Unrestored 1905 house on land as vacation home?

frenchyd said:

Antihero said:

Im kind of confused by this post, it seems like you think old houses are insane and are unlivable. Dont get me wrong, some are, but that has to do with the condition of them, not the actual structure of them. I live in a 1902 house and its perfectly fine, cement and horsehair plaster and all. 

It sounds perfectly usable for short term living with a new septic tank. No water damage, functioning heat, functioning electric, and no real problems besides the septic. Its could be just the septic lines to it as in the past you had clay pipe and the horrifically bad Orangeberg stuff (pretty much tar paper). In fact im almost certain its that since pumping the tank did nothing. It could be a fairly easy fix.

 

Old houses built right have their own character and can be spectacular houses

You are right, if built right old houses may have character and value.   Or they may not. 

Age is no assurance of quality or value.  Yes even in the good old days poor things were made.  

There is some survivor bias to this stuff though that makes something higher quality the older it is. If it is that old and still standing, it was probably high quality otherwise it would have been torn down (location dependent, of course)

My wife was commenting that "they don't make them like they used to" when comparing our 1927 Sears home to her parents 1994 McMansion. Well, our home is definitely much better built than her parents, but they made E36 M3 back in 1927 as well--but more than likely, at least in our area, any home that old that was poorly constructed would have been torn down. You see it here with specific builders--in our town, a ranch home built by a specific builder will almost never be torn down, although it may grow a second story; the other builder from that same time made crappy houses and they're mostly torn down by now. Now when you step in a 1950's-60's ranch in our town, you could easily think "man, they don't build them like they used to" if you were comparing them to her parent's 94 house.

mtn said:

frenchyd said:

Antihero said:

Im kind of confused by this post, it seems like you think old houses are insane and are unlivable. Dont get me wrong, some are, but that has to do with the condition of them, not the actual structure of them. I live in a 1902 house and its perfectly fine, cement and horsehair plaster and all. 

It sounds perfectly usable for short term living with a new septic tank. No water damage, functioning heat, functioning electric, and no real problems besides the septic. Its could be just the septic lines to it as in the past you had clay pipe and the horrifically bad Orangeberg stuff (pretty much tar paper). In fact im almost certain its that since pumping the tank did nothing. It could be a fairly easy fix.

 

Old houses built right have their own character and can be spectacular houses

You are right, if built right old houses may have character and value.   Or they may not. 

Age is no assurance of quality or value.  Yes even in the good old days poor things were made.  

There is some survivor bias to this stuff though that makes something higher quality the older it is. If it is that old and still standing, it was probably high quality otherwise it would have been torn down (location dependent, of course)

 

My wife was commenting that "they don't make them like they used to" when comparing our 1927 Sears home to her parents 1994 McMansion. Well, our home is definitely much better built than her parents, but they made E36 M3 back in 1927 as well--but more than likely, at least in our area, any home that old that was poorly constructed would have been torn down. You see it here with specific builders--in our town, a ranch home built by a specific builder will almost never be torn down, although it may grow a second story; the other builder from that same time made crappy houses and they're mostly torn down by now. Now when you step in a 1950's-60's ranch in our town, you could easily think "man, they don't build them like they used to" if you were comparing them to her parent's 94 house.

True, the whole "stood the test of time" thing.

Ive remodeled old houses that were beyond terrible, especially in the 20-40s in my area. One had an entire addition that was supported by a huge boulder that was slightly too low.....so they shimmed it with a blue fuzzy slipper. The electrical didnt have a junction box from the main house.....it had a junction ball of wrapped electrical tape with a mass of wire added thru the years, some aluminum it seemed. One outlet was live even with the mains off on the box. That was a E36 M3hole and should have been bombed from space, it was made as slipshod and cheaply as possible but just like now theres good and bad. There are some truely terrible houses made during the last boom that i doubt will be standing 50 years from now too

Antihero said:

Im kind of confused by this post, it seems like you think old houses are insane and are unlivable. Dont get me wrong, some are, but that has to do with the condition of them, not the actual structure of them. I live in a 1902 house and its perfectly fine, cement and horsehair plaster and all. 

It sounds perfectly usable for short term living with a new septic tank. No water damage, functioning heat, functioning electric, and no real problems besides the septic. Its could be just the septic lines to it as in the past you had clay pipe and the horrifically bad Orangeberg stuff (pretty much tar paper). In fact im almost certain its that since pumping the tank did nothing. It could be a fairly easy fix.

 

Old houses built right have their own character and can be spectacular houses

So my personal evaluation of the place is that as scary as it looks, it has the repairs already that I wouldn't want to repair (except maybe septic-I had the same thought - maybe we get lucky and just fix the pipe between the house and tank), I can leave alone most of the things I don't want to have to touch or replace (walls, floors, ceiling, roof), and everything it needs to be usable are things we can do a room at a time, on our own time and selectively outsource, for manageable out of pocket money.  Add in all of the plusses of this particular house, location, land, etc.  But others in my life who saw pictures/videos, and one who has seen the house in person, think I'm nuts, it's a money pit, it won't work out like I've planned to approach it, I'm not seeing or am overlooking the bad, and there's a lot I don't know.  I'm a rational enough thinker to take their advice for what it's worth (both a combination of some wisdom as well as unhelpful naysaying).  I can't expect perfect advice on here from folks who haven't seen the place, but the comments from folks who have done something similar as well as thoughts on how to go about the systems repairs are particularly helpful.  

This particular house was built pretty well to my eye but to a lower finish level - all of the finishes are basic and simple.  There's no fireplace.  No tile.  No milled wood work of any kind on the doors, windows, trim, etc. - it's all old simple trim lumber.  It was installed first and the plaster installed up to the wood, sometimes nearly flush with the face of the trim.  The fanciest thing I saw was varnished bead board ceiling in some of the rooms.  In an ideal world a bit fancier house would be nice to have, but it's totally unnecessary for a get away house and it certainly makes fixing those things easier for me (so long as the plaster stays attached).  So I think the house has very good bones that allowed it to stay original, and the owners put time and money in where it helped it last (roof before major leak damage, foundation before major structural failure, etc.).   

In reply to klb67 :

if i was in a position to do it, i'd do it.  you sound like you're looking at it logically and through realistic goggles.  do you know the deal with the mineral rights?

In reply to AngryCorvair :

I know what I've been told, but I would pull the relevant deeds and evaluate it for myself to be sure.  You might recall you and I exchanged messages years ago about your family's oil and gas rights.  I'm an attorney who does work for oil and gas operators.  I don't do title work now, but I can, and I can evaluate the issues.  That the oil and gas rights convey and are purportedly unleased is what attracted me to the property in the first place.  In a good leasing market, buying it and leasing it would be a no-brainer - I'd already own it.  I knew the days of good lease bonuses up there are over, but hoped there still might be a market.  In short, right now and for the foreseeable future, there isn't based on my research and discussions.  In 10 years, who knows?  Depends a lot on the price of gas.  

In reply to klb67 :

For sure I remember.  The guy you recommended was a real stud in the industry, and did a great job for me and my siblings.  The bonuses were crazy at that time!  IIRC, there were 41 of us (grandchildren of farmer) sharing rights to an 80ac Farm that was part of a 1280ac pool.  So we were about 6 places to the right of the decimal, LOL.  I took the lead for myself and my 5 siblings.  We each got $7500 signing bonus plus 16% at the well head.  I don’t know what any of my cousins negotiated, or if they did as one of my sisters did and just rolled over and accepted the first offer (no bonus, 12.5% “after any and all expenses”!).  I ended up getting her the same deal as the rest of us.

In reply to klb67 :

The one item I’d love is you mentioned a spring and creek?  Depending on the topography you might be able to lead that spring into a little man made pond/ swimming hole. 

You mentioned a barn.  Roughly how big?  What style?  Age?  Be very interesting to go to the county records and find the full history of the land.  

I’ve  got the original deed on my place going back to 1856 

The reason I ask is a lot of old farms used natural springs  to water their live stock.  You mention it was a big house, with a barn. And the spring/ creek. 120 acres. 

Indicates that when it was built the owner must have been reasonably prosperous.  That tells me too that in all likelihood the owner was smart enough to know value.  So in all probability the bones of the house are good.  No fireplace means the owner didn’t want the work and risk of a fireplace. He could afford a more expensive heat source. 

Let’s make some assumptions. Owner in his Late 20’s early 30’s in 1905 when it was built. Retires/passes away in his 80’s Son runs farm until he retires/ passes away. No children or children don’t want to farm and sits empty for a few years.  2-3 generations, the math works.  

Land probably very fertile, no pesticides/ fertilizers in more than a decade makes it unlikely the water would be contaminated.  

Wow. Now THERE’S  a festival of rampant speculation!!

SVreX said:

Wow. Now THERE’S  a festival of rampant speculation!!

and it was labeled as such.  so what?   why engage?

SVreX said:

Wow. Now THERE’S  a festival of rampant speculation!!

I now have the name of the next music festival I plan. 

In reply to AngryCorvair :

Good question. I’ll ask you the same. 

klb67 said:

Antihero said:

Im kind of confused by this post, it seems like you think old houses are insane and are unlivable. Dont get me wrong, some are, but that has to do with the condition of them, not the actual structure of them. I live in a 1902 house and its perfectly fine, cement and horsehair plaster and all. 

It sounds perfectly usable for short term living with a new septic tank. No water damage, functioning heat, functioning electric, and no real problems besides the septic. Its could be just the septic lines to it as in the past you had clay pipe and the horrifically bad Orangeberg stuff (pretty much tar paper). In fact im almost certain its that since pumping the tank did nothing. It could be a fairly easy fix.

 

Old houses built right have their own character and can be spectacular houses

So my personal evaluation of the place is that as scary as it looks, it has the repairs already that I wouldn't want to repair (except maybe septic-I had the same thought - maybe we get lucky and just fix the pipe between the house and tank), I can leave alone most of the things I don't want to have to touch or replace (walls, floors, ceiling, roof), and everything it needs to be usable are things we can do a room at a time, on our own time and selectively outsource, for manageable out of pocket money.  Add in all of the plusses of this particular house, location, land, etc.  But others in my life who saw pictures/videos, and one who has seen the house in person, think I'm nuts, it's a money pit, it won't work out like I've planned to approach it, I'm not seeing or am overlooking the bad, and there's a lot I don't know.  I'm a rational enough thinker to take their advice for what it's worth (both a combination of some wisdom as well as unhelpful naysaying).  I can't expect perfect advice on here from folks who haven't seen the place, but the comments from folks who have done something similar as well as thoughts on how to go about the systems repairs are particularly helpful.  

This particular house was built pretty well to my eye but to a lower finish level - all of the finishes are basic and simple.  There's no fireplace.  No tile.  No milled wood work of any kind on the doors, windows, trim, etc. - it's all old simple trim lumber.  It was installed first and the plaster installed up to the wood, sometimes nearly flush with the face of the trim.  The fanciest thing I saw was varnished bead board ceiling in some of the rooms.  In an ideal world a bit fancier house would be nice to have, but it's totally unnecessary for a get away house and it certainly makes fixing those things easier for me (so long as the plaster stays attached).  So I think the house has very good bones that allowed it to stay original, and the owners put time and money in where it helped it last (roof before major leak damage, foundation before major structural failure, etc.).   

Maybe post some pics here and we can give you a better idea of what we see?

Some people are weird about houses, my mother in law is one who considers houses older than 15 years to be horrible, but remember....you are on a forum full of people who build race cars for $2k. We are a different type of folks

In reply to Antihero :

I appreciate that pictures of the place might facilitate discussion, but since it's someone else's house, I'll respect their privacy and hold off on posting any pics for now.  If we pull the trigger on it, I'll be sure to post some.  

So the one person who was in the house with me (besides my 10 year old son) I think was pretty taken aback by the trash and filth in the place, especially knowing that a widow had lived in it for a while like that.  It seems that she just moved out one day, leaving behind what was there.  But it was really personnel effects and trash, not garbage, and it's clear parts of the house were just used to store junk for years, probably decades.  Take all that away and a good cleaning, and it's just an old house.  I've certainly seen and cleaned a lot worse, where you had to start with a shovel and keep digging just to find the floor.  

It's always hard to get the hoarder smell out.

ultraclyde said:

It's always hard to get the hoarder smell out.

This would be a situation where I send in a professional cleaning crew, followed by painters. Just budget $2000 for it (or more, I don't know as the guy I use for painting cuts me a good deal in exchange for other work). 

In reply to mtn :

I actually spoke with a local ServePro franchise rep about this sort of thing and what it might cost, and will probably go that route if we buy.  I'd have them come in and tell me what they'd recommend if anything, beyond their overall cleaning to get it ready to paint.  Then decide if we'd do it ourselves or have them do it.  

The real estate agent tells me that the seller plans to sell the house empty and just needs time to get it empty, but it will still need a significant cleaning.  I also have my doubts about the seller being able, even with family help, to get it empty.  There's a lot of work there.  

In reply to ultraclyde :

You really never get odors out of a house, doesn’t matter, smokers, hoarders,  Fire, whatever. Best you can do is cover it with fresh paint after painting it with a shellac based primer like Kilz ( I know it’s a synthetic shellac not the real stuff but it works pretty much the same).