Snake wire from wall to ceiling

Page 3 of 4  

On Oct 17, 9:21 am, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

good point...the "boutique effect".
Young couples (with $$'s) tired of the SoCal track home & wanting something "unique" buy into my neighborhood at over priced levels. Often into homes where half-assed superfical work was done and find themsleves confronted with $1k's of plumbing or electrical work.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 17, 12:21 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

You're not addressing the point I was addressing. Everyone knows there are people who will buy stuff if it is simply the most expensive thing out there, figuring it just _has_ to be better or why would the people be asking that price. That's not the point Blueman brought up that I took issue with.
He said, "One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that my house only gets better and more valuable with age". You've agreed about the not getting better, now we're just down to the more valuable.
There are the usual fluctuations in desirability of any house as it ages and that goes to price. An old house will not be on an ever- increasing upward trend, leaving the newer houses' value in the dust. It does not work that way.
In my neck of the woods they knocked down a house from 1693. Knocked it down! They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried. People didn't w
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read Blueman's first line in the quote above. He said it got better _and_ more valuable.

Oops.
People didn't want to pay the cost of moving the house. A relatively local historic village recreation that has been bringing houses to their site for years, didn't want it. The house was in fine condition for an old house. By Blueman's theory, that house should have been in the many, many millions of dollars - and they couldn't give it away. It pissed me off that it was knocked down, but the market had spoken.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 17, 4:42 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

They put up something most people thought was a motel. Aaarrrggghhh!!!!
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened" with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"
A house with lime plaster walls and solid wood framing, t&G subfloor, etc will ALWAYS be a "better built" home than a house built with tin studs, aspenite subfloor and roof decking, drywall walls, and paper product sheating.

1/2 acre lots) built in the 1960s, sold for very close to half a million, and bulldozed to put in a new "McMansion".
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 17, 4:41 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

And what about the things that are so far behind the times that they become a problem, and things that become dangerous? Electrical wiring doesn't last forever, and neither does plumbing. Just because you have that really stout looking STEEL pipe, it doesn't mean it isn't rotted to shit inside, right? The insulation on the wiring can just dry up and die, and then the first time it's disturbed it cracks and you have a potential for a short or fire. Insulation, wasteful boilers, etc., etc.

It might be that an old IS better than a particular house, but an older house doesn't accelerate and become even more better unless you do something to it, which makes it less old (at least for the work done).
Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or what, but that's all I have to say on that.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

I'll offer a big AMEN to that. I love old houses as much as the next guy, and all the Real Wood instead of ply or OSB, etc. I especially love the hardwood floors and interior cabinetry, casings and built-ins. Having said that, however, I prefer modern plumbing and HVAC, modern insulation/windows, modern 200 amp electrical, and so on. And unlike on TOH, most people can't cost-justify retrofitting all that to an older house, much less even finding somebody to do the retrofit. Even a semi-modern like this 1960 I am sitting in gives me fits at times. Assuming I can afford to retire on schedule, I'm gonna look for a 1970 or newer for the next one.
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I spent some time working for a high end window company a few years back - you'd crap your drawers if you saw the bills for some of the window replacement jobs. One old mansion the bill was in the mid-high 5 figures (pretty close to $60,000 canadian year 1995 bucks)- and when done, you would not have known, looking at the house, that the windows were not "period correct" - Yet they were state of the art high efficiency units.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at resale time.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 17, 9:13 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Sigh. So you're making the old house into a new house piece by piece. Gotchya.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

them.
I've seen several old houses in my lifetime that I would love to own, from a layout and ambiance standpoint. However, the upgrades would cost more than building a new house of similar layout and features, with modern materials. Sadly, the fine quarter-sawn hardwoods on many of the interiors now fall into the 'if you have to ask' category on price. Something about 95% of all the old-growth hardwood within 2000 miles being cut down already, I think...
One thing seldom mentioned about older fancy houses- in most towns, the neighborhoods where the rich people lived 1890-1940 or so, have had a demographic shift. Not much point in having a fine old restored house if you have to have window bars, motion-activated lights, and wear a sidearm to walk around the block. Blue collar houses from that era are mostly gone, in this part of the country, at least. ( But some of them have some keen interior features as well.) No colonial-era houses around here- I think the oldest standing house in town is from 1860s or so.
-- aem sends....
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not what I meant. I meant that the ever-increasing-in-value old house that clare was talking about, is also increasing in value because it's being updated, which makes it That Not So Old Anymore House.

I took out a piece of blocking the other day from a house built in 1928. Just a tubafor. The growth rings were so close I could hardly count them and I was wearing my reading glasses. Had to be about 30 per inch. The cy-boards you get nowadays. you're lucky if there are more than five or six rings per inch.

Yep, what were stately houses on stately streets, serviced by streetcars, are now inner city housing serviced by buses. Life marches on.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:33:20 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

the Yuppies and new rich start heading back into the city center, buying up and restoring the former homes of the "old money".
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:15:16 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

that made them desireable to so many with money.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are right in the short term. But how much will today's new McMansion be worth in 50 or 100 years? Is it likely to even last 100 years or will it need to be torn down?
It always amazes me on home improvement shows to see them having to replace windows and doors after 20 years while my windows are 150 years old and going strong. Similarly, houses built only a couple of decades ago often have more rot than my old timbers -- even though my house undoubtedly went through many periods of neglect. They just don't make wood or houses like they used to. But maybe I'm just a biased old house snob...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right in the long term, too.

So....it's only your old house that gets better and more valuable? Hmmm. That seems a might convenient - for you!
One of the common pitfalls of personal observation is that people make automatic and often erroneous assumptions. There are countless old houses that have been torn down or remodeled to the point where they are not an old house anymore. The ones that are still around are the ones that people valued more, for one reason or another, or had no lapse in maintenance and didn't deteriorate.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm a retro-grouch in many things. I definitely do believe that the old ways were in many instances just as good if not better. One of my pet peeves is that there are no incentives to induce people to value the old things more. Most people will run up against the cost/benefit thing when dealing with their house, or buying a new (to them) one, and will have to let something go. When the something turns out to be old windows, or any other old building or part of one, well, we lose that. We are in essence letting market value erase our history.
That's what happened with the 1693 house I mentioned, and also with another 18th century house just a few blocks away. Scumbag lawyer convinced a bankruptcy judge that he was going to keep the house, and as soon as the closing ink is dry, he knocks the house down. The only thing they could charge him with was demolition without a permit, and he got a slap on the wrist fine. Make's me want to puke.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

give a lot more than a slap of the rist to those destroying buildings in those heritage districts.
The big surprise?? Home values in those heritage districts, where you are severely limited in what you can change on the visible exterior of the buildings, almost invariably goes UP.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 19, 2:30 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Well, hell. You've hit on the magic formula. Just buy an old house and you'll never lose money on it, no matter what you do. You should fire this information off to The Motley Fool as a foolproof investment plan.
You have a point, but it is not the only one out there. Don't belabor it.
R
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

An increase in property value in a historic district is often offset by how much you're forced to spend to keep up with the district's demands. This phenomenon extends to operating expenses exacerbated by the inefficiency of the authentic yet drafty windows.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.