Forum
« Lock in mortgage rate before signing purchase contract? Fair price for s. slope house? »
March 14, 2008
Do brownstones usually need renovation?
We are on the verge of buying a small (16.5 x 40) brownstone in a prime location. Purchase price is pretty low relative to comps but when you factor in the work we need to do (lowest estimates have come in at 400K total) it winds up being much closer to comps, and indeed on the expensive side (esp in this uncertain market). However, we wonder if any brownstone we buy would need work anyway, so in that sense, maybe this is a good deal.
Inspector, contractor and architects I've spoken to all tell me that almost all brownstones (unless gut renovated within last 15-20 years) need upgrades to mechanicals, and of course, it's hard to find a place that's exactly right as is (in terms of configuration, kitchens/baths, etc.). But I'm curious if most people familiar with the brownstone market can answer whether indeed most brownstones would need work anyway, or are many of them basically in move-in condition?
Comments
Part of it depends on your definition of move-in condition. Some people are willing to live with quite older (and perhaps ugly) kitchens and bathrooms while they save for and plan their renovations. They are also happy to live with not new electrical and plumbing until they do that renovation. Some do the whole house at once, as soon as, or even before, they move in; some do projects piecemeal as they can afford them.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:22 PM
Your posts are tedious. Bite the bullet or stay in your apartment.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:40 PM
10:40 - why the hostility? This is what gives this list a bad rap.
Posted by: housesearcher at March 14, 2008 10:59 PM
And 10:58, I'm not renting, I already own a beautiful apt that only needed limited renovation.
Posted by: housesearcher at March 14, 2008 11:00 PM
you could gut and reno the place probably for 100-200k depends on the finishes you pick. anything over that is for multi millionaires and their manhattan houses.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at March 14, 2008 11:01 PM
i agree 50k per fl.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:24 PM
1101... I have a friend that I call "the drive by critic". We can be in the car, and from the curb the declaration will be made that... oh that gallery show is lousy, oh that restaurant is crowded... Drive by Critic misses a lot. You have a similar tendency...
How can you define the budget at 100-200K without knowing what 9:58's criteria is.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:37 PM
I don't understand the OP's insistance on a gut renovation, which (unless it has deteriorated into a shell) destroy's the character that, I would hope, is what attracts most people to brownstones. it is impossible to generalize about whether any brownstone will need work. It depends on how wedll a house has been maintained over the years and what workprevious owners had done,
Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 14, 2008 11:47 PM
'need' is often an abused word. I'm sure that the place is habitable.
To put this in perspective, my parents moved into a brownstone in 1981; it took them a few months to do a crappy reno. There were many inconveniences (ceilings falling, zero water pressure on the top floor, sputtering heating system, cement on the floor over the wide floor boarsd), and it took them 20+ years of work to get it to a decent standard, but they didn't spend anything approaching what you are talking about, even adjusted for inflation.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:51 PM
Brownstone houses are at least 100 years old. Unless you are looking at one that has had its mechanicals updated recently, it is inevitable that they are going to need work. As the first poster said, the amount of work depends on your priorities, and the house's priorities. The biggies are electrical, plumbing, roof, furnace and heating, and windows. Everything thing else is elective, as stated, some people can live with kitchens and bathrooms not being perfect, some can live without central air conditioning, some can live with other needed repairs and upgrades undone, and do them one project or floor at a time. Depends on you and your budget, time, family needs, etc.
Personally, I am always more attracted to a home that is not "done". I would rather have a fixer-upper that I could put my personal stamp on - fix the kitchen, baths the way I want, choose my own lighting, paint, floor finishes, etc. If money was no object, I'd want a structurely sound wreck, with plenty of original detail, and let me make it the house of my dreams. I know this is not most people's idea of a good time.
Bottom line, if the house speaks to you, and is ideal, except needs some work, and you can afford to do it, and still keep your sanity, go for it. Mrs. Limestone's reno is a perfect example of that mindset, and now they have an absolutely gorgeous home.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 14, 2008 11:53 PM
You refuse to listen to those telling you to stay in your apartment and save more. You are never going to be able to make all the decisions involved in a major reno. You are an endless stream of publicly aired second guesses.
Your question is ridiculous. Surely this wasn't the first house you saw so you know some brownstones need renovations and some do not.
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 12:17 AM
Actually, 12:17, this is the first house we actually inspected (it's not like we throw around inspection money every time we see or even make an offer on a house!), and I was very surprised to learn from the inspector (and architects) that most of the problems uncovered were, from what I was told, typical of most brownstones. So yes, we've seen tons of houses, but there's a big difference between seeing something on the surface and going as far as inspection, detailed conversations with architects, etc. I don't yet have many friends how have bought brownstones but the ones who have actually all have to sink quite a bit of money into upgrades, but since that's a small group, I really wondered if this is typical.
As for cost of the renovation and what we "need" to do - there's not much detail left and the current owner alas made some very bad choices so the house needs reconfiguration plus new floors, walls, kitchen, baths, plus exterior work and issues such as addressing a flooding basement. Certainly hope to do for less than 400K (and no, it's not a total gut) but this figure has come from a range of people so we're being conservative for now though yes, we'll probably phase the work.
I really don't get people who critique other people's questions on this list - what is the point? I have learned a lot from reading others' posts. For example, the posts about people's income vs. their mortgage have been very informative (i.e. in the gentrification thread), and actually have helped me see the value of stretching ourselves so no, we probably will not wait and save more for now, but rather renovate in phases (or ideally, less expensively if we can).
Anyway, thanks to all who are providing useful responses - that's what is great about this list and I just wish the negative folks would stop cluttering the board with their mean-spirited and totally unhelpful posts. And for the record, when we did renovate in our apt, we were very clear about our decisions and everything was done on time and well within budget - we just did lots of research before starting!
Posted by: housesearcher at March 15, 2008 12:39 AM
As always Montrose Morris and Bob Marvin are the voices of sanity here.
I'm from the UK originally, and the perception there (and its one I share despite the many years I've been here) is that Americans want the best and they want it NOW, whatever the cost to their financial stability. I grew up in the "make do and mend" aura of post war Britain and when I bought my house the mindset that was engendered by that philosophy colored the way that I made improvements to the house. Was it habitable? Absolutely! Were there things that needed doing pretty promptly? Yes, and we did those things first. Were there things that we would like to change (and still do)? For sure, but there was, and is, no way that we were going to pile debt on top of our mortgage to do them if the imperfections were not compromising the structural stability, weather-tightness, or life-safety of the house. Bit by bit we did (and still are doing) the work that we can afford and that preserves the architectural integrity of the house. So, we live with a kitchen that would be mocked if ever the house was featured on Brownstoner. I deal with the occasional climb down to the cellar when the heat gun / air conditioner combination trips a circuit breaker. We don't come home every day and go into paroxysms of fear and shame that things aren't "just so". We've got a roof over our heads where we brought up 2 kids, we love the space, and our mortgage will be paid off in 5 years. It'll probably never be featured in the Boerum Hill house tour, but it ain't a wreck either. Most importantly it works for us and, even if we were to make it perfect, the subsequent owners would probably say, "I don't like that" and rip shit out to put their own imprint on it. IMHO the sense of entitlement to a perfect life is largely what has brought us to the sorry financial state that The What takes such joy in.
Posted by: johnife at March 15, 2008 1:22 AM
John Ife is a perfect example of why I don't like staying as guests in people's houses in the U.K. Things just don't work all that well, and why people put up with it - I don't know. It's just darned uncomfortable. It's not about esthetics. It's not about how much money they have. Just being frugal. I know how to pinch a penny, sorry, things have to WORK in my house.
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 8:38 AM
Dictionary definitions of frugal:
"economical in use or expenditure; prudently saving or sparing; not wasteful: a frugal manager".
"Practicing or marked by economy, as in the expenditure of money or the use of material resources"
The fact that the word is used here in a pejorative sense speaks volumes. Kind of reminds me of the way the word "liberal" has been warped this side of the pond.
Posted by: johnife at March 15, 2008 9:01 AM
johnife wins the marmite prize this morning. I'm sure people in the UK don't enjoy you staying in their houses, either. But ain't it nice to get HEALTHCARE?
Posted by: mshook at March 15, 2008 9:48 AM
Oh no! Not Marmite! I'd have that the repulsive taste of that product was something that could be agreed upon whatever one's opinion is on this thread.
Posted by: johnife at March 15, 2008 9:55 AM
Johnife, I enjoy your posts as well, and I agree with you 100%. 8:38's post is a perfect example of American arrogance and entitlement. Why should anyone's home have to meet up to someone else's unrealistic sense of standards?
I've tripped more than a few breakers over the years, and have lived with some things that would make 8:38 faint, such as no a/c, but I own my home, and little by little, it gets done.
I've always admired the English and European aesthetic of preserving the past, and living in a home layered with history, and a mixture of the old and new. It obviously resonates with many people here, a visit to any bookstore will lead you to volumes of decorating books and magazines on the subject. Ralph Lauren made an enormous fortune from the look. I don't think it is a cheapness or frugality, but rather a mindset that says that life is short, enjoy what you have, add to it what you need, recycle and reuse what is already here, and enjoy your home. Works for me.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 15, 2008 9:59 AM
whaddya want then, salad cream?
Posted by: mshook at March 15, 2008 10:01 AM
Admiration is one thing, but actually living there day to day is wearisome. Yes, I know the definition of frugal - been known to go round trip on a $2 fare by transferring to a bus from subway when running a quick errand. Universal healthcare is great when you are employed with good benefits in the UK so that you can still consult with private doctors on the side. Not so great if you have to rely solely on the NHS. But I've known people to live for 5 years with a badly leaking shower door and sopping up the mess with towels instead of fixing the soddin' thing. Or running a washing machine on a hazardous electric circuit when it is both more frugal in the long run and safer to replace the darned thing.
For the original poster - I suggest living in the place without doing any work, because what you want and need may be quite different from what you think before buying in.
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 10:31 AM
Ignoring the vast majority of responses that are not answering your question at all - I think your question is a little confusing.
Are you asking if there are any 100 year old houses that have never been renovated but are ready for modern life? No, there is no such thing. Anything built for a family 100+ years ago is going to be missing most of the "must haves" for a modern couple. In addition to just not having certain features, all of the major systems of a 100 year old home will need some updating to work properly. Even if perfectly cared for, things get old and eventually need to be repaired/replaced. And lastly, very old homes tend to have had some period of neglect or damage in its life that needs to be corrected. Some have extended periods of neglect and some have just minor issues. But all need some TLC. So you have to factor those three elements into your consideration of any old home.
Old homes are not for everyone. They have their charms along with their pains.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at March 15, 2008 10:34 AM
While I'm still on my soapbox - the other thing is always know your market. In my particular townhouse market, it makes economic sense to renovate ala Mrs. Limestone because I get far more than the cost of renovation + cost of house if the house were put on the market in turnkey condition. This is obviously not the case in every market. Research the heck out of your market (yes, I know your home isn't an investment necessarily). Cheapest thing is to do nothing other than emergency fixes; live there so you have a real knowledge of how you want your place fixed up.
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 10:35 AM
Thank you jonife for saying that MM and I are the voices of sanity here, but IMO YOU'RE the real voice of sanity on this thread. For me, one of the charms of old house living is precisely that everything is NOT perfect. Of course that also fits my natural inclination to be frugal and, perhaps, even CHEAP :-)
Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 15, 2008 1:10 PM
FWIW, my husband is European and renovated a place he had there beautifully and economically, preserving old detail while adding modern touches - his sale of that place is what's allowing us to trade up. And we are frugal types (bring our lunch to work everyday, make most purchases on sale, etc.). But I also don't believe in being penny-wise and pound foolish - that is, I'd rather pay to fix something right (i.e. electricity/plumbing) than risk an accident. And, while this is a more personal issue, it's not worth it to us to make what is already a significant investment to trade up, only to live in a place that we find dumpy (since our current apt is really nice but will be too small for us long-term, whereas the current house owner just did sad things like put in new, cheap, ugly floors). At the very least, we need to make some cosmetic fixes (in addition to important structural fixes) to feel good about living there! But we are planning to be frugal about the cosmetic choices i.e. Ikea cabinets, mid-range appliances, etc. (and if we can recycle/resuse, all the better!) And of course, I know phasing things is key though I'm also learning that it can be more expensive to not do certain things (i.e. plumbing) all at the same time.
10:35's point of doing lots of research is obviously something I agree with! Hence I don't get the posters who critique me for asking lots of questions on this board. In fact, a major thing I'm trying to research is precisely whether we will ultimately be putting more into this house than what its market value would be when fully done. I really think this house is right on the threshold of that question - great location, but the house itself is small and pretty dumpy (without, alas, much of the old charm that some brownstones have) we have to have vision and a smart renovation plan to make it worth it. The main reason we are buying it is for the perfect location and the opportunity to buy something with a purchase price that reflects the need to renovate, instead of having to pay several 100K more and then find we have no money left to renovate - if indeed, most brownstones would need renovation anyway.
Anyway, my OP was really about this question of whether people find that ANY brownstone, even one with some upgrades since being built 100 years ago, needs some renovation. We've seen lots of places with higher asks than this house we're buying, but IMO, they looked like they *still* needed quite a bit of work, but I'm wondering if they are in better shape than they seem. And, on the other hand, I'm curious if the houses in the 2-3+ million dollar range (well beyond our budget) are generally fully upgraded - or if, even at the price point, you *still* often need to do work - and I imagine that gets really expensive since they are bigger and hence there's more house to fix up. What I'm getting from this thread so far is that there probably are very few houses that don't need some additional investment beyond the purchase price.
By the way, we do intend to live in the house for a few months before we begin the renovation, precisely to get to know it better and also save money on a rental while we select contractor/architect. But since we have had lots of discussions already, and there is so much to be done, it's clear that we have to put in a big chunk towards the renovation no matter what (just to fix plumbing/electric/exterior/basement flooding, plus open up parlor level walls, put in new kitchen, etc).
Again, thanks to those who provide useful feedback - it's very interesting and helpful to me!
Posted by: housesearcher at March 15, 2008 3:11 PM
I don't understand the question in your post.
The advise you rec'd from the pros is right: yes, any home that you buy that hasn't had mechanicals updated in the last 20 years will probably need to have some work done. There are many home in move-in condition on the market; they have been updated more recently.
Is this that hard to understand?
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 3:57 PM
Actually, what I did not understand is how many houses have truly had recent, full upgrades that were done right, and did not need improvement. No one I know has bought such a house, and it's not been clear to me how many of the houses we've seen have really been updated properly. For example, this house we are buying was marketed as having upgraded electric/plumbing but then the inspection revealed that the plumbing was in fact aging/degraded (so either the owner was lying or unaware of real condition), and while the electric had had some upgrades they were not to code and were poorly done and thus needed to be redone. This is especially crucial since there was a scary (and dangerous) electrical fire in this house a few years ago, precisely due to electric not being done right.
We like the idea of being able to customize the house cosmetically to our taste, and the lower purchase price is attractive to us from that perspective - that is, this seems like a unique opportunity to redo a house they way we want, instead of paying for someone else's renovations - but we are not as excited about having to do the numerous costly structural fixes. Given my experience with this house (misrepresented as being "all new" and "move-in" structurally), I'm wondering how often others have truly been able to just move in without any upgrades. Our original offer was based on cosmetic work only, so the inspection was a rude awakening to all of the structural problems.
We actually have decided to buy this house in spite of these problems, but now there is a legal hitch due to title problems which were not revealed by the owner until last week (so it may all fall through) so I am continuing to educate myself about brownstone renovation, as we wait for contracts to be prepared, provided the legal issues get sorted out.
Posted by: housesearcher at March 15, 2008 4:28 PM
we moved into a house that was indeed "move-in" and we paid the appropriate mark-up (over 2.5mm and that was several years ago).
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 5:47 PM
Yes, Ive seen brownstones totally renovated and well done. They are really hard to come by since the kind of renovation you would want would be the type done for the owner who later decided to sell (rather than a flip which I don't usually find very appealling). And since they are so rare and had so much money/time put into them, they are very expensive. Ultimately we realized that it would be cheaper to buy a total dump and have it gut renovated ourselves but that "economy" is paid for in other ways (risk, aggravation, tons of time, etc). Its really a matter of personal choice.
PS: Ignore the posters here who want to beat on you for asking a question. I don't know why people bother posting if they don't want to add anything constructive.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at March 15, 2008 6:56 PM
I think those who are spending serious money doing the gut renovations are doing it because they are staying there for years and it's their home for life. So you don't really get the opportunity to buy those houses. Most the houses that come on the market are unrenovated or just partly renovated. When we looked at houses before buying one, we did not see one single one that didn't have old mechanicals and a stinky leaky garden level or basement. 99% of what you look at when you are buying a 100 year old house will require a lot of work. Yes even in the prime neighborhoods.
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 8:20 PM
Have you been able to negotiate the price down from your offer to reflect these costs?
Posted by: guest at March 15, 2008 10:34 PM
I would say that yes, most brownstones are in need of renovation. Unless you're talking about the mansions in the Heights and Park Slope, most brownstones weren't built for the wealthy. Consequently, most of them were lived in hard, and went for long periods where maintenance was neglected or deferred. In the 1930s and 1940s, most people weren't thinking of pristine renovations. In the 1950s and 1960s, people were thinking of ``modernizing'' and labor-saving devices. The 1970s was a special period of travesty all its own.
That being said, I think most posters here tend to do work on their houses over time, rather than buy, and then spend a year and a half and hundreds of thousands of dollars on the perfect restoration.
Posted by: cgguy at March 16, 2008 6:30 AM
10:34 - We were able to knock down $50K off purchase price to reflect need for new electicity/plumbing. Since the house is small (16.5 x 40, 3 floors), it's not as expensive as it would be for a 20' 4 story house. Plus, lack of old detail makes renovation easier since there's not much to tiptoe around/preserve. We of course tried to knock down much more off the purchase price but 50 is what we settled on. Frankly, we think we are overpaying a bit, but the location is absolutely perfect for us (right next to our best friends) and we are tentatively excited about being able to renovate it to our taste (though it's nervous-making given the potential cost).
Posted by: housesearcher at March 16, 2008 9:24 AM
"The 1970s was a special period of travesty all its own"
Ahem--the 70s (and late 60s) were the years the "brownstone revival" started. Sure, there was some lousy work done then, but not reallyb all that much worse than some of the crimes being committed against old houses now.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 16, 2008 11:28 AM
housesearcher, I remember your posts in the past, and congratulations on finding a place to buy. I completely understand your feelings -- when we went into contract on a brownstone in 2001 I continued to attend open houses for months in order to convince myself we hadn't invested our life savings in a foolish way.
IMO, location is everything -- if you found a house you love in a place you like, it's worth it, even if you might be slightly over paying in the long run. However, I do caution you about making location decisions based on the location itself -- that is, if your friends move away next year, are you still pleased to be living on that block?
And, to answer your question -- I think all brownstones need work, although the amount varies. We have seen some 3.5 - 4 million dollar properties and there are still (little) things I felt were missing, especially at that price (i.e. central air), or some configuration I didn't love. And of course, you are hoping that the plumbing/wiring/structural stuff in the finely renovated home are done correctly, but there isn't the same guarantee as if you do it yourself.
It sounds like you don't have expensive tastes and can do a renovation for your budget, especially if there are no details to preserve. Spend most of your money on things you can't see (plumbing, wiring, etc.). It's frustrating at first (you feel like you spend a ton of money but the house looks the same) but it pays off in the long run. If you plan to eventually take over the whole house, think about a configuration now that will allow you to do so later with little expense. And good luck.
Posted by: guest at March 16, 2008 12:57 PM
12:57 - thanks! This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for (and thanks too to Mrs. Limestone, 8:20 and 6:30 and others with useful answers). As for the location, yes, we've thought about the issue of our friends moving, but really the location is about as prime as you can get even if they move - that just adds a very special extra incentive which is truly unique to us (and is probably why we bid higher than others). But for sure, the location is the key thing convincing us that it can't be that bad an investment, even if the renovation is expensive.
When we bought our apt (also in great location), I too continued visiting tons of open houses after going to contract and did tons more research on the apt and others like it - it turned out to be a great investment, so that's a comforting reminder as we embark on this house.
My European husband actually hates A/C and central air so at least that will save us money (and I also prefer good old-fashioned ceiling fans and open windows for the few weeks of the year that you really need them).
At this point, the thing that actually worries me most about the house is this new legal snag since the owner never revealed until this past week that there were title problems. So, after all my research, it may fall through due to that! But no matter what, this process has been extremely educational.
One other question: as a back-up (since the legal issues now put this house in jeopardy), we've looked at a few other houses in last week. They too are listed as 16.5 x 40 (actually 16.7 but that's almost same thing), but when I took the interior measurements (yes, I actually brought a tape-measure), they were longer inside than the house we're hopefully about to buy. Our house is about 36'11" in interior walls, whereas other houses I've seen this past week are more like 40-42' interior walls, even though they are listed on Property Shark as being 40'. Is it common for Property Shark to be so off? Just curious since one thing I've gotten by going to other open houses of houses listed as same size is to try and envision possibilities of house we're buying. Since current owner has it so cluttered and chopped up, we're trying to imagine it opened up and decluttered. But now I think these other houses listed as same size are not a good comparison since they actually might be a bit bigger.
Posted by: housesearcher at March 16, 2008 2:28 PM
Sounds like you have both a good handle on what you want and a conservative approach, both excellent predictors of a good outcome.
You can live with most things unless they're threatening...even a 50-year old furnace that, eg, we kept for 2 years, no doubt paying double for oil, but it worked ok. As others have indicated, if the wiring, plumbing and heating work, it's livable.
Our house had been flipped and cleaned up cosmetically. We lived on one floor of this ex-4-flat while we fixed the bottom two, finally renting the ground floor and using the triplex. But we took our time, every year the last 5 we did one semi-major thing...deck, 1 bath, trim and doors, etc. It will never be perfect and I wouldn't even want it to be, but it all works (reasonably.)
Posted by: cmu at March 16, 2008 2:55 PM
We are going into contract on a four family in a nice part of carroll gardens that needs a ton of work. The architect and contractors we've talked with have all said that the mechanical and cosmetic updates that this will need are pretty standard for any house in the area that is not recently done (and selling for over 2MM). The costs quoted have been from 150k to 450k but I think that with hands on management of the project and lightening up on the high end stuff, we will do it for under 250 and hopefully much less. We'll probably also have to skip out on some non-essentials at first, like the facade and garden. So essentially, we are in your boat and i don't know if that makes you feel better or not but that seemed to be what you were asking. To everyone else, while it is fascinating (not) to hear about your frugal sensibility and.or view of the American lifestyle, perhaps you could post those in response to people who actually asked for that information. Cheers.
Posted by: Colonel at March 16, 2008 11:24 PM
you are nuts to be buying right now. prices are going to come WAY down.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 11:20 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.