Frame House Price VS brownstone/Brick Price
In our search for a townhouse in the Park Slope/Windsor Terrace/Clinton Hill/ Fort Greene nabes we have noticed that frame houses appear to be more less expensive than your traditional brick/brownstones. Frame seems possible for 1.3M or less and brick is inevitably over. Let’s say quality/size etc of the properties is equal, why the difference…
In our search for a townhouse in the Park Slope/Windsor Terrace/Clinton Hill/ Fort Greene nabes we have noticed that frame houses appear to be more less expensive than your traditional brick/brownstones. Frame seems possible for 1.3M or less and brick is inevitably over.
Let’s say quality/size etc of the properties is equal, why the difference in pricing? Is insurance also affected by being frame or brick?
Super modern renovations are more often than not because the historical owners did not have the means to maintain all the detail and things fell into disrepair. Plus it is still very expensive to repair or restore damaged details.
3:24 poster does a good summary. Wood frames are more vulnerable to fire. That’s why there are fewer of them. They’ve disappeared over time.
I own a wood frame house and insurance has not been an issue.
I think that brick houses are generally better constructed. They also have more mass. As a result, brownstones are less flexible and more prone to crakcing. Then again, all of these brownstones + frame houses are 150 years old and cracking or settling somewhere.
By my taste, a lot of brownstones are over done. They were finished in an age when pretense to wealth was very important. Hence, all the elaborate molding etc. Sometimes it works and sometimes it’s too much. I think that’s why often when they’re remodeled, they are done with super modern interiors. I find the frame houses have a certain charm. I know the interior of our frame house has a level of workmanship and craftsmanship that is hard to replicate.
I live in a frame house and really love it, but I do see the drawbacks. Frame houses are typically not as well constructed as brick/brownstone and sometimes the details are much less opulent. Frames are often smaller as well. Ours is only 20 x 32 vs. the typical brownstone at 20 x 45. Many frame houses are only 3 stories vs. 4-5 for a brownstone.
As recently as the 80’s you could not get homeowners insurance for a frame house because of the perceived fire risk, and our insurance is almost double that of a brownstone.
Our inspector actually said that framehouses age better than brownstones because of the flexibility of the exterior. When things start to settle, a frame house can move with it, while a brownstone facade will crack. For the price and location, we got a great deal bcause we bought a frame, but it’s all a trade-off.
Speaking only for myself… I would never own a wooden house in NYC because of the risk of fire. I’ve heard too many stories of entire rows of houses going up after a house in the middle of the block catches fire.
(Okay fine.. concrete warehouses also go up and take out the entire block, but you have to spread a lot of accelerant to get the job done.)
I haven’t paid much attention to the difference in insurance prices, but here are a few possible reasons…
A frame house would go up in flames alot quicker than brick.
Wood siding needs painting every few years. If it’s covered with vinyl…yuck.
Termites eat wood, not brick. Also, wood can rot.
That being said…it’s still a matter of taste. I own a wood house and a brownstone and I definitely favor the wood one.
Maintenance is the prime reason. Stone/Brick on a 100 plus year old house holds up better than wood (termites, water damage etc.).
Yes, floor joists etc in a brownstone/brick house are wood and subject to deterioration, the entire structure itself is not made of wood.
As far as aesthetics, depends on the beholder. I like both.
I think it’s just the common perception that brick is more esthetically pleasing and easier to maintain. I know I would pay more for brick.