|
Posted by on October 19, 2009, 3:02 pm
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
>> >> > blueman wrote:
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> ... Luckily by removing the wooden lathe (which itself often had a
>> >> >> gap between it and the underlying structural member), I was able to
>> >> >> find plenty of room to snake my pull string without having to drill
>> >> >> through (or notch) the structural elements. ...
>> >> >> I didn't end up needing to notch the corner since there was plenty of
>> >> >> room to bury the cable below the structural lumber due to all the
>> >> >> layers. ...
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> While doing it my way took a LOT longer than some of the other
>> >> >> suggestions, ...
>> >> > And, as suggested, you found a _far_ different set of conditions than
>> >> > anybody here could have any hope of knowing any about and so the
>> >> > reason for many of the suggestions were obviated.
>> >> > That's not intended at all at criticism; only observation that advice
>> >> > is only as good as the input and _if_ the condition had indeed been
>> >> > that of solid plaster against the joists your solution options would
>> >> > have been pretty much as suggested.
>> >> Thanks and I certainly didn't mean to appear to be criticizing or
>> >> ungrateful for the many and varied suggestions offered by you and
>> >> others. As you can probably tell, when it comes to working on my home,
>> >> I tend to be more on the perfectionist side of things -- I know that
>> >> such an approach would never be profitable as a business but it does
>> >> usually let me get the results I want even if the effort is sometimes
>> >> over the top. In fact, that is one of the reasons I DIY rather than
>> >> hire even though it costs me more in time than I would have to pay
>> >> someone else -- but at least I get the quality and approach I want
>> >> (along with self-satisfaction) which is something that money often
>> >> can't buy anymore.
>> > Well said, and entirely understandable and laudable.
>> >> > Sounds like kewl place; I've noted here before that did quite a number
>> >> > of major restorations of antebellum houses in Lynchburg, VA, years ago
>> >> > that had all kinds of similar surprises buried in them. Par for the
>> >> > course...
>> >> Thanks - sounds like you have had the same mixture of fun and
>> >> frustrations that I have had. But I wouldn't trade my old house for
>> >> any post-1920's or so house -- though perhaps I would be tempted by a
>> >> new megamansion (at least until the newness wears off).
>> >> One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that my house
>> >> only gets better and more valuable with age whereas even the latest
>> >> and greatest megamansion starts looking "dated" after a decade or so
>> >> since it's key selling point are modernity, latest-and-greatest, and
>> >> up-to-date styling -- none of which by definition are lasting
>> >> attributes. It's like a slower version of the problem that a new car
>> >> loses value the second you drive it out of the lot whereas an antique
>> >> car increases in value with proper upkeep.
>> > Unless the new house is in some wacky area and there was a wacky buyer
>> > who overpaid, or unless the entire market is taking a downturn, new
>> > houses and old houses go up in value at roughly the same rate.
>> > Otherwise, an old house would be way more expensive than a new house -
>> > and they're not.
>> You are right in the short term.
>Right in the long term, too.
>> 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?
>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.
>> 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...
>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
Lots of cities are implementing "heritage districts" and rules that
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.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap