This Old House - Roxbury

[Mitchell Andrus]

Without getting stuck in the weeds.... private house restorations vs. gov't sponsored restorations...

Does anyone else wonder why they didn't bulldoze this mess and build new?

I wouldn't for one second have considered this place salvagable considering:

2/3 of the foundation has been replaced,
The entire roof structure has been replaced,
Nearly every interior wall has been replaced,
The HVAC system has been replaced,
The entire electrical system has been replaced,
Nearly the entire front wall has been replaced,
The entire rear wall has been replaced,
All of the windows have been replaced,
All of the doors have been replaced,
All of the siding has been replaced,
All of the landscaping/grade has been replaced,
The garage has been replaced,
Every interior fixture has been replaced.....

What did they keep? The lumpy floors and the exterior left and right stud walls and some of the mansard framing.

Does this sound more like a total replacement than restoration to you too?
.

[David G Baker]

Sounds like a total replacement to me.

[Phil Thien]

What did they keep?

The charm?

I think old homes are kinda like old cars. It is almost always less expensive to fix what you have than to buy (or in this case, build) new.

A lot of that depends on labor costs. But this project has apprentices doing a ton of the labor. They probably pay those guys 1/2 to 1/3 that of a union carpenter.

[Logan William]

I agree with the OP.....I'm not sure why they didn't start fresh on this one. Even with all the apprentice work they've got I don't see how the end cost is going to be less than what it would've been to take that excavator and knock the whole thing down instead of just that back portion. I realize that some buildings have historic/sentimental value but the only impressive thing I saw in this one when they were going through it was the cove molding in some of the rooms and the fireplace....besides for that it was an old run down house that I would've leveled and then started fresh on that lot.

[Bill Huber]

I know what you mean but in some areas you can not rebuild a house. You can do anything you want to it to fix it up but if you take it down you can not rebuild it.

I don't know on this case but I had a BIL that raised the roof and built a new house under it and then after that was done he put a new roof on the house. If he had taken it down to start over he couldn't have done it.

[Mitchell Andrus]

The charm?

I think old homes are kinda like old cars. It is almost always less expensive to fix what you have than to buy (or in this case, build) new.

A lot of that depends on labor costs. But this project has apprentices doing a ton of the labor. They probably pay those guys 1/2 to 1/3 that of a union carpenter.

Everything you will see from the street on this project is new materials embellishing an old design. A charming new house could have been built.

Government sponsored work sometimes places minimum parameters on laborer's pay. In NJ at least, it's known as "prevailing rate" and matches union pay - to keep bidders from hiring low-end workers and pricing union shops out of business with taxpayer money. (This is why we can't go back to the WPA system of building highways and Hoover Dams and house $5.00/day laborers in huts on site - but I digress) In this case it seems some kind of an apprenticeship program is employed - but building new could also, so that's a wash.

Second, if tax dollars are involved, the cheapest method should be employed. If even 10% of the budget could have been saved 11 salvages could be done for the cost of 10.

Side note, restoring an old car to factory fresh is never cheaper than buying a factory fresh new one. Been there many times. Even a modestly built Hot Rod costs $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 to build from old parts or even from scratch.

This project.... I just don't get.
.

[Mitchell Andrus]

I know what you mean but in some areas you can not rebuild a house. You can do anything you want to it to fix it up but if you take it down you can not rebuild it.


That's likely true if zoning prohibits use of the lot in certain ways and the house is 'grandfathered' as-is. But, in my 7 years on my town's planning board I'd never heard of an old house coming down without a new one going up in it's place. The loss of tax revenue makes this almost unheard of and results in lawsuits for confiscation. In some towns around mine pulling down and building bigger is specifically encouraged as long as the lot is large enough.

Tear down a house to rid the neighborhood of an eyesore, build a new one. Preferred method of renewal and most towns welcome it. Your BIL must have had a really hard-luck piece on his hands.
.

[Joe Mioux]

I have been a fan and have watched this old house since the beginning.

The following is the first paragraph on TOH's Roxbury website.

To help celebrate its 30th anniversary season, This Old House TV is giving back to the community where the show got its start in 1979: Boston, Massachusetts. Working alongside affordable housing nonprofit

TOH was founded on restoration of old homes. In the beginning they bought these old derelict homes and completely restored them. It appears that they are, as they say in the first paragraph above, getting back to their roots in celebration of 30 years.

joe

[Mitchell Andrus]

I have been a fan and have watched this old house since the beginning.

The following is the first paragraph on TOH's Roxbury website.

To help celebrate its 30th anniversary season, This Old House TV is giving back to the community where the show got its start in 1979: Boston, Massachusetts. Working alongside affordable housing nonprofit

TOH was founded on restoration of old homes. In the beginning they bought these old derelict homes and completely restored them. It appears that they are, as they say in the first paragraph above, getting back to their roots in celebration of 30 years.

joe

I agree..... That's why TOH is there but it doesn't explain why the money was better spent in doing a re-build rather than a tear-down/start over. I'd like to see the proposal.
.

[Phil Thien]

Everything you will see from the street on this project is new materials embellishing an old design. A charming new house could have been built.

Government sponsored work sometimes places minimum parameters on laborer's pay. In NJ at least, it's known as "prevailing rate" and matches union pay - to keep bidders from hiring low-end workers and pricing union shops out of business with taxpayer money. (This is why we can't go back to the WPA system of building highways and Hoover Dams and house $5.00/day laborers in huts on site - but I digress) In this case it seems some kind of an apprenticeship program is employed - but building new could also, so that's a wash.

Second, if tax dollars are involved, the cheapest method should be employed. If even 10% of the budget could have been saved 11 salvages could be done for the cost of 10.

Side note, restoring an old car to factory fresh is never cheaper than buying a factory fresh new one. Been there many times. Even a modestly built Hot Rod costs $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 to build from old parts or even from scratch.

This project.... I just don't get.
.

How much more do you think they've spent on rehabbing this house than they would have spent knocking it down and starting over, assuming that the replacement house would have the same design as the existing house?

[Joe Mioux]

I agree..... That's why TOH is there but it doesn't explain why the money was better spent in doing a re-build rather than a tear-down/start over. I'd like to see the proposal.
.

I watched the show after typing out my previous post. That place is a mess. It doesn't make much economic sense from a commercial application stand point, but this is TV.... and product placement and other subtle subsidies have probably been factored into the resale viability.

just guessing with the last sentence.

joe

[Alan Trout]

Tear down a house to rid the neighborhood of an eyesore, build a new one. Preferred method of renewal and most towns welcome it.Many city's also prefer saving what is there. Having lived in a historic district in an inner city for many years it is not uncommon to see this kind of restoration. I am working on one right now that is not to far off from what you describe. It is a labor intensive and expensive endeavor but helps maintain the fabric of the neighborhood which is a serious concern in my city. This has been encouraged in my neighborhood and has really started to make a transition from a rather sketchy neighborhood to a very desirable upcoming one which is good for everyone involved.

Old houses are not for everyone so it is hard for many to see the logic in fixing them. I tell people all the time, "owning an old house is as much a lifestyle as anything else".

Alan

[Mitchell Andrus]

How much more do you think they've spent on rehabbing this house than they would have spent knocking it down and starting over, assuming that the replacement house would have the same design as the existing house?

Well, I can tell you that you get a better deal when you do foundation work all at one time. Same for framers, roofers, site work..... I'm thinking the time spent straightening out the 1st floor's floor joists and sills could have paid to have a 1st floor deck built on a new foundation, easily. I've seen 3 guys do that in one day. And it ended up flat too.

Plumbers and HVAC spend a lot of extra time dodging old work/patch jobs. New construction is a breeze by comparison.

The work delays and rescheduling of trades due to surprises makes for good TV but cost real money on a job site.
.

[Mitchell Andrus]

I tell people all the time, "owning an old house is as much a lifestyle as anything else".

Alan

True for me and my 1929 Craftsman. Many people over-spend the home's value on rehabs and end up owing more than the house can be sold for.... These days banks don't loan like they used to. It's tough to get a loan to rehab a house past it's market value. Used to be assumed that the value would catch up to the expenditure. That's a tough sell these days. If the bank's not on-board the choices dwindle.

That's why I'm questioning the sanity of using tax dollars on this type of city-sponsored project.

Pull it down, put up a new one close in design and get on with it at less expense.

A question asked when we used to get to a go/no go point.... Would you build it back exactly the same if it had instead burned to the ground or would you save the money and build something just as functional but cheaper/faster?
.

[Neal Clayton]

Tear down a house to rid the neighborhood of an eyesore, build a new one. Preferred method of renewal and most towns welcome it. Your BIL must have had a really hard-luck piece on his hands.
.

mine doesn't. and i agree with them in prohibiting it.

the rule here is, if you tear a residential building down, you can re-build no higher than your neighbors. since lots have been re-divided and re-sold over the past ~125 years for the building of rentals and small bungalows and what not, no one takes them up on that prospect.

as a result, everything stays the same, mcmansion free ;).

urban blight is the fault of poor economics and poor local government, not poor maintenance. throwing money at people to tear down a building and build a new one doesn't solve that. the city needs a reason for people to want to live there first.



A question asked when we used to get to a go/no go point.... Would you build it back exactly the same if it had instead burned to the ground or would you save the money and build something just as functional but cheaper/faster?


well, for me, the whole point was if i wanted an old house to start with, why did i want an older house? the materials were better is the primary answer.

drywall versus plaster? no thanks
particle board moldings versus the real thing? not really
laminate floors that dent when you drop a heavy drinking glass on them? pass
asphalt shingles that have to be replaced every 15-20 years? i'll stick with my clay tiles
plastic windows that need replacing every 10-15 years? nope

those are pretty obvious answers. so yeah, i've replaced some, and reproduced some, and improved upon some of the original designs even. but all of those were done the way an old one would have been, and if TOH wanted to retain any semblance of credibility (which they don't, that's plainly obvious by now) they'd focus on projects that do the same.

the thing that ambitious DIY'ers have that all of those contractors and building product manufacturers listed in succession on TOH don't have is...TIME. a weekend DIY'er can take all the time in the world to strip, reglaze, repaint, and epoxy-repair rotted windows, or painstakingly remove decades of paint from old doors and cabinets, or fish new electrical wires and HVAC ducts through existing studs, or any other number of things that a contractor would lie to them about in telling them that such things "can't be done".

unfortunately for these old buildings, though, there's no advertising money or lobbying money in that, so people who do these things don't wind up on TOH, and don't wind up getting cheap government money.

[Chris Damm]

Our local PBS station hasn't even finished up the Newton project yet. TOH is always preempted for some 10-20 year old special. This is one of the reasons I quit donating to their coffers.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Neal, I agree with just about everything you said.

But, you can have a house built with quality floors, wood windows, plaster walls, plaster crowns, slow growth studs, etc., PLUS energy efficiency if you are willing to pay the extra costs, and in my mind a properly engineered poured foundation and a few steel beams beats the snot out of rock and mortar which is what failed in Roxbury and one of my projects.

Adopting an old house is at least partly a love affair with reality and a quaint notion that never really existed. (Some old houses were horribly built. Hack builders existed back then too.)

I get a kick out of people when they look at a 50's tract house longingly and say "they don't make 'em like they used to". HA. That guy never restored one from 1860. They don't make 'em like THAT anymore either.

Ah, the good old days. When builders cut corners just like they do today.
.

[Chris Damm]

Whenever someone says "they don't make 'em like they used to" I refer them to the 1890 farmhouse I restored. The studs varied in size by 1/2" and the plasterers made the walls straight (until the plaster decided to start falling off the walls in huge chunks). Walls 4" out of plum and rooms 2' out of square. I'm sure glad they don't build them the way they used to!

[Don Jarvie]

All of the money for these projects is from the Feds and the goal is to keep the historic vibe of the area. The street they are on was particularly hit hard by foreclosures and most of the houses were abandoned.

No private developer would spend 10 cents to build there because there return on investment would be zip since the people who would live in the area wouldn't be able to afford the homes.

So you have the City and Feds helping out but they want to keep the area looking historical.

[Lee Schierer]

I can understand why the organization doing the work is non-profit.....when I see the work they put into saving that house instead of building the same house from the ground up. Someone should have hollered whoa when they had to replace the first side foundation. Permits shouldn't have been an issue since the city was supporting the project. Even remodel jobs have to meet building codes in most cities now.

You have to wonder how well the remaining old rubble foundation is going to hold up over the life of the remodeled house or will that become an expensive repair for the future owners?

[Neal Clayton]

I get a kick out of people when they look at a 50's tract house longingly and say "they don't make 'em like they used to". HA. That guy never restored one from 1860. They don't make 'em like THAT anymore either.

Ah, the good old days. When builders cut corners just like they do today.
.

i don't disagree with you there either. not all are worth saving, and not one will be easy or inexpensive. it's all a matter of finding one that's worth the effort, if the effort doesn't bother you.

here's a perfect example of what's wrong with TOH....

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,425331,00.html

an article entitled "window glazing" that has nothing to do with glazing a window. it's a 3 page ad for andersen. nor is the article factual, since it starts out with the ideas of "energy efficient savings" which anyone with a pencil and calculator can determine does not exist. as soon as you jump on the window replacement treadmill, anything you save on heating and cooling will be spent on the windows themselves.

and square plumb and level are a myth chris, i resigned myself to that long ago ;).

[Logan William]

nor is the article factual, since it starts out with the ideas of "energy efficient savings" which anyone with a pencil and calculator can determine does not exist. as soon as you jump on the window replacement treadmill, anything you save on heating and cooling will be spent on the windows themselves.

and square plumb and level are a myth chris, i resigned myself to that long ago ;).

I'm going to have to repectfully disagree with this point but it will potentially threadjack a little bit....sorry.

The energy payback on window/door replacement varies greatly on what you're replacing and what area of the country you live in. If you're replacing 5-10 year old double pane IG units that are in good shape in terms of air inflitration the payback will be a fairly lengthy(7-10 years likely) time period. However if you're replacing single pane or older double pane windows that will likely be rather drafty with more modern Energy Star rated models the payback in energy savings is much shorter depending on if you're in a heating or cooling climate and what you bought to replace them(vinyl vs entry level wood vs premium wood). In terms of U value/SHGC(Solar Heat Gain Coeffecient) the performance is all fairly good, however a premium wood window can run you 2 to 4 times what the same size medium level vinyl will depending on what options/features you spec out.

The other thing you need to consider when replacing windows is how drafty are my current windows? All of the energy savings calculators are basing the savings off the U value/SHGC different between what you have and what you would be buying, they don't take into account the air infiltration difference between new and old windows. If properly installed your air infiltration will be substantially better on your new windows than old, and in turn should reduce your heating/cooling bills.

And also when you replace windows you should be gaining more than just an energy savings but also an increase in the homes resale value as well as hopefully improving the comfort factor of your home. A recent remodeling study by the Remodeling Magazine showed that "conservatively priced replacements of old siding, entry doors or windows" were some of the highest return projects you could do on your house

So in the end window replacements are generally not a less than 1 year payback project(unless you have incredibly poor windows or get them at a steal of a price) but do offer substantial improvements in both energy usage, comfort level and home resale value.

Disclaimer: Yes I do work for a major window/door company, and no I'm not in sales and to my knowledge didn't just plug my company or any other company in the fenestration industry.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Agreed. Window replacement calculations based solely on energy efficiency in a house Michigan is different than a non-air conditioned house in Florida. michigan payback might be 5 to 7 years. Florida maybe never.

Resale value??? Again, depends on the area of the country. The appraisal forms used by the appraisers used when I bought my NC house last year had a check-off spot for insulated/non-insulated, but didn't change the figures either way you checked the box. I guess in NC it doesn't matter that much. In Alaska it likely makes a bigger difference in the value of the house. It could also be that the age of house (1994) assumes efficient windows (building code) so the check box is moot.

I have a sunroom in my NJ house that has 9, 1928 era double hungs. It was easier and cheaper to put that room on it's own zone and close the french doors than to replace the windows. No heat, no heat loss.
.

[Neal Clayton]

I'm going to have to repectfully disagree with this point but it will potentially threadjack a little bit....sorry.

The energy payback on window/door replacement varies greatly on what you're replacing and what area of the country you live in. If you're replacing 5-10 year old double pane IG units that are in good shape in terms of air inflitration the payback will be a fairly lengthy(7-10 years likely) time period. However if you're replacing single pane or older double pane windows that will likely be rather drafty with more modern Energy Star rated models the payback in energy savings is much shorter depending on if you're in a heating or cooling climate and what you bought to replace them(vinyl vs entry level wood vs premium wood). In terms of U value/SHGC(Solar Heat Gain Coeffecient) the performance is all fairly good, however a premium wood window can run you 2 to 4 times what the same size medium level vinyl will depending on what options/features you spec out.

The other thing you need to consider when replacing windows is how drafty are my current windows? All of the energy savings calculators are basing the savings off the U value/SHGC different between what you have and what you would be buying, they don't take into account the air infiltration difference between new and old windows. If properly installed your air infiltration will be substantially better on your new windows than old, and in turn should reduce your heating/cooling bills.

And also when you replace windows you should be gaining more than just an energy savings but also an increase in the homes resale value as well as hopefully improving the comfort factor of your home. A recent remodeling study by the Remodeling Magazine showed that "conservatively priced replacements of old siding, entry doors or windows" were some of the highest return projects you could do on your house

So in the end window replacements are generally not a less than 1 year payback project(unless you have incredibly poor windows or get them at a steal of a price) but do offer substantial improvements in both energy usage, comfort level and home resale value.

Disclaimer: Yes I do work for a major window/door company, and no I'm not in sales and to my knowledge didn't just plug my company or any other company in the fenestration industry.


http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/testing%20windows%20in%20cold%20climates.pdf


6. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Estimated savings for first year energy costs show little variability between upgrade options
when compared to the estimated energy costs of a typical window. The cost variability of
upgrade options decreases significantly when lead abatement of original sash is included.
Estimated first year savings are also of very small magnitude when compared with typical
windows. It is therefore not worthwhile to base upgrade decisons solely or even primarily on
energy considerations. you're looking at 15-20 dollars per window per year, roughly. do the math on that. by the time you make your money back, you have another round of maintenance (or replacement in the case of the plastic ones, or metal clad ones) on the ones you bought. you're in effect giving andersen/marvin/pella/whoever an interest free loan via the money that you would've paid monthly to the gas company instead. and yes, those double paned wooden ones will rot. the seal between the panes inevitably fails, trapping moisture between. the metal/plastic clad ones will rot even faster, simply because it's a stupid design (anyone who sells you a "maintenance free" building product just lied to you...there are no maintenance free buildings, and thus, no maintenance free building products).

custom wooden windows cost 5x what plastic ones cost, at least. fancier patterns common a century ago like diamonds or victorian style curves/arches probably more like 10x. 20 bucks a month off the gas bill doesn't make that deviation go away. how's that resale value equation gonna work with that in mind? don't believe everything you read on a page opposite a pella ad, imo.

depending on the condition of the existing windows, thick drapes are more cost effective than replacement windows. people complain about cold windows and have metal or plastic blinds on them all, or sheer drapes/shades...duh? put thicker drapes, and you just insulated the windows. how do people think folks stayed warm a century ago with only boilers and a wood fire?

and if you really want to improve the windows themselves, storm windows are always more cost effective than replacement windows, because they don't cheapen the building by throwing said expensive-to-reproduce ones away.

common sense, like a light in the fog of modern marketing....

[Jim King]

We live hundreds of miles from the nearest road and even here we have historical laws. I think the law is now that if a house is more than 76 years old you cannot do anything but restore it without modifications.

The town has never looked better. I am attaching a couple of photos of what I bouight and restored as best as we could with the information that was available from, the Government , old neighbors etc.

We are still working on the front so I dont have photos but I can assure you it is still ugly.

My wife went overboard a bit and found furniture from the 1905 to 1915 era also and we refinished and rebuilt it all. A lot of work but we now have a nice little 3 BR retirement house that cost us about $16,000 US or $10 a square foot complete..

[Don Jarvie]

It boils down in Boston to this. If the City wants the houses renovated then they are renovated. If they want it demoed and rebuilt then you rebuild. Especially since they are involved in the project.

[Mitchell Andrus]

It boils down in Boston to this. If the City wants the houses renovated then they are renovated. If they want it demoed and rebuilt then you rebuild. Especially since they are involved in the project.

You're in the city. Do you have any idea if or how much tax money is involved in projects like these? Just wondering if politics (or sentiment) is getting in the way of common sense causing a waste of tax dollars.
.

[Don Jarvie]

I'm not sure of where the money comes from but I think it mostly comes from the Feds - HUD. The state and City don't have a ton of money to toss around.

Most cities want to keep the historical character of the homes if possible. Roxbury has quite a few victorian homes and the city is looking to get new people to buy into the area. Only issue is it is not the greatest part of town so to get people to move in with some money is hard.

I live right outside the city but do know how the game is played.