I voted that I want the tax I voted that I want the tax benefits, but I also love older homes.
poorgradstudent
March 18, 2010 @
4:55 PM
I can’t pick just one of the I can’t pick just one of the “No” reasons.
The big thing historic homes have going for them in San Diego is they’re usually in neighborhoods that are both really nice and really walkable.
briansd1
March 18, 2010 @
6:10 PM
I answered NO because I I answered NO because I assumed that you meant a house that would qualify for the Mills act because you talked about tax benefits. There are less than 900 in SD that qualify.
I love old houses but I don’t want to live in one. I want central air and heat.
I don’t want to maintain all the shingles and sidings on an old house.
As historic house should be faithful to the original architecture and style of the day, including the interior. Better let the historical society maintain historic houses.
Here is a timely example of an old (but modern) house that I would love. There are plenty such houses in San Diego. I’m thinking about a “small” 1200sf to 1500sf house in SD with such potential, in a central neighborhood without HOA or Mello Roos.
Well, yes, when I say Well, yes, when I say historic home and one of the options is tax benefit and another option of not being able to modify the home and having to maintain it, I am speaking of Mill’s Act. That is another thing. Most of these older homes do not have central air. Historic homes are definitely not for everyone. I’m someone who loves them and am aware of the issues that go along w/them. But I do think trying to sell one is limiting buyers.
sdcellar
March 18, 2010 @
11:24 PM
Had one. I miss it. Had one. I miss it.
abell
March 19, 2010 @
5:55 AM
I wouldn’t buy a house that I wouldn’t buy a house that either didn’t have central heat and air or had the duct work to easily install it.
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
8:30 AM
abell wrote:I wouldn’t buy a [quote=abell]I wouldn’t buy a house that either didn’t have central heat and air or had the duct work to easily install it.[/quote]
I’m sure it’s not cheap, either. But to be fair, it’s not like we live on the East Coast and have freezing weather. And it’s not like we live in Arizona or Vegas where it gets over 100. Are we so spoiled that when it gets a little cold or a little hot we need central heat and air?
In any case, taking into consideration all the things we take for granted in a new, modern home, the historic homes have select buyers, imo.
briansd1
March 19, 2010 @
9:43 AM
jpinpb wrote: And it’s not [quote=jpinpb] And it’s not like we live in Arizona or Vegas where it gets over 100. Are we so spoiled that when it gets a little cold or a little hot we need central heat and air?[/quote]
I can’t see living in America, the richest country in the world, and not having central air/heat, dishwasher and clothe washer.
Why should you suffer the heat in the summer when you don’t have to?
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
9:47 AM
I don’t mean to imply that we I don’t mean to imply that we have to suffer. But I guess that is exactly the point I’m making w/just the few Piggs on this site. There are definite considerations when purchasing an older home. Things as simple as heat and air that we take for granted in new homes.
I still would love to have an older home and wear sweaters in the winter and tank tops in the summer. But I confess I am emotional when it comes to classic homes (and cars, too).
garysears
March 19, 2010 @
8:33 AM
My wife and I really liked My wife and I really liked this one. We watched it for months (asking price from 390k down to 229k). Decided it was too much work but still kind of regret not going for it anyway.
garysears wrote:My wife and I [quote=garysears]My wife and I really liked this one. We watched it for months (asking price from 390k down to 229k). Decided it was too much work but still kind of regret not going for it anyway.
“Looks impressive from the “Looks impressive from the outside. Was it destroyed on the interior?”
Pretty much. It needed a lot of work. There is an asphalt flat part of the roof that was allowed to leak which destroyed the original hardwood floors in much of the upper story, as well as the lower story floor in one part. In addition there was a plumbing leak in the upper bathroom that caused damage to the living room ceiling. I don’t know about the electrical work but I can guess. Personally I saw it as a tear down to studs and rebuild. Was quite a shame for lack of fixing the roof they allowed the building to be destroyed. That, and it was left open to the elements for about a year while the heirs greedily ignored offers.
I saw it originally listed for $550k I think. I was told by a previous listing agent that the heirs rejected an offer for $500k. Back taxes due was over $40K. After the realtor was paid, etc.. I doubt the heirs ended up with much. In my mind a classic story of greed’s destructive nature. They were too dumb to maintain the house while trying to cash in and they ended up with very little.
I was estimating probably $100K to $150K in rebuild costs but I’m not a professional. That, and I would have had to do the FHA 203K which might have been a real pain, given the requirement to bring up to code.
Maybe the new owners will fix it up and then not make any payments and I can get it after it is fixed.
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
11:05 AM
Wow, gary. Quite a story. Wow, gary. Quite a story. That’s a real shame. Since I have an appreciation for older homes, it pains me to hear about people who are so negligent and in this case even stupid. You can always fix a house. You can’t fix stupid. I hope the new owners do restore it.
garysears
March 19, 2010 @
9:01 PM
“Wow, gary. Quite a “Wow, gary. Quite a story”
Yeah. Asking was originally $550K in 2007 I believe. Settled eventually for $230K minus taxes minus realtor fees and other costs after it sat open to the elements for a year with most of the windows broken out and interior water damage.
My wife and I used to drive by the place every month or so just because it was so beautiful. It is on a 12000 square foot lot with a courtyard type area in the middle. There is a 1 bedroom 1 bath apartment/granny flat in the back of the huge garage. It has great views of the water from the second story and the bay bridge is framed by the giant hemispheric window in the living room. There are multiple french doors and windows and the spiral staircase. Simply stunning original floors. I am still bummed they were ruined.
Rumor in the neighborhood is that Laurel and Hardy owned the place back in the day. I don’t know how to verify that. If you really like the old places you should drive by one day just for fun. Only drawback is the neighborhood is lower income.
One thing I thought was interesting was that it was built during the major bubble times in 1928. Seems ironic that it was almost destroyed by bubble type thinking over 80 years later. Well, really it was destroyed because the heirs were too cheap to dump a few grand into maintenance. Had they done that they almost certainly would have got 100k to 150k more.
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
9:16 PM
Hey gary, I did see the Hey gary, I did see the closing price in the link. So my question is was it completely uninhabitable? Like was it gutted, or could you live in say the granny flat and fix it along the way. Seems like a great place and even 150k to fix would still be reasonable for what you’re getting. All said and done, 380k and one heck of a place. But, yeah, the neighborhood isn’t the best. Pity.
It sure is ironic that it was built during a bubble and a bubble took it down. And yet, these older homes somehow hold up even w/neglect. Like I really seriously wonder if a home built in 2006 is going to even be standing in 80-100 years if they were neglected. I think the craftsmanship back in the day is much better. The quality. For instance, most of the really older homes used hard wood.
UCGal
March 20, 2010 @
10:50 AM
I lived in an Irving Gill I lived in an Irving Gill designed house at 8th and Beech in the 80’s. (George Koenert Residence for historians) At the time the Heritage Apartments weren’t there – and it was 2 studios on the top floor, a studio and a 2bedroom on the main floor, and 2 studios on the basement/ground floor. I had the 2 bedroom for 8 years (during and after college.) It was built in 1899.
I don’t think it had the Mills designation at the time – but the fact it hasn’t been torn down means it might have it now.
It had been converted to apartments in a pretty akward way – but you could tell the orignal lines of the house.
When I lived outside Philly I owned a victorian twin-home (aka sem-detached)… Built in 1903. It had central heat – with all the duct work… so adding central air could have been done. (I used window units. I was too broke to add central air.)
I love old homes. Pretty much mid-century and older and I’m happy. I’m not as fond of new construction.
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
11:54 AM
poorgradstudent wrote:The big [quote=poorgradstudent]The big thing historic homes have going for them in San Diego is they’re usually in neighborhoods that are both really nice and really walkable.[/quote]
That’s not always true. Some older homes in Southeast San Diego and National City. I don’t consider those nice areas. If I’m not mistaken, some of those older homes in Coronado were moved there back in the day from d/t SD.
sjglaze3
March 19, 2010 @
9:47 AM
Just a quick comment. I’m Just a quick comment. I’m renting a historical house in South Park (has the Mills Act) and it does have great heating and air conditioning. Not sure where the idea comes from that they can’t have that. Also, has dishwater and washer/dryer installed.
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
9:49 AM
sjglaze3 wrote:Just a quick [quote=sjglaze3]Just a quick comment. I’m renting a historical house in South Park (has the Mills Act) and it does have great heating and air conditioning. Not sure where the idea comes from that they can’t have that. Also, has dishwater and washer/dryer installed.[/quote]
What year is the house? No one said they can’t have that, just that if it doesn’t, it’s not cheap to have the work done.
briansd1
March 19, 2010 @
9:56 AM
Yes, it’s not cheap to Yes, it’s not cheap to retrofit an old house.
It might be more economical to tear it down.
I don’t see a problem with tearing down old houses and building new ones.
If I lived in an SFR, I would want a fence, hedge or courtyard with gate for privacy. I would not want the front door open to the public right of way. That would not qualify for the tax breaks.
sjglaze3
March 19, 2010 @
11:59 AM
It was built in 1910. It was built in 1910. Incidentally, I also own a house in South Park on the same street built in 1908 that I installed heating and air into around 2003. Not so much expensive (as it has a basement) but tricky to install and limited to ground floor only. Another bit of info is that I looked into historic designation, but it wouldn’t have made much difference to the property tax as I bought back in 2000 when houses were cheap in South Park, and Prop 13 keeps taxes low.
jpinpb
March 19, 2010 @
12:26 PM
sj – you bring up another sj – you bring up another good point about Prop 13 and taxes. I’m not sure exactly how much tax savings benefit there is vis a vie the restrictions and requirements to maintain the historic homes. I still love them and according to the poll, it’s pretty close to even so far.
4plexowner
March 19, 2010 @
1:18 PM
I love the Craftsman style I love the Craftsman style houses in the older neighborhoods of San Diego
if I did buy something with a historic designation I would think of it as a trophy property – ie, it doesn’t really make financial sense but you get bragging rights for owning it
4plexowner
March 19, 2010 @
1:23 PM
“Why should you suffer the “Why should you suffer the heat in the summer when you don’t have to?”
couldn’t agree more – why would you live in San Diego and live somewhere that NEEDED air conditioning?
briansd1
March 19, 2010 @
1:32 PM
4plexowner wrote:
if I did [quote=4plexowner]
if I did buy something with a historic designation I would think of it as a trophy property – ie, it doesn’t really make financial sense but you get bragging rights for owning it[/quote]
I agree. Fun to have if you have money to spare.
[quote=4plexowner]”Why should you suffer the heat in the summer when you don’t have to?”
couldn’t agree more – why would you live in San Diego and live somewhere that NEEDED air conditioning?[/quote]
We have heat waves in SD. Climate change is making it worse. After I take a shower, I don’t want to be hot. I like to come out to crisp cool air.
One thing that bothers me about old houses is that they are very dark.
In San Diego, we should embrace the outdoors and bring the light and sunshine in and not block the windows with drapes and curtains.
I think that Victorian houses are all wrong for San Diego.
I do however like the Spanish houses with central courtyard and fountain.
svelte
March 19, 2010 @
1:55 PM
We are more into modern homes We are more into modern homes for many, many reasons.
But I wouldn’t rule out a historic home…it really depends on the situation.
So I marked ‘other’.
Aecetia
March 19, 2010 @
5:18 PM
EPA’s Climate Change Site EPA’s Climate Change Site offers comprehensive information on the issue of climate change in a way that is accessible and meaningful to all parts of society – communities, individuals, business, states and localities, and governments.
It might have been habitable. I would say marginally so since it was open to the elements. If there is a legal definition of habitable, some work would probably have needed to be done first before you could move in and fix at your own pace.
I think if you had some previous experience with doing work yourself you could have lived in a part of it and done the work yourself, but not in the granny flat. Some transients had started a fire in there and there was damage to the kitchen. The biggest problem in the main house was the roof leak, moisture damage and broken windows and doors. But once you removed all the damage and closed it to the elements, the house itself was probably liveable. I just wouldn’t have the time or experience to do much work myself.
The other problem was the only way you could get a loan on that place was likely the 203k FHA loan, given the condition. The problem there is the 6 month requirement to complete all the work, with it being up to code and inspected. Not exactly for the feint of heart or first time homebuyer with no rehab experience.
The only solution I could see was for me to hire professionals to keep it on a time schedule. Maybe I could have been out the door for $380k but I chickened out and someone else beat me to it with a 203k offer of their own.
I had made of list of all the things I wanted to do and it basically was a complete overhaul: new roof, all new custom windows and doors, new hardwood floors, 3 new bathrooms, new kitchen, new heating and cooling unit and ducting, electrical work, plaster and paint, etc… I don’t know about the plumbing but I expect it probably needed overhauled too.
Last I saw there was a construction fence around the house so I know the new owners are started. I really wish them well. That is potentially a very good deal if they do it right. I just hope it is a family and not a flipper.
jpinpb
March 20, 2010 @
3:40 PM
Thanks for the details, gary. Thanks for the details, gary. I was curious. I also hope they do it right and enjoy it, not to flip.
briansd1
March 20, 2010 @
5:21 PM
One thing about making an old One thing about making an old house pay-off is that you have to put in sweat equity and you have to enjoy it.
Or you need connection with contractors who can do remodeling for you at less then retail prices.
That’s real estate in general. People who can restore houses are rewarded in equity doing things they enjoy.
I have a friend who wants to buy a house in New Jersey. She can’t hardly hammer a nail to hang a painting, much less repair a faucet leak. I told her to stay away from old houses otherwise her house will become a huge money pit. She needs a new condo.
garysears
March 20, 2010 @
7:43 PM
All this talking about that All this talking about that place made me drive by again today. I was disappointed to see horrible VINYL windows. Absolutely terrible. That house deserves real wood. The vinyl is not recessed in the opening but is raised somewhat from the surface of the house.
One of the problems they probably ran up against was the appraisal. It is such a low priced neighborhood with no other houses near that size. That is 2600sf vs a normal 1000 to 1200sf. I’m guessing the appraisal for the house repaired was under $400k, maybe as low as $350k. The way I would do the windows is at least 20K more expensive so maybe that is where they are trying to save money. If they didn’t have extra to put down to cover the difference they are probably having to cut some corners to get the work done within the confines of the appraisal and total loan limit.
Looks cheap though.
jpinpb
March 20, 2010 @
10:59 PM
I am sorry to hear that. I I am sorry to hear that. I hope they don’t skimp on other things. It might be better not to go by. Don’t torture yourself. It could be painful to watch.
March 18, 2010 @ 4:10 PM
I voted that I want the tax
I voted that I want the tax benefits, but I also love older homes.
March 18, 2010 @ 4:55 PM
I can’t pick just one of the
I can’t pick just one of the “No” reasons.
The big thing historic homes have going for them in San Diego is they’re usually in neighborhoods that are both really nice and really walkable.
March 18, 2010 @ 6:10 PM
I answered NO because I
I answered NO because I assumed that you meant a house that would qualify for the Mills act because you talked about tax benefits. There are less than 900 in SD that qualify.
I love old houses but I don’t want to live in one. I want central air and heat.
I don’t want to maintain all the shingles and sidings on an old house.
As historic house should be faithful to the original architecture and style of the day, including the interior. Better let the historical society maintain historic houses.
Here is a timely example of an old (but modern) house that I would love. There are plenty such houses in San Diego. I’m thinking about a “small” 1200sf to 1500sf house in SD with such potential, in a central neighborhood without HOA or Mello Roos.
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-weggill-20100313,0,5225555.story
March 18, 2010 @ 6:57 PM
Well, yes, when I say
Well, yes, when I say historic home and one of the options is tax benefit and another option of not being able to modify the home and having to maintain it, I am speaking of Mill’s Act. That is another thing. Most of these older homes do not have central air. Historic homes are definitely not for everyone. I’m someone who loves them and am aware of the issues that go along w/them. But I do think trying to sell one is limiting buyers.
March 18, 2010 @ 11:24 PM
Had one. I miss it.
Had one. I miss it.
March 19, 2010 @ 5:55 AM
I wouldn’t buy a house that
I wouldn’t buy a house that either didn’t have central heat and air or had the duct work to easily install it.
March 19, 2010 @ 8:30 AM
abell wrote:I wouldn’t buy a
[quote=abell]I wouldn’t buy a house that either didn’t have central heat and air or had the duct work to easily install it.[/quote]
I’m sure it’s not cheap, either. But to be fair, it’s not like we live on the East Coast and have freezing weather. And it’s not like we live in Arizona or Vegas where it gets over 100. Are we so spoiled that when it gets a little cold or a little hot we need central heat and air?
In any case, taking into consideration all the things we take for granted in a new, modern home, the historic homes have select buyers, imo.
March 19, 2010 @ 9:43 AM
jpinpb wrote: And it’s not
[quote=jpinpb] And it’s not like we live in Arizona or Vegas where it gets over 100. Are we so spoiled that when it gets a little cold or a little hot we need central heat and air?[/quote]
I can’t see living in America, the richest country in the world, and not having central air/heat, dishwasher and clothe washer.
Why should you suffer the heat in the summer when you don’t have to?
March 19, 2010 @ 9:47 AM
I don’t mean to imply that we
I don’t mean to imply that we have to suffer. But I guess that is exactly the point I’m making w/just the few Piggs on this site. There are definite considerations when purchasing an older home. Things as simple as heat and air that we take for granted in new homes.
I still would love to have an older home and wear sweaters in the winter and tank tops in the summer. But I confess I am emotional when it comes to classic homes (and cars, too).
March 19, 2010 @ 8:33 AM
My wife and I really liked
My wife and I really liked this one. We watched it for months (asking price from 390k down to 229k). Decided it was too much work but still kind of regret not going for it anyway.
http://www.redfin.com/search#ft=separate%20entrance&lat=32.702858&long=-117.075165&market=socal&parcel_by_property_id=5876647&uipt=4,1&v=5&zoomLevel=17
March 19, 2010 @ 9:22 AM
garysears wrote:My wife and I
[quote=garysears]My wife and I really liked this one. We watched it for months (asking price from 390k down to 229k). Decided it was too much work but still kind of regret not going for it anyway.
http://www.redfin.com/search#ft=separate%20entrance&lat=32.702858&long=-117.075165&market=socal&parcel_by_property_id=5876647&uipt=4,1&v=5&zoomLevel=17%5B/quote%5D
Looks impressive from the outside. Was it destroyed on the interior?
March 19, 2010 @ 10:47 AM
“Looks impressive from the
“Looks impressive from the outside. Was it destroyed on the interior?”
Pretty much. It needed a lot of work. There is an asphalt flat part of the roof that was allowed to leak which destroyed the original hardwood floors in much of the upper story, as well as the lower story floor in one part. In addition there was a plumbing leak in the upper bathroom that caused damage to the living room ceiling. I don’t know about the electrical work but I can guess. Personally I saw it as a tear down to studs and rebuild. Was quite a shame for lack of fixing the roof they allowed the building to be destroyed. That, and it was left open to the elements for about a year while the heirs greedily ignored offers.
I saw it originally listed for $550k I think. I was told by a previous listing agent that the heirs rejected an offer for $500k. Back taxes due was over $40K. After the realtor was paid, etc.. I doubt the heirs ended up with much. In my mind a classic story of greed’s destructive nature. They were too dumb to maintain the house while trying to cash in and they ended up with very little.
I was estimating probably $100K to $150K in rebuild costs but I’m not a professional. That, and I would have had to do the FHA 203K which might have been a real pain, given the requirement to bring up to code.
Maybe the new owners will fix it up and then not make any payments and I can get it after it is fixed.
March 19, 2010 @ 11:05 AM
Wow, gary. Quite a story.
Wow, gary. Quite a story. That’s a real shame. Since I have an appreciation for older homes, it pains me to hear about people who are so negligent and in this case even stupid. You can always fix a house. You can’t fix stupid. I hope the new owners do restore it.
March 19, 2010 @ 9:01 PM
“Wow, gary. Quite a
“Wow, gary. Quite a story”
Yeah. Asking was originally $550K in 2007 I believe. Settled eventually for $230K minus taxes minus realtor fees and other costs after it sat open to the elements for a year with most of the windows broken out and interior water damage.
My wife and I used to drive by the place every month or so just because it was so beautiful. It is on a 12000 square foot lot with a courtyard type area in the middle. There is a 1 bedroom 1 bath apartment/granny flat in the back of the huge garage. It has great views of the water from the second story and the bay bridge is framed by the giant hemispheric window in the living room. There are multiple french doors and windows and the spiral staircase. Simply stunning original floors. I am still bummed they were ruined.
Rumor in the neighborhood is that Laurel and Hardy owned the place back in the day. I don’t know how to verify that. If you really like the old places you should drive by one day just for fun. Only drawback is the neighborhood is lower income.
One thing I thought was interesting was that it was built during the major bubble times in 1928. Seems ironic that it was almost destroyed by bubble type thinking over 80 years later. Well, really it was destroyed because the heirs were too cheap to dump a few grand into maintenance. Had they done that they almost certainly would have got 100k to 150k more.
March 19, 2010 @ 9:16 PM
Hey gary, I did see the
Hey gary, I did see the closing price in the link. So my question is was it completely uninhabitable? Like was it gutted, or could you live in say the granny flat and fix it along the way. Seems like a great place and even 150k to fix would still be reasonable for what you’re getting. All said and done, 380k and one heck of a place. But, yeah, the neighborhood isn’t the best. Pity.
It sure is ironic that it was built during a bubble and a bubble took it down. And yet, these older homes somehow hold up even w/neglect. Like I really seriously wonder if a home built in 2006 is going to even be standing in 80-100 years if they were neglected. I think the craftsmanship back in the day is much better. The quality. For instance, most of the really older homes used hard wood.
March 20, 2010 @ 10:50 AM
I lived in an Irving Gill
I lived in an Irving Gill designed house at 8th and Beech in the 80’s. (George Koenert Residence for historians) At the time the Heritage Apartments weren’t there – and it was 2 studios on the top floor, a studio and a 2bedroom on the main floor, and 2 studios on the basement/ground floor. I had the 2 bedroom for 8 years (during and after college.) It was built in 1899.
I don’t think it had the Mills designation at the time – but the fact it hasn’t been torn down means it might have it now.
It had been converted to apartments in a pretty akward way – but you could tell the orignal lines of the house.
When I lived outside Philly I owned a victorian twin-home (aka sem-detached)… Built in 1903. It had central heat – with all the duct work… so adding central air could have been done. (I used window units. I was too broke to add central air.)
I love old homes. Pretty much mid-century and older and I’m happy. I’m not as fond of new construction.
March 19, 2010 @ 11:54 AM
poorgradstudent wrote:The big
[quote=poorgradstudent]The big thing historic homes have going for them in San Diego is they’re usually in neighborhoods that are both really nice and really walkable.[/quote]
That’s not always true. Some older homes in Southeast San Diego and National City. I don’t consider those nice areas. If I’m not mistaken, some of those older homes in Coronado were moved there back in the day from d/t SD.
March 19, 2010 @ 9:47 AM
Just a quick comment. I’m
Just a quick comment. I’m renting a historical house in South Park (has the Mills Act) and it does have great heating and air conditioning. Not sure where the idea comes from that they can’t have that. Also, has dishwater and washer/dryer installed.
March 19, 2010 @ 9:49 AM
sjglaze3 wrote:Just a quick
[quote=sjglaze3]Just a quick comment. I’m renting a historical house in South Park (has the Mills Act) and it does have great heating and air conditioning. Not sure where the idea comes from that they can’t have that. Also, has dishwater and washer/dryer installed.[/quote]
What year is the house? No one said they can’t have that, just that if it doesn’t, it’s not cheap to have the work done.
March 19, 2010 @ 9:56 AM
Yes, it’s not cheap to
Yes, it’s not cheap to retrofit an old house.
It might be more economical to tear it down.
I don’t see a problem with tearing down old houses and building new ones.
If I lived in an SFR, I would want a fence, hedge or courtyard with gate for privacy. I would not want the front door open to the public right of way. That would not qualify for the tax breaks.
March 19, 2010 @ 11:59 AM
It was built in 1910.
It was built in 1910. Incidentally, I also own a house in South Park on the same street built in 1908 that I installed heating and air into around 2003. Not so much expensive (as it has a basement) but tricky to install and limited to ground floor only. Another bit of info is that I looked into historic designation, but it wouldn’t have made much difference to the property tax as I bought back in 2000 when houses were cheap in South Park, and Prop 13 keeps taxes low.
March 19, 2010 @ 12:26 PM
sj – you bring up another
sj – you bring up another good point about Prop 13 and taxes. I’m not sure exactly how much tax savings benefit there is vis a vie the restrictions and requirements to maintain the historic homes. I still love them and according to the poll, it’s pretty close to even so far.
March 19, 2010 @ 1:18 PM
I love the Craftsman style
I love the Craftsman style houses in the older neighborhoods of San Diego
if I did buy something with a historic designation I would think of it as a trophy property – ie, it doesn’t really make financial sense but you get bragging rights for owning it
March 19, 2010 @ 1:23 PM
“Why should you suffer the
“Why should you suffer the heat in the summer when you don’t have to?”
couldn’t agree more – why would you live in San Diego and live somewhere that NEEDED air conditioning?
March 19, 2010 @ 1:32 PM
4plexowner wrote:
if I did
[quote=4plexowner]
if I did buy something with a historic designation I would think of it as a trophy property – ie, it doesn’t really make financial sense but you get bragging rights for owning it[/quote]
I agree. Fun to have if you have money to spare.
[quote=4plexowner]”Why should you suffer the heat in the summer when you don’t have to?”
couldn’t agree more – why would you live in San Diego and live somewhere that NEEDED air conditioning?[/quote]
We have heat waves in SD. Climate change is making it worse. After I take a shower, I don’t want to be hot. I like to come out to crisp cool air.
One thing that bothers me about old houses is that they are very dark.
In San Diego, we should embrace the outdoors and bring the light and sunshine in and not block the windows with drapes and curtains.
I think that Victorian houses are all wrong for San Diego.
I do however like the Spanish houses with central courtyard and fountain.
March 19, 2010 @ 1:55 PM
We are more into modern homes
We are more into modern homes for many, many reasons.
But I wouldn’t rule out a historic home…it really depends on the situation.
So I marked ‘other’.
March 19, 2010 @ 5:18 PM
EPA’s Climate Change Site
EPA’s Climate Change Site offers comprehensive information on the issue of climate change in a way that is accessible and meaningful to all parts of society – communities, individuals, business, states and localities, and governments.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
March 20, 2010 @ 12:52 PM
JP,
It might have been
JP,
It might have been habitable. I would say marginally so since it was open to the elements. If there is a legal definition of habitable, some work would probably have needed to be done first before you could move in and fix at your own pace.
I think if you had some previous experience with doing work yourself you could have lived in a part of it and done the work yourself, but not in the granny flat. Some transients had started a fire in there and there was damage to the kitchen. The biggest problem in the main house was the roof leak, moisture damage and broken windows and doors. But once you removed all the damage and closed it to the elements, the house itself was probably liveable. I just wouldn’t have the time or experience to do much work myself.
The other problem was the only way you could get a loan on that place was likely the 203k FHA loan, given the condition. The problem there is the 6 month requirement to complete all the work, with it being up to code and inspected. Not exactly for the feint of heart or first time homebuyer with no rehab experience.
The only solution I could see was for me to hire professionals to keep it on a time schedule. Maybe I could have been out the door for $380k but I chickened out and someone else beat me to it with a 203k offer of their own.
I had made of list of all the things I wanted to do and it basically was a complete overhaul: new roof, all new custom windows and doors, new hardwood floors, 3 new bathrooms, new kitchen, new heating and cooling unit and ducting, electrical work, plaster and paint, etc… I don’t know about the plumbing but I expect it probably needed overhauled too.
Last I saw there was a construction fence around the house so I know the new owners are started. I really wish them well. That is potentially a very good deal if they do it right. I just hope it is a family and not a flipper.
March 20, 2010 @ 3:40 PM
Thanks for the details, gary.
Thanks for the details, gary. I was curious. I also hope they do it right and enjoy it, not to flip.
March 20, 2010 @ 5:21 PM
One thing about making an old
One thing about making an old house pay-off is that you have to put in sweat equity and you have to enjoy it.
Or you need connection with contractors who can do remodeling for you at less then retail prices.
That’s real estate in general. People who can restore houses are rewarded in equity doing things they enjoy.
I have a friend who wants to buy a house in New Jersey. She can’t hardly hammer a nail to hang a painting, much less repair a faucet leak. I told her to stay away from old houses otherwise her house will become a huge money pit. She needs a new condo.
March 20, 2010 @ 7:43 PM
All this talking about that
All this talking about that place made me drive by again today. I was disappointed to see horrible VINYL windows. Absolutely terrible. That house deserves real wood. The vinyl is not recessed in the opening but is raised somewhat from the surface of the house.
One of the problems they probably ran up against was the appraisal. It is such a low priced neighborhood with no other houses near that size. That is 2600sf vs a normal 1000 to 1200sf. I’m guessing the appraisal for the house repaired was under $400k, maybe as low as $350k. The way I would do the windows is at least 20K more expensive so maybe that is where they are trying to save money. If they didn’t have extra to put down to cover the difference they are probably having to cut some corners to get the work done within the confines of the appraisal and total loan limit.
Looks cheap though.
March 20, 2010 @ 10:59 PM
I am sorry to hear that. I
I am sorry to hear that. I hope they don’t skimp on other things. It might be better not to go by. Don’t torture yourself. It could be painful to watch.