT discuss things that are worn out, broken, or that need work.
Rather, I almost want to make a blanket statement: Any house built before 1960 needs to come down. You will be better served if you start over.
...One might be more inclined to think he meant 'Ill' house and not 'Old' in the subject heading.
Would have been more akin to the BT ilk.
beIld a house of stick and stonework thy fingers to the bonewhen you holler 'It's a home!'then you'll wish you'd built a dome.
dome-de-dome dome-...DOME!!! The story you have just seen is true, too bad the names weren't changed to protect renostinks
Blueeyeddevil's brother
Wonder where said worthy has vanished "to"?
(Perhaps he's teamed up with txlandlord & knocking out hotels <g>.)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Maybe he's trying to adapt modern building practices with renovation procedures and pulling his hair out up there in Lions and Tigers land while saying 'what have I done to deserve this?'.
does o'blueeyes still have hair?
Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?
Edited 8/28/2007 11:47 am ET by rez
pulling his hair out up there in Lions and Tigers land while saying 'what have I done to deserve this?'.
Especially if he's commuting from projects in MI to that project he had lined up down to Austin or thereabouts.
Lions & longhorns a tough mix at the best of times <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Upgrading electrical in lath and plaster walls does NOT require removing the plaster. Just about all lines can be easily fished from either the top or the bottom, with a single channel cut for switch legs on one floor. Wire bends. I upgraded an entire 1901 house, including multiple outlets, switches, Coax, and Cat-6 cabling. The only thing I did do was skip installing any boxes in the brick walls.Plumbing is actually harder than electrical.BTW, how do you demo a row house?
I grew up in a house built in 1865.
Sure, it needed insulation, and other upgrades, most of which we did.
But it was solid. I politely suggest that you couldn't possibly build a house as solid as that one, and there was virtually no sound transmisison from upstairs to downstairs, which is a plus with a large family. 10ft6 ceilings downstairs. Big bedrooms upstairs.
Yes, it needed a new foundation. But you know what? It puts all the 1960s vintage houses to shame, in just about every way imaginable.
Ah, to quote American Grafitti:
Yeah? Well I ain't nobody, dork!
;-)
I do see your points. But luckily, life isn't always about returns - it's about living in beauty - and if you can't see it, then it's not there for you.
No prob.
Forrest
reno
Any house built before 1960 needs to come down
Thats about the most foolish statement that I've read on here in a while!
I just bought a 1850's place and I'm pretty sure I'll do OK on it but just in case your right and I'm wrong you got the name of a good dozer guy?
At least I got a chuckle out of your post! Your dead wrong on many counts but nonetheless I got a chuckle out of it.
Doug
Doug, have you closed on the 'new' place? Where's our photo gallery thread?! :)
jt8
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly.
I said 'I don't know.'"
-- Mark Twain
have you closed on the 'new' place?
NO, not yet.
My offer, which the old HO's excepted, stated that they replace the septic system with a guy that I chose to do the job. He wasnt cheap but he's well known for doing a job right. He had already met with the county enviormental agent regarding the best system for this house.
After excepting my offer one of the HO's (its an estate, 3 families involved) thought that my guy was to high so he went out shoping for a cheaper one, all the while not getting on my guys schedule. Upon hearing about this ( I live in a very small and gossip ridden community) I had my realtor call their realtor and explain to them that they signed an offer/contract that stated XYZ excavating was to do the septic system, why havnt they scheduled him?
So upon calling them on this little laps in proceedure, which wasted 1 1/2 months, they are now on the schedule of my guy and he will be installing the new system sometime around the middle of Sept. The good guys are often booked in advance!
I wouldnt have been so adamant about who did the job but because the lot slopes so much I need a lift station( I might have the termanology wrong) and I'm not willing to let JoeShmoe Digging do the job, I want someone that I trust to do a quality job.
So, long answer is that I should be closeing at the end of Sept!
Doug
Edited 8/30/2007 9:24 pm ET by DougU
Good thing you stuck by your guns. You would have regretted it later otherwise. And it probably would have been an expensive regret.
jt8
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly.
I said 'I don't know.'"
-- Mark Twain
Doing the renovation while living in the home allows all manner of benefits.
The dividend of living there in lieu of renting or owning two homes is enough to justify most renovations, IMO.
Troy Sprout
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should also have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington
There are millions of ranch homes out there that were built before '60 and considering the fact that most of the mechanical systems are below the floor, it's really not that big a deal to re-wire, plumb, reconfigure the HVAC and voice/data network. A multi-level house is another situation (glad I didn't say it was another story, eh?), but plenty of those are retro-fitted, too. There are a lot of great homes that are a couple of hundred years old- would you tear them down, only because they're not configured for the 21st century? 1960 is a pretty arbitrary date, IMO. If the badly built houses were squashed, fine, and there are plenty of those but there are also a lot of houses that would be a helluva lot better than what someone else has. Some of the new ones I have worked on are terribly built, using BS materials, badly situated and have worse floorplans than a high school drafting student could come up with (I was one and we came up with some pretty good designs). One that I had to work on, I could have spent a week doing a punch list for and it sold the first day it showed, for $1.6 million. Total crap. Nice neighborhood, but the average home on that block isn't $1.6M, more like $600K- $800K.
For a flipper, a lot of homes aren't worth buying in order to reach a specified ROA, but for someone who wants to keep it after putting their stamp on it, they are.
Besides which, many homes built since about 1985 are TOO big, with oversized rooms that require ugly giant vinyl furniture just to fill them up.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
That, too. The one I mentioned for $1.6M isn't worth that but, like PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute".
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
As far as I am concerned, you are a guy with abosutely no vision or creativity.
Do you have any design sense at all?
I think your timing is a little off - or maybe it's limited to your part of the country.
Around here, "standardization" happened around the turn of the century. My 1936 colonial has standard size windows, bought from a window factory, prehung doors (interior and exterior), etc. Recall that it was several key companies around that time that standardized the industry and created the market for standard components.
Regarding the gas line, etc. I guess I COULD reduce them to the sizes you reference, but why would I want to?
Room sizes and layout on this modest house are larger and much better laid out that new homes. The sense of how a home really works seems to be lost on many new home designers.
The biggest reason, IMHO, for buying an older home is construction quality. No one can afford to build a home like this anymore. There aren't plasterers around to do the work, and if there were, the cost would be prohibitive. Everyone wants to do brick veneer to save a few bucks. Everyone builds with 2x4 walls for the same reasons.
Now, if you want to build a custom home with a good custom builder and pay $500K for it (when a comparable size and amenity home in a plan is selling for $175K), then you can do it. But most people won't.
Twenty three posts. Have you been convinced you need to own an old house yet? Mike
Trust in God, but row away from the rocks.
Just trying to get everybody going? It must be the reason. One thing that jumped out at me.. ."around 1960 they started to standardize window sizes". I hate to try to educate you, but, there were more window sizes introduced in the 60's and 70's than exisited prior. I live in the "Nation's Oldest City" and homes built here prior to 1940 have 18 standard window sizes (yes, there are some custom exception) but I have given all of the sash from my house to a half dozen home owners that need them. Your thinking is your thinking and I do not share it,
Help stomp out stupidity.. .marry someone with a higher IQ than yours!
worn out, broken, or that need work
built before 1960
Now wait a minute. I'm worn out, broken down and need work and I was built way before 1960, but I do have some desirable attributes. I just forget what they are.
Well, your excellent memory for one.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
People who buy older houses and want to upgrade to todays standard is what puts food on the table for the majority of the people on this board.
Edited 8/27/2007 5:00 pm ET by dedhed
(In other words, don't upset the applecart.)
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I almost want to make a blanket statement: Any house built before 1960 needs to come down
Hmm, I'd rather prefer a range, like, oh from '46 to '66--and, I'd add "anything built by a tract builder" after, oh, '85, maybe; '90 for sure.
And, I'd want exceptions for anything that has actual character or historic value, too. Since those "trump" renovation conveniences in my book.
Renosteinke,
>I rarely work on anything built after 1920 and regularly restore houses built in the 19th century that are better in so many ways than any of the junk built after WW II.
>We often do whole house renovations that include icynene insulation, 400 amp underground electrical service, multiple zone HVAC, off the hook kitchens and bathrooms that have every amenity that you would expect in high end new construction.
>The cool thing about what we do is that when we are finished the house still has the original fabric that makes old houses so awesome. Stuff like slate and copper roofs, heart pine floors, plaster walls, big and beautiful hardwood moldings, original doors and windows, radiator heat, nooks and crannies and loads of irreplaceable 19th century craftsmanship.
>I believe it is almost a crime against humanity to tear down historic buildings that have so much quality and character of which most modern construction is devoid.
>Thats my 2 cents. Jay
To live close to downtown and in a nice neighbourhood, here, you
have to buy an existing house. They are almost all over 50 years
old and the best locations have houses substantially older than that.
It would be tough to buy a house for 500K or more and spend money
to tear it down only to be left with a 280K lot. When to repair,
when to gut and when to tear down is sometimes obvious but more
often a complicated and possibly emotional choice. Rural houses
here seem to get torn down or hugely expanded, but the large
more expensive center town homes are more likely to be renoed
perhaps with some infill where possible. Zoning is obviously a
local factor but I assume other regions have similar economics.
Well, around Lake Minnetonka in the Twin Cities you'll see $2million homes bought and torn down to put up a $5million one, but in general what you say is true.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
It is going to depend on price points, whether or not you can build
bigger or not on the same lot and heritage issues can be a factor as
well. The big plus in renovating is that you can live in the house
and spend money and time as available. The final cost of the work
may be higher but lower debt and lower interest payments can
offset that. A slow reno over several years can also give one time
to adapt an original plan to second or third thoughts.
"The cool thing about what we do is that when we are finished the house still has the original fabric that makes old houses so awesome. Stuff like slate and copper roofs, heart pine floors, plaster walls, big and beautiful hardwood moldings, original doors and windows, radiator heat, nooks and crannies and loads of irreplaceable 19th century craftsmanship."
Wow, Jay, your post made my day. Especially your mention of windows. Are you finding clients that insist on that, or does it take it take some amount of persuasion on your part?
I still have nightmares about an episode of This Old House where Steve Thomas and Norm Abrams were all too happy to tell the homeowners that their original 18th century 12-over-12s had to go to the landfill.
To the original poster, I'd say that in this country there is a long history of considering housing stock as "temporary." Out my office window right now is an 1880s sort-of Italianate house. It replaced an earlier timber-frame house on the same site. And that previous house replaced a log cabin built by the son of the area's first (white) settler.
The fact that the current 1880s house survives is testament to the fact that it has adequately served several generations. And my current neighbors are very happy with the quality and function of their home. But, when it was built, did the owner think it would be the last house on the site? His father had already built two previous houses on the site ... so maybe yes, maybe no.
My own house has stood intact since the 1830s. Most of the rooms retain their original function, and it works very well for us. The windows, by the way, are quite standard, based on pane size (6 x 9, 8 x 10, etc.).
Allen
Horse-puckey.
A house is nothing more than a shelter from the elements.
Little has changed in house design over the centuries. Less still, since 1960.
Yeah....some rooms are bigger, or more of other rooms are desired....but at its core, a house is four walls and a roof.
Certainly modifications need to be made on the vast majority of homes that were built 50 years ago....but tearing them down to start over is a huge waste of resources...natural and otherwise.
My home is 100 yrs. old this year. I've put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into its renovation. Wasn't built to last originally....or at least that is what one would expect looking at its skeleton. (The roof alone was nothing more than 2" x 6" at 2' centers with no ridge and some batten strips holding it together.)
But here it stands....100 years later. I'll put it up against anything built in the last ten years. Prettiest house on the block too.
J. D. Reynolds
Home Improvements
He hasn't gotten a single person to agree with him.
I think he's been scared off.
Around 1960, we began to standardize window and door sizes. For stuff built before then, every opening was 'custom.'
The above is completely false.
I work on 1900-1930s houses all the time, and window sizes were MORE standardized back then than they are even today. I don't have much experience with 1950s - 1970s houses, but at least from the street, it appears that they have larger expanses of glass, often covering funny geometric areas that would suggest customization.
But windows from the 1900-1930s time period (if not earlier) were very nicely standardized and were built around sheets of glass sized in two-inch increments. All you have to do is measure the glass, and I can tell you the sash size, frame size, and RO.
I know this is just one of many points you made in your original post, but there you have it.
Edited 8/28/2007 12:00 am ET by Ragnar17
You'll never get the energy efficiency you want from those 2x4 walls - even though insulation has improved a lot since then.
Corbond is rated at about R7 per inch, per my recollection. Therefore a 2x4 wall can be insulated to about R24. Isn't that good enough for you?
In general, I hear a lot of your points. Sometimes it feels like I've replaced 95% of my own house and I wonder if it wouldn't have been easier to just tear it down! :)
For me, the big thing comes down to the beauty of older homes. In my own opinion, the new $3M houses I see going up today can't hold a candle to the beauty of homes built 100 years ago. For that reason, I think they are worth saving.
I'd add that the market seems to support me on this point. Where I live, the old homes that still have their character intact go for more money (and sell more quickly) than their remuddled or younger counterparts. Not everybody cares about beauty, but there are enough people who do care to keep the prices up.
While I didn't start this thread just to 'stir things up," I did want to get a discussion going .... and it looks like I succeeded. When I said "sometimes I want to say just tear down anything built before 1960," I meant just that ..... and, oddly enough, a lot of posts have a seed of agreement buried in the fine print. I recall one remark along the lines of 'the old stuff was quality- not like today's junk.' I have a sneaking suspicion that todays 'junk' will be asserted to be 'treasure' in a few decades. So, what was built before 1960? Just when do you think tract homes were 'invented?' Right after WW2, to quickly build homes for the returning vets. Then came the baby boom .... So the question becomes: Is it ever really worth it to "fix up" Levittown? For that matter, when things are NOT in marvelously preserved, pristine conditions .... when do you say 'enough?' Some have alluded to planning commissions, zoning, historic districts, etc. Those matters aren't really open to discussion; in every such case, the decisions have either already been made- or will be made by others. If you want to preserve something, by all means buy it and do so yourself - don't force your ideas out of someone elses' pocketbook. As far as making blanket statements without knowing the particulars of a specific house .... well, I did say "sometimes I feel ..." I have seen far too many money pits with terrible floor plans, half-baked attempted 'upgrades,' and major structural problems. Many is the customer who calls with his dream, and I want to say 'start with a can of gas.' Invariably, they don't listen .... and two years later tell me they should have.
More to the point, the numbers tell the tale. Every year, the size of an "average" home gets larger. Remember when building lots had yards and fences ... not lot-sized stucco walls with roofs? That alone says that the older the home, the less likely it is to be adequate to todays' needs. If you rebuild you need to meet current codes .... ahh, there's the rub! Stop and consider for a moment that the code changes just might have some basis in reality- and reflect real lessons learned. Maybe, just maybe, those 'quaint masterpieces' really do have dangerous stairs, deadly banisters, nowhere near enough power in the kitchen, and the small drain really won't work well for the appliances we now take for granted.
bs... you are basing this all on assumption...
<< Is it ever really worth it to "fix up" Levittown? >>>...
yes.. ask the people who live there
<<<<Every year, the size of an "average" home gets larger. Remember when building lots had yards and fences ... not lot-sized stucco walls with roofs? That alone says that the older the home, the less likely it is to be adequate to todays' needs.>>>>
well... not so either..
as the boomers age, they are downsizing.. and moving back into town
you really oughta look around and smell the rosesMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I want to thank everyone for their thoughts so far. Especially DanH and AzDiscDog, who seem to be most in touch with the title of this thread: "WHEN to Demo an Old House" Most folks ... despite some of the usual 'give and take' .... have answered that they believe an old house can still have a lot of useful life left in it. S0- WHEN do you decide 'enough is enough?' It's sometimes easy ... split foundation, collapsed roof, extensive fire and vermin damage. It's when the damage isn't so bad that the call is harder to make. BTW ... for those who asked ... while I am currently in Reno, Nv., I have been in many places .... and my thoughts are founded more on what I see as common themes, than on anything specific to one location. One such theme seems to be the tendency to try to 'save' without ever giving 'start over' any consideration at all.
Well of course Reno's an awfully artificial place. Five year old casinos get torn down to build bigger ones. Even if a larger one isn't needed, competition demands that you have a new one.I'm sure there are many residential areas (outside of Nevada) that are like that. Certainly along the coasts you see small, pleasant single-family homes torn down to build condos.I don't really have trouble with this (other than the obvious waste of a place like Reno) -- it's simple economics and what we call "progress".But I do have trouble with the McMansioning of America. Building ever larger and LESS habitable homes because they make better backdrops for our SUVs. I don't usually get "hooked" on some "theory de jour" book -- most of the "business secrets" and "quality" books that come along are pure hokum -- but Susanka's "Not So Big House" books really hit a chord with me.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Efficient use of space is NOT high on the list for many people. Having more space is more important than using it well. Feeling comfortable and not "closed in", living in a smaller home is difficult for larger people, too. Our ancestors lived in smaller homes and it worked for them, economically and physically. I don't think I would want to live where some of mine lived. One went west in a covered wagon ca. 1850 and built a log cabin that was 8'x12'. Lived in it for years.I wonder what he was running from.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Yeah, but many modern homes are too large. As Susanka points out, when a home is too large it lacks intimate nooks and corners, and as a result people want to add yet more space, expecting yet another large room to provide that intimacy.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
When do you demolish an old house?
Its obvious isn't it. You simply factor in cost of teardown,
and cost of new construction v.s cost of renovation (good luck
figuring that out ) , emotional attachments, and environmental
issues. All the while considering zoning, heritage, time frame,
personal lifestyle, the neighbours, financing, and the final product
in each case. Simple!
Or maybe not. Its plainly a sliding scale with a range from POS
tear down to must save classic with most currently occupied
houses somewhere in between. Each owner has to make the
call for themselves. I expect environmental issues will put
pressure on people to live in smaller and more efficient homes
in the future.
BS....you keep trying to hide behind some supposed semantics....
"Almost" want to make a blanket statement....
"WHEN" to demo..... as if you were asking a question.
Nowhere in your initial post do you discuss serious issues that would make one take stock and wonder if the house is beyond repair...issues such as mold.......rot.....failing foundation...
You talk about outdated amenities for the most part....and suggest that THIS is WHEN to demo an old house?
J. D. ReynoldsHome Improvements
BINGO!
Most of your original arguement revolved around old housing stock not being big enough, not being "what you wnat", not having multiple sinks, etc.. Completely devoid of reality for 90% of the home buying market. Your response to not having enough sinks is to tear it down. Ridiculous.
Today we have the subprime mess. The problem is people who should have bought your teardown candiates bought your multi-sink units instead. Hmm, how's that working out for them. So back to REALITY. Most people need old, small, housing stock.
did a coupla driveby's tonight ...
looked at 2 around 125K ...
one very nice.
one at $80K ... saw lotsa potential problems ...
and swung by one listed in same area for $60K .... just to see what the hell was so wrong it'd be priced at $60K ...
even if the interior is trashed ...
that one might look to be the best value in the end.
plans to see inside that one ... and the nicest of the $125K's ...
semi-bad "location" ... which is mostly due to the fact the front entry is right off a busy road ... so thinking "turn" the house's flow ... hell ... wall right over the front entry and use the back porch as the main.
other "bad" ... is the poorly sloped ... very in need of repair but huge backyard ...
thinking swing the drive around ... now back is front ...
and a day or so of dozer work in the yard ... top soil ....and some hydroseed ...
goes from wet mess to golf course!
and that busy road ... "out front" ...
more dozer work and lotsa hedges.
done!
twice the house ... much bigger backyard ... would be new kitchen and baths ...
for the same price as the others.
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
I've never seen Levittown, but I've read that the houses there are of better quality than many before or since. And regarded as quite "liveable".
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Well, since you've jumped back into the fray, I'll add my two cents.I was going to reply yesterday, but figured you were just baiting the crowd. Now that the gloves are coming off... :-)Count me as being closer to your camp than away. I don't fully agree with all of your blanket statements, but I think you've got some very good points there. SOMETIMES the first step should be a can of gasoline....I'm in the middle of rehabbing a 1962 split-level. If I didn't have the kids, I think I'd be a heck of a lot further along than I am. And I would have more capital available to finance things. But that's a choice I made whether I realized it or not at the time. :-)I can't say that the house deserved to be demolished, but I will say that I way underestimated what it was going to take to bring it up 'modern' standards. The house suffered decades of neglect from the prior owners, and I'm paying the catch-up costs.In my case, I think I'm fortunate because I can do the vast majority of the work required, and I'll eventually recoup my labor costs when / if I sell. For folks that aren't as handy, this house would have been a losing investment -- a big fat money pit. And I think that gets along to your main point -- there is a heck'uva lot more effort that goes into remodeling a house than what non-BT people expect.The counter arguments to the OP have pretty much run the flavor of a) that's how I make my bread & butter, or b) I'm preserving the character of XYZ.To the first, I would politely!!! argue that the counterpoint is muddled or biased logic. " I make money from this, so therefore it's okay." Making money from something doesn't necessarily make it right. To be extreme, I can make lots of money selling illegal drugs. That doesn't make it right. Now, before I get flamed, I do think there are many fine examples of craftsmanship that need to and should be preserved. Case in point, the wife and I *always* look at the back page of TOH when we get it. And without the work of many folk here in BT, that preservation would NEVER happen which would be a horrible loss to our society. Getting to the second argument, there are also many homes that simply weren't thought out well. They're the victims of a fad design (or simply bad architect) that shouldn't be preserved. I think most replies have focused on what should be preserved and the OP was about those that shouldn't.I think the OP's original comments were too broad. But I think there were some kernels of truth in there too. When do you pull the plug? When do you say it's really cheaper to demo the place and start completely over? For those of us running a business or being drawn in as advisers by our friends it is a very valid constraint.Ideally, the market helps dictate that. I picked up my house for below market rates because it was clear it needed work. Did I get it for low enough to cover ALL the things I'm going to end up doing to it and make it more 'modern'? Probably not. But I was wise enough to pick out a house in a neighborhood where the ceiling was much higher than my purchase price. Right now, I'm bitter about the strain it's putting on my life and bank account. We'll see how I feel in a couple of years once I'm further along.So far I think we're at 1.5 votes for the OP and 1 million against. ;-)Glen
Yeah, certainly there are SOME houses that deserve to be torn down. Just because a house was, say, built in the 20s doesn't make it a National Heritage Site, and especially if the foundation has failed or rot has taken hold it may be better (and certainly faster) to start from scratch.Several times, working with Habitat or our church group, we've dealt with houses that would have been better off torn down, but code/zoning restrictions and the like prevented that. In such cases, though, simply gutting the place often works out about as well, while retaining a little of the "character" (hopefully in a good sense) of the original.And, of course, in some cases the owner simply can't afford to tear down the house, or even gut it. You make do with what you've got.The trick is in bisecting this angle between polishing a turd and demolishing a gem. Knowing when to rip out drywall vs skim coating, when to replace a window vs rebuilding it with 20 pounds of filler, when to reside vs scraping and painting -- there are no easy answers but too often the wrong decision is made, costing more and producing a poorer quality result.Especially here I suspect that many have a prejudice to preserve certain things and rip out others, based not so much on varied experience or careful calculation per se so much as on indoctrination by parents, coworkers, etc.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
"Right after WW2, to quickly build homes for the returning vets. Then came the baby boom ...."I'll agree, with a modification. The houses were needed for the returning veterans who returned and started families but didn't want to live at home. Also, the VA made it possible to borrow at very low rates and that's really when the dream of owning a home became easy for a lot of vets who may not have been able to, based on what they may have earned before. The "Can Do" attitude that is famous is what made a lot of vets take risks they otherwise wouldn't have. If they made it through the War, how bad could everyday life be? The VA and HUD homes were low cost, not really well made but they quickly filled the need for homes. Levitiown and other tract home developments were marketing ideas more than they were great living situations, but they generally worked. Another group who built a lot of crap were the ones who may have had a little building experience and decided to build houses, after the war. Mine and the one next door were built by a father and son. I think mine was built by the son and I think he suffered some kind of traumatic head injury in WWII, based on some of the things he did.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I suppose we could tear down every house that does not have two dishwashers, two kitchen sinks plus a wet bar sink and a produce washing station. And every house with less than 4000 sq feet. And every house with fewer than eight toilets. I suppose we could be that.
Naturally, the government would then subsidize every man woman and child to the tune of $800,000 to buy those 4000 plus sq feet house, and wave the magic "raise-someone-elses-taxes-wand" to pay for it, and then we could all live happily everafter.
I suppose.
my position ... simplified.
current house ... built in 1902.
didn't buy it cause it was old ... bought it because it was the best deal.
right now .... 11 yrs into a 15 yr mortgage.
starting to look for something bigger.
only looking at older house stock.
wife years ago resigned herself that we'd never live in a "new house" ...
as she's smart ...
and doesn't want to spend the rest of her life hearing me bitch and moan about the piss poor construction.
which ... unless U spend top- top dollar for a well built custom ...
is what you will get around here.
most of our similar age group friends have bought new ... tract houses.
But they're in "subdivisions" ... with fancy names.
usually a creek or view that doesn't exist.
and while their homes shelter then from the elements ....
the construction is crap.
and none ... absolutely not one of them ....
will survive as long as the crappy little hillside house I currently live in.
and don't even think the trim work will last as long ...
as most of it looks like crap already.
why buy new ... when remodeling is by far the best value and in the end the best product ...
thinking tear down and rebuild is cheap and easy?
sounds like someone that's never tore down and rebuilt.
better to buy good stock and work from there.
curious ... what part of the US are you in?
I'm thinking west coast for some reason.
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
Just to address the question of rebuilding Levittown, it's being done daily. I had a friend that lived in one of the Levitt houses and we went there a few times. My Dad and I also worked in a few of them.
Most of the Levitt houses in Nassau county are still there, with renovations. Most frequently, a second story or a rear extension were added. The houses are small but liveable and the prices would make Levitt blush.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
The only constant is change.
Your thought suggest that the current paradigm is the final paradigm.
Well I've got news for you, it ain't.
To just a few of your points:
-smaller cars are replacing SUV
-wireless communications are replacing wired
-Every size window is now standard
-The use of less water and gas is the future
-etc.
The only one I will give you is the electrical, so you spend a few grand to upgrade it, and you are good for another 50 years or so.
I suggest you look into a nice mobile home. When you get tired of it you just have it rolled away and a shiny new one rolled in to replace it.
Simple
Ridiculous. Drivel. I could say more.
"Inside the house, ... and sinks in the kitchen than the place has."
Well, sure know, not even people on food stamps can possibly get by with only one sink. So, let's just kick all that scum out on the street and fire their 3000 sq foot havel to the ground.
Good Lord.
As a King, let them eat cake.
Can the arrogance be measured? I think not.
"The whole house is likely controlled off one thermostat"
Imagine that! One thermostat for the whole 990 square feet. Burn it down, you are right.
Pardon me for not seeing your original post till just now -- I've been unavailable for a few days.
Any house built before 1960 needs to come down.
Although I understand your right to have tha opinion, I believe that the opposite is closer to the real need. Most houses built since 1960 need to come down.
Politics is the antithesis of problem solving.
Although I understand your right to have tha opinion, I believe that the opposite is closer to the real need. Most houses built since 1960 need to come down.
Much closer to my own opinion! :)
Your premise works in certain high end, high density areas where the original homes were much smaller and cheaper than what sells in today's market.
One of my relatives owns a place which fits that scenario very well. A small vacation home built in a Lake Tahoe community about forty years ago, it's become surrounded by year round custom places with two to three times the square feet.
It's small corner lot is now worth much more without the house than with it. When it sells, the house will be gone in a matter of days.
To some a house is an investment, to others it's a home. Then there's all the masses in between.
It's about lifestyle and choice.
Some have found the garden that was once entrusted to them, others don't care. Still others are looking in all the wrong places and don't even know that they are seeking to find it.
What do you think of this one?http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/08/25/MANSION.ART_ART_08-25-07_B1_EE7N9JB.html?sid=101Down the street from me, listed on the National Register, and owned by a non-profit that is supposed to be champion of the community.And perhaps the worst part is that we don't even have a decent salvage
yard or facility in Columbus to collect up the parts when these old
buildings get demolished!
Bryan, thank you for the link. Perhaps the key statement is: "Even if someone had tapped the building with a magic wand and restored the building at no cost, it still didn't meet our needs." Sisyphus has a good point: do a cost analysis. At least that's a beginning. Simple math, however, will not address a design unsuited to it's intended uses. JDRHI, DoRight ... forgive me if I have not been able to express my points clearly enough. Let me put it this way: Painting a wall is easy and cheap. Moving a sink over a foot usually isn't a problem. Replace the roof? Sure, why not. At some point, all these 'little things' add up to essentially a complete rebuild. Why not just cut to the chase, get all that trash out of the way at once - and start over? It's not simply playing with words. Nor is it simply a matter of amenities and the square footage of rooms. No amount of remodeling will make a 60's ranch into a contemporary courtyard ("casita") style villa. Our lives have changed - often in dramatic ways - from what they were in the 50's. As the opening quote says - it still won't be suitable. That's when things are in good shape. And, JD, you're right - I should have had a question mark in the thread title. There's a;do a misspelling. I wonder ... when do you scrap a bad thread and start over? :D The fact is, things are never in pristine shape. If they were I'd have to ask those of you in colonial mansions just how far behind the house you have the privy :D Instead, when I encounter an old house, the first chore is almost always to correct the awful 'duct tape engineering' that someone did to make the place livable. (No wonder these folks fear permits inspections, and scoff at codes). Then I often end up undoing various remodels, reverting to the original floor plan, and basing the remodel from that point. During the course of this, more problems are almost always uncovered. Often, major faults are found- either well concealed, or fixed in a poor way. Even a proper repair has drawbacks; for example, 'sister' a few floor joists, and there's no place for the duct you need to run. Now, I assume that everyone will, at some point, decide that 'knock it down' is preferable to 'patch it up.' For you, where is that point?
What factors do you consider?
> Simple math, however, will not address a design unsuited to it's intended uses.Quite the contrary, you can place a $ value on suitability. It's done all the time in industry. No building is 100% suited to its use. There are always compromises.> No amount of remodeling will make a 60's ranch into a contemporary courtyard ("casita") style villa.Actually, the women's wish books are full of examples of exactly this. But you seem to be asserting that everyone wants a courtyard villa, and that's simply not the case. Certainly folks dream that it would be nice, but the thought of shoveling snow out of the courtyard usually brings them back to reality.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Now, I assume that everyone will, at some point, decide that 'knock it down' is preferable to 'patch it up.' For you, where is that point?What factors do you consider?
Ahhhh....now there's some questions worth considering. (Which I'll have to do and get back to you when time allows)
Know we can begin a true discussion.
J. D. ReynoldsHome Improvements
reno
Everything in this post(the one I'm responding to) can be said about houses built after 1960. WTF do these things have to do with house built prior to 1960?
I'm working on a house that was some Architects wet dream, built in 1989 and I think its a piece of shid, for my money it should be razed but.........
You made some blanket statements in your original post and now your backtracking......... probably because you didn't get the results that you expected, don't know for sure but I enjoyed reading this thread but because of the way that you worded your original post it was hard to take your position serious.
Doug
Edited 8/29/2007 8:51 pm ET by DougU
I said "1960" as opposed to, say, "1950" or "1970" because the early 60's seemed to be a watershed time in home construction, as well as a time when some major changes started happening in our lifestyles. First of all, real steps began in the standardizing of homes and their components. While this process is still developing - the factory-made home is still not the norm - it has come a long way. How standard a house is has a major influence upon the cost of remodeling. The 60's were also the time the garage became an integral part of the home, and cars settled to what are approximately today's dimensions (that jacked-up Suburban notwithstanding). The 60's were a time of major changes in the home's electrical system. Retrofitting a house that has no ground wires, or has everything on two fuses, quickly becomes a major undertaking. Fish the wires? Well, the 60's was when they stopped putting 'fire blocking' in the middle of walls.
As some might guess, I place a lot of emphasis on the electrical system in a house. That kitchen remodel won't be a happy one if the bread machine and the microwave trips a breaker every time they're both in use - no matter how lovely the counter top looks. Add to that the desire for multiple phone lines, computer networks, alarm systems ... and there's a lot of walls being opened.
Many of the same things can be said about every other system; add to that the stuff that degrades over time - settled insulation, root infested sewer lines (nothing like good old 'orangeburg' (cardboard) pipes!) .... and theres a nightmare lurking. Of course, you're in for a real joy if you need to add to / repair a rubble foundation, or match old fired brick. As to styles.... I'm only referring to the current fashion. And, yes, homes have fashions. Today, the big square, with the interior courtyard, seems to be in vogue ..... while the rooms-in-a-line-with-garage-at-the-end ranch seems passe. I defy anyone to convert one into the other, without actually replacing the first! Backtracking? I think not. The frustration I feel when presented with one of these projects is very real. I do note, however, that critics of tract homes became sudden defenders of them, when I mentioned Levittown. So, let's get down to the brass tacks. What does it take for you to tell the customer "forget the remodel- get a bulldozer?"
Tell the customer to move. The old house is still worth a lot to someone else. Probably a whole lot cheaper than dozing it and building a new one. Actually cheaper to move than adding on in most cases around here.
First of all, real steps began in the standardizing of homes and their components
Standardization of what components? As already been mentioned by several people on this thead, windows and door sizes were much more standardized before the 1960s.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I'm just trying to get a feel for how you relate to the 1960s time period.
So, let's get down to the brass tacks. What does it take for you to tell the customer "forget the remodel- get a bulldozer?"
All it takes for me is for the money that they want to spend on the house to be greater then the house will be worth when there done. That can be a house that was built in 1990, 1950, 1963.......and yea, 1909. But you made blanket statements that don't make any sense.
Hell I'd bet with the advancement of technology the wiring and media stuff that we put in house today will be obsolete in 20 years, then what? tear those down and start on a newer version??? I'm confused as to what your really suggesting, I'm thinking you are too.
Doug
> All it takes for me is for the money that they want to spend on the house to be greater then the house will be worth when there done.Yet it's amazing how rarely that's the case.My parents bought a farm back in the 60s. Had a ca 1900 house on it which appraised at $4K. After $14K and a year of sweat equity it appraised at $30K.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
To even consider demo-ing a house, it would have to be in such bad repair that no other choice is possible.
And I'm not talking about upgrading electrical or plumbing. Those are minor problems.
Another consideration- the landfills around here are already near capacity. Doing a mass razing of older homes would put them over the top. Not to mention the immense amounts of lumber required to build all the new homes that you seem to want.
Around here, perfectly good homes are being leveled in some of the richer communities. Then much bigger homes are built on the same lot. This isn't because the old homes are in bad shape; its more of a "keeping up with the Jonses" thing.
And frequently the new home is completely out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.
"And frequently the new home is completely out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood."
Well, only until they're ALL demolished and replaced.
Allen
What does it take for you to tell the customer "forget the remodel- get a bulldozer?
I guess I don't know for sure, but a complete loss of my mental faculties would be one prerequisite.
A desire to sit at home not working would be another.
Dude -- are you a remodeling contractor, or a courtyard-mcmansion developer? And don't claim to be both when you're complaining about the remodeling half of the business -- that just makes you a bait-and-switch artist.
Politics is the antithesis of problem solving.
let's change it to ...
"every "modern" house with a flat roof in snow country should be torn down ..."
and maybe I'll get on board.
falling water included ....
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
falling water included ....
Yea, no shid!
I'm doing some work in a Oskalosa Ia and someone made mention that there was a Wright home there........I dont know if I was supposed to wet my pants or what but I'm not all that impressed with his stuff, especially places like Falling Water.
Doug
It doesn't meet THEIR needs. What about someone else's?Our neighbors (who have a house very similar to ours) recently sold and moved to a 1960's ranch house. Why? Because the old house no longer meet their needs (aging knees). But they didn't bulldoze their 1900 house and build a new ranch, they sold it and bought an old ranch.
My wife and I (after observing aging parents) have agreed that we'll start preparing for a move to an "accessible" place as soon as one of us develops a significant disability. Far too often folks try to "hang in there" in the old homestead (even if they just moved there 5 years ago), resulting in considerable additional disability (in terms of not being able to go places, move around the house, etc).And I could get started about the inaccessible monstrosities marketed to 50-something, almost-empty-nest couples, but I won't.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Seems like a shame that the plans can be adapted to at least
save the front facade of the Firestone mansion. Build a new
structure behind it and put the parking in the back. Philistines!
What I really don't understand is why moving the structure isn't getting more consideration. We have plenty of vacant lots sitting around (the result of a rash of arsons in the 60's) plus a bunch of what we call 'tin shacks' (fourplex turned sideways) that could go away and be replaced by this nice structure.And h**l yes, put the parking in back! A major attribute of all the homes in our area is the front yard, not a front parking lot! I'm hoping that we can prevail on that issue.
Moving a home is very expensive, once you account for new foundation, bringing everything up to code, and the expenses of moving itself. Generally it's a break-even on what was a good structure initially, but just break-even.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
We see variations on the theme of this post on forums all over
the Net, and to post this here in FHB of all places, with this particular audience, is obviously an act of trolling.
That said, I'd come down on the side of the OP, and even say that
it doesn't go far enough. Not just North American residential buildings, but obsolete buildings worldwide (excluding those that have obvious architectural and historical merit) should be replaced.
My argument on this point would be mainly rooted in environmental and safety issues.
My current project house was built in the 1970's. And I've had to do more to it than any of my friends living in 100yo old houses have done to theirs.
I agree that there are times when people should have just torn down an old house instead of trying to save it, but I wouldn't use such a sweeping statement that ALL old houses should be torn down.
jt8
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly.
I said 'I don't know.'"
-- Mark Twain
It's all about nostalgia. I'm killing myself at 49 years old restoring a 1920 bungalow in the Seattle area. But I'm having the most fun I've ever had! We have 10 foot ceilings and wonderful built-ins. The house is unmolested with the original windows. I imagine the generations of children that played on the fir floors. The house was built during a time when houses came with porches, today they come with fences.
Dave LaBarge
Glad there are old house aficionados on BT.
And the cover of the early printings of one of the founding fathers of BT George Nash's 'Restoring Old Houses' with the before and after upper eve corner shot of an old home that some here would have dedicated to the wreckingball.
I've a number of old books in my library that are dedicated to a photo history record of old buildings around the states which had been razed for whatever reasons under the march of the supposed progress.
Some need to rethink their opine to see if they really can view a side by side pic of an old home against an osb/vinyl siding standard operating procedure building and still carry that same thinking.
some be marching backwards down the stairs, trying to get higher
Same thing with old cars. A 69 GTX is not suitable for todays transportation. Still would like to have one.