Snake wire from wall to ceiling

Posted by DD_BobK on October 17, 2009, 1:46 pm

On Oct 17, 9:21=A0am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

> >On Oct 16, 10:32=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
> >> >> 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 s=

> >> >> since it's key selling point are modernity, latest-and-greatest, an=

> >> >> up-to-date styling -- none of which by definition are lasting
> >> >> attributes. It's like a slower version of the problem that a new ca=

> >> >> loses value the second you drive it out of the lot whereas an antiq=

> >> >> car increases in value with proper upkeep.
> >> >Unless the new house is in some wacky area and there was a wacky buye=

> >> >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.
> >> =A0In some areas, some are.
> >> Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
> >> sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
> >> The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
> >> most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
> >> the same neighbourhood.

> >Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. =A0The
> >belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
> >than a belief. =A0The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
> >etc. =A0Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.
> >R

> No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
> in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

>>>>more desireable

in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs. <<<<

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

Posted by RicodJour on October 17, 2009, 2:07 pm

On Oct 17, 12:21=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

> >On Oct 16, 10:32=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> >> >> since it's key selling point are modernity, latest-and-greatest, an=

> >> >> up-to-date styling -- none of which by definition are lasting
> >> >> attributes. It's like a slower version of the problem that a new ca=

> >> >> loses value the second you drive it out of the lot whereas an antiq=

> >> >> car increases in value with proper upkeep.
> >> >Unless the new house is in some wacky area and there was a wacky buye=

> No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
> in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

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

Posted by RicodJour on October 17, 2009, 2:13 pm

> On Oct 17, 12:21=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> > >On Oct 16, 10:32=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> > >> >> One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that my hou=

> > >> >> only gets better and more valuable with age whereas even the late=

> > >> >> and greatest megamansion starts looking "dated" after a decade or=

> > >> >> 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 ant=

ique

> > >> >> car increases in value with proper upkeep.
> > >> >Unless the new house is in some wacky area and there was a wacky bu=

yer

> > >> >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 hous=

e -

> > >> >and they're not.
> > >> =A0In some areas, some are.
> > >> Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivale=

> > >> sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
> > >> The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
> > >> most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses =

> > >> the same neighbourhood.
> > >Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. =A0The
> > >belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
> > >than a belief. =A0The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
> > >etc. =A0Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

> > No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
> > in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

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

> You're not addressing the point I was addressing. =A0Everyone 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. =A0That'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". =A0You'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. =A0An 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. =A0Knocked
> it down! =A0They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried.
> People didn't w

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

Posted by on October 17, 2009, 4:42 pm

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

>> On Oct 17, 12:21 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>> > >On Oct 16, 10:32 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> > >> >> 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.
>> > >> In some areas, some are.
>> > >> Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
>> > >> sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
>> > >> The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
>> > >> most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
>> > >> the same neighbourhood.
>> > >Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. The
>> > >belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
>> > >than a belief. The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
>> > >etc. Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.
>> > No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
>> > in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

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

>> 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

>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

Smebody wanted the land it sat on for more lucrative endeavours????

Posted by RicodJour on October 17, 2009, 5:42 pm

On Oct 17, 4:42=A0pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

> >People didn't want to pay the cost of moving the house. =A0A relatively
> >local historic village recreation that has been bringing houses to
> >their site for years, didn't want it. =A0The house was in fine condition
> >for an old house. =A0By 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.

> Smebody wanted the land it sat on for more lucrative endeavours????

They put up something most people thought was a motel.
Aaarrrggghhh!!!!

R

Page 9 of 15 < 1 2 3 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
Three wire electric oven, four wire wall?	September 30, 2007, 4:29 pm
RED electrical wire in ceiling junction box	November 24, 2008, 7:42 pm
ceiling fan: what's the black wire with the white stripe?	July 17, 2006, 1:15 pm
QUESTION: Ceiling fixture wire colors	July 30, 2006, 9:40 pm
Running wire through block wall?	November 9, 2008, 12:59 am
What minimum gauge wire can use in extending circuit for ceiling fan?	June 17, 2006, 4:36 pm
Running wire in finished ceiling on main floor	August 21, 2008, 2:35 pm
Suspended ceiling wall molding	June 30, 2007, 8:30 pm
retro wall and ceiling texture help	May 12, 2006, 11:30 pm
Ceiling Fan wall remote with 3 way switch?	September 26, 2007, 6:25 pm

Snake wire from wall to ceiling - Page 9