Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iufezgm wrote

Reply to comment by Kindly_Boysenberry_7 in Rising mortgage rates will exacerbate the housing situation in RVA by BumbleBeeVomit

That’s a bit circular. Yes, more expensive brick homes built in the past are better than cheap wood homes today in some ways.

Unfortunately anything built before the 80s will have major lead and asbestos problems. The 60s and 70s are better, for sure, but if we go back further you’re running into places with bad insulation, cracks in foundations, old wiring, and poisoning like I mentioned earlier. Fixing these means is practically building a new house anyway.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iuftnk1 wrote

lead is just not a big deal. Asbestos isn't either in most situations, and is easy to remediate.

Your take on old houses is totally wrong, speaking professionally as someone who has built and rebuilt plenty of houses. It really depends on the house.

Plumbing and electrical are much bigger deals btw. With plumbing usually the biggest pain.

3

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iufzog2 wrote

Lead as a concern is less about cost and more about giving your kids brain damage. For example, lead that has chipped and fallen into the nearby soil. Related infrastructure is also a problem as it’s not always accessible to the resident.

Perhaps. I’ve also worked on houses but I’m sure less than you have. I’m also aware my condo building has cracks in the brickwork and foundation that are impossible to fix. It also gets tiresome having to pay 5-10k a year to maintain the 100 year old building in general.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iuie5fx wrote

it's just not an issue if you don't let your kids eat the house. I was raised in a lead paint house. As, I expect your were. As is my daughter and most of the kids here. You can google incidence of lead paint poisoning, but it's basically all in the projects you'll find.

Given I've been building and remodeling houses, primarily old houses, for 20 years now, yeah, I'm sure you have worked on them less than I have.

There are no cracks that are impossible to fix btw. It may be that you guys don't want to pay to fix them, which is another thing. Condos are famously cheap and pass the buck on repairs, it's the incentive structure

1

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iuijmrb wrote

>it's just not an issue if you don't let your kids eat the house. I was raised in a lead paint house.

Unfortunately it isn't this simple. Unless your only concern is with acute exposure, breathing in dust or other particulates can cause long-term damage during childhood, say, lower IQ, impulsivity and other mental health related issues. Google the lead-crime hypothesis for a broader view of chronic lead exposure. Luckily things aren't nearly as bad now as then, but, children are getting lead exposure from somewhere.

Kids often dig in the dirt and get filth on their hands, which then can end up in their mouths, which is another avenue for lead exposure. Digging in the yard is a normal part of childhood and soil contamination, say paint shedding into the yard over time, is not at all unusual in older homes.

>Given I've been building and remodeling houses, primarily old houses, for 20 years now, yeah, I'm sure you have worked on them less than I have.

I was reflecting on this, and I can see why what you're saying would make a lot of sense from a contractor's perspective. You're likely to deal with known lead issues, with owners (presumably of single-family houses) who are willing and able and aware to address maintenance issues, you are focused on the houses themselves directly and you aren't there for DIY home renovations.

Not everyone lives in a single family home where they're in full control of maintenance, not everyone has access to high quality contractors like yourself, not everyone is as knowledgeable or careful as you or your parents.

>There are no cracks that are impossible to fix btw. It may be that you guys don't want to pay to fix them, which is another thing. Condos are famously cheap and pass the buck on repairs, it's the incentive structure

For sure, although I'm not sure you can lift a multifamily unit for major foundation repairs. The issue here is primarily cost over time. Typically newer homes don't need foundation repairs.

Otherwise I agree. The incentives are pretty fucked for condos. People really, really hate tall buildings which understandably leads to bad policy.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_iuillxl wrote

it really is this simple. We have data. Data trumps anxieties.

No one is saying lead is good to eat. But your fears of consumption are almost entirely irrational. I had regular blood lead checks done on my daughter still, with no issues. Unsurprisingly.

I've worked on plenty of non single family homes. Lead is very easy to deal with. It requires dealing, yes, but it's really not a big deal. A few thousand dollars in equipment. It can be done perfectly safely DIY also. Or unsafely of course. But it's really like crossing the street - you can get killed, but it's easy to cross the street safely. Doesn't mean everyone does of course.

You can lift a multi. But you wouldn't. You'd prop it up and fix the issue. no need to lift. Lifting is a pain even for single family houses. Very few old buildings have foundation issues, they are much more common in the newer places for various reasons.

1

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iuim48b wrote

>it really is this simple. We have data. Data trumps anxieties.

This isn't my understanding, but, I hope you're right. Seems like lead as an issue has been taken more seriously over the 10 15 years so its getting a lot better anyway.

For the rest, sure. I'm skeptical things are as cheap and easy as you're implying, but, perhaps I'm wrong.

1

Kindly_Boysenberry_7 t1_iufyw7d wrote

Insulation is a non-issue and easily solved.

Cracks in foundations is not a certainty just because a house is old.

Rewiring a house is less of an issue and expense than you think, and most older homes have updated wiring to some extent.

Lead and asbestos are not the big deal issues that people make them.

Fixing any/all of these issues doesn't come anywhere near "building a new house." That's just not accurate. If you prefer new houses for whatever reason, great. But old houses are not these scary, dangerous, poisonous things that cost a fortune to fix.

1

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iugizh2 wrote

After seeing a stairwell begin peeling away from the floor, AC units fail and dangerous knob and tube wiring, and my own experience and research, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

1

Kindly_Boysenberry_7 t1_iugq3my wrote

Considering I'm probably double your age, grew up in and own old houses, have done full tax credit renovations both personally and with clients, and have over 15 years of full time experience in the real estate business, I agree. We will have to agree to disagree.

1

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iugravv wrote

I suppose your experience does mean than tens of thousands of young children aren’t being poisoned by “not a big deal” lead right now. Mostly from lead pipes and paint. I do appreciate your condescension of course.

1

Kindly_Boysenberry_7 t1_iuk2znt wrote

Look, I am not trying to be condescending, although on reflection I can see that it certainly came off that way. But continuing to put out inaccurate information helps no one.

Lead paint was a big deal in the 1970s. That's why the federal government outlawed lead in paint as of 1975ish, and there is still a federal lead disclosure required for any home built in full or in part before 1978. But most people who suffered lead poisoning did so when lead paint was easily accessible and peeling off surfaces, and children were eating the lead paint. That rarely happens now. If you buy a house built before 1978 I can almost guarantee there is lead paint in the house. However, it is "encapsulated," meaning it has been painted over so many times the lead paint is not accessible. Now, if you are sanding down wood trim or other surfaces in a pre-1978 home, yes, you need to take precautions because you don't want anyone to breathe or eat lead paint dust. But just the fact that there is lead paint in a home does not automatically make that home dangerous.

Asbestos is similar. Asbestos is dangerous when the fibers are "friable," floating around in the air. If you do not make the fibers friable, there is limited to no risk of asbestos injury. Most asbestos in old houses was insulation around pipes, sometimes mastic in tile adhesive, sometimes asbestos tile. If you leave it alone, the fibers don't become friable. If you want it abated, you can pay to have that happen.

I just don't think implying old houses are inherently dangerous is helpful to anyone.

1

Fit-Order-9468 t1_iuk3ib7 wrote

You’re good. I feel like I wasn’t giving the discussion enough attention. I can see why you’d feel a little offended given your knowledge and experience as well.

I’ll think back on this discussion some more. Housing is a major issue that I’m passionate about, but that also means being open to learning. Thank you for the conversation and I hope it wasn’t too uncomfortable.

1

Kindly_Boysenberry_7 t1_iuk454o wrote

No worries at all, I'm sorry for my tone. It's always much harder to have a dialogue virtually vs. in person, when there are no context clues on tone. I'm glad to hear you are passionate about housing. It really is a fascinating subject, in so many different ways.

I just wish that anyone that wanted to buy a house could. And that anyone that could afford to buy a house did.

2