« Video: Fixing a Clogged Drain 4th Avenue Sites Primed for New Construction »
December 10, 2007
Gutting Begins at the Grand Avenue Haunted House
The demo crew showed up at 432 Grand Avenue to begin taking apart the interior of the old wood frame house. The three-story building has been without plumbing or electricity for several years now; holes in the roof have also been letting in rainwater for some time now. (The photo below is from the parlor floor last winter.) According to one of the workers, the floors and stairs were very unstable. The daughters of the woman who used to own the house have an approved permit for a "complete interior renovation" as well as the "addition of partial penthouse floor" and an "exterior front facade restoration." The house's twin next door is at the tail end of a painstaking two-year renovation. Let's hope it's not impacted by what will surely be extensive structural work at Number 432.
Inside the Grand Avenue Haunted House [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3164
Comments
Anyone know what made the owners all of a sudden decide to restore the house after so many years? Did they win the lottery? Or did the next-door neighbor in the restored house chip in so it would add curb appeal to his own house (in light of a future sale maybe?)
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 11:10 AM
Some nice 'period detail' in that house!
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 11:18 AM
Now's the time to install peephole camera into the neighbor's bedrooms.
Posted by: Rehab at December 10, 2007 11:38 AM
It is no harder to renovate this house than to renovate any vacant old house.
Little wooden houses like this could not be simpler to repair, rebuild and rehab.
What structural conditions could you have?
Sagging joists? sagging stair? hole in roof?
That is all construction 101.
This baby can be gutted, rewired, replumbed, new furnace and central air installed in no time. Working from scratch is easy, it is much harder to work around people if they are in residence or if they are looking to preserve the old plaster and such.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 12:19 PM
From what I understand it was a probate issue and they just gained the legal ability to renovate the house...
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:31 PM
prostate issues are important to deal with. My uncle in Cleveland had a prostate the size of an orange and.....
oh, probate, never mind.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:51 PM
"Restore" is probably not an accurate term to use. Complete gut and rebuild from the inside out is more like it. Maybe some details could be saved, but from the looks of it, doubtful.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 1:58 PM
Why not? you restore some things, replace others. You are restoring the building to good condition. It is not always just about the base moldings.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:08 PM
If the building has been in disrepair as long as it has been made out to be, it will need new wiring, new plumbing, new heating and before you do that seeing just the bit of water damage depicted, new structural framing which would need to be addressed first. All of those nice details made of plaster will probably fall apart and crumble once they are touched. How much wood do you think hasn't rotted? Not sure what is their to save other than the foundation with original floorplan (Plus ammendments)that would calssify it a renovation instead of a knockdown and rebuild. It is not just old (which might be worthy of restoration) but also appears unmaintained to the point where safety could be the first issue requiring remmediation. Sorry, you don't retsore some things and replace others in a situation like this. That would be like dropping a new parquet floor down on a rotten sub floor and beams.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:49 PM
Okay, I take that back. I would save the fireplace mantle.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Isn't that Adrian Grenier's house on the right?
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:07 PM
2:49.
you know not of what you speak.
even in bad cases like this you may only have to replace twenty or thirty percent of the total joists. No need to throw out good joists. In addition, most of the partion framing will probably be OK. I agree that most if not all of the plaster and lath should be thrown out. But portions can be kept to cast replicas. Most of the casework will need to be replaced but sometimes the humidity does the stripping for you and leaves perfectly good casework. the old wood was remarkable. It is a case by case thing. You don't walk in assuming that you will need a hundred percent replacement of all structure and trim. That's silly.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 3:08 PM
uh yes, 3:07.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 4:10 PM
Hence the peephole cameras, 3:07
Posted by: Rehab at December 10, 2007 6:01 PM
3:08 Your assessment is optimistic. 100% replacement? Maybe not, probably overstated. Saving much outside of a couple partions and some lumber, not realistic either. Investing that amount of money either way and not having new house, now that would be silly.
Posted by: guest at December 10, 2007 8:00 PM
Does anyone know what's going to happen with the son who lived there? I hear he's been relocated.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:50 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.