Would you buy that for a dollar?
May 27, 2013 8:11 AM Subscribe
What with the American mortgage scandals of a few years back and the resulting global financial death crisis, quite a few cities have had problems with long term abandonment of housing stock. Buffalo is trying to do something about it, by offering houses for sale for one shiny dollar.
Of course there are some strings attached:
For those curious to know the work involved in buying and renovating a fixer-upper, one couple is documenting their struggles in their Unbreak My House blog.
Of course there are some strings attached:
"There are three main requirements when purchasing a homestead property; the owner must fix all code violations within 18 months, have immediate access to at least $5000, and live there for at least three years. You also have to cover the closing costs of the purchase."
For those curious to know the work involved in buying and renovating a fixer-upper, one couple is documenting their struggles in their Unbreak My House blog.
"Of course there are some strings attached"
So yet again, no poor people allowed.
posted by marienbad at 8:32 AM on May 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
So yet again, no poor people allowed.
posted by marienbad at 8:32 AM on May 27, 2013 [5 favorites]
Do they allow teardowns too, or it this a "keep the historical houses" effort? Seems it would be cheaper to rebuild in many cases.
posted by bonehead at 8:36 AM on May 27, 2013
posted by bonehead at 8:36 AM on May 27, 2013
Is any bank or CU in Buffalo offering a loan type to cover the other expenses? It seems like a $20k-$50k (just guessing at the extent of repairs) pseudo-mortgage would let a homeowner meet the requirements of purchase without spending much monthly compared to a normal home purchase.
posted by michaelh at 8:37 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by michaelh at 8:37 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
As someone who's dumped close to $100k into restoring a previously almost derelict townhouse, I wouldn't consider these bargains. Plus, 18 months is really short for fixing all the code violations, we've been at it for six years and I doubt that we'd passwords an inspection yet.
posted by octothorpe at 8:54 AM on May 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:54 AM on May 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm curious as to why the city wouldn't offer to waive its portion of the closing costs in some circumstances, which would likely get these houses sold all the faster. This also seems like the sort of thing that could attract help from a community or nonprofit group, or even something along the lines of the Rolling Jubilee.
posted by kewb at 9:07 AM on May 27, 2013
posted by kewb at 9:07 AM on May 27, 2013
we've been at it for six years and I doubt that we'd passwords an inspection yet.
aha! so there is a secret codephrase
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 9:18 AM on May 27, 2013 [10 favorites]
aha! so there is a secret codephrase
posted by whyareyouatriangle at 9:18 AM on May 27, 2013 [10 favorites]
So yet again, no poor people allowed.
They probably want to make the initial hurdles just low enough to attract people with some money, not low enough to attract people with no money into buildings that are going to need a lot of money to fix and maintain.
Buffalo doesn't exactly have a lot of money, and the taxable population is shrinking all the time, so it needs to bring some money into the city, not give more money away.
posted by pracowity at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2013
They probably want to make the initial hurdles just low enough to attract people with some money, not low enough to attract people with no money into buildings that are going to need a lot of money to fix and maintain.
Buffalo doesn't exactly have a lot of money, and the taxable population is shrinking all the time, so it needs to bring some money into the city, not give more money away.
posted by pracowity at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2013
Considering how cheap homes in Buffalo are, fixing all code violations in a $1 house is likely more expensive than just buying a liveable house with some array of code violations that are normal in an old house.
Oh, I'm sure a little load-bearing drywall here and there will work wonders.
posted by delfin at 9:24 AM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
Oh, I'm sure a little load-bearing drywall here and there will work wonders.
posted by delfin at 9:24 AM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
It seems like a $20k-$50k (just guessing at the extent of repairs) pseudo-mortgage would let a homeowner meet the requirements of purchase without spending much monthly compared to a normal home purchase.
Not in Buffalo. $50K will get you a perfectly reasonable house, probably even one that's been substantially redone. It'll likely be in a neighborhood that at least appears to be sketchy, but so are these $1 houses.
For giggles, you can point your browser to http://www.2findyourhome.com/ and select the city of Buffalo and a price range. If you live in NYC/Boston/DC/Calif, you will cry.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on May 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
Not in Buffalo. $50K will get you a perfectly reasonable house, probably even one that's been substantially redone. It'll likely be in a neighborhood that at least appears to be sketchy, but so are these $1 houses.
For giggles, you can point your browser to http://www.2findyourhome.com/ and select the city of Buffalo and a price range. If you live in NYC/Boston/DC/Calif, you will cry.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on May 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
Although the "$1" is attention-getting, I don't think this sort of thing is uncommon in this part of the country (a similar program in my county). It's also not the cheapest way to get a liveable home in a rust-belt city, as ROU_X suggested.
I work for a local chapter of a well-known international housing nonprofit, and our primary activity is rehabbing houses similar to these. We generally get them for free, through various avenues (it's easier for us, but most of the houses we get could be purchased by an individual for under $10k).
Despite getting our rehabs for free, we budget for selling them at a loss. Even still, I doubt we would take on any of the houses pictured in the article - I can't imagine any of them being under $50k rehabs, and I suspect 393 Masten would be much more (and we use mostly volunteer labor). We regularly turn down offers of free houses from private owners that are nicer than these.
My wife and I recently bought a house that did not need major repairs for about $60k (including the $3k in repairs that it did need), in a nice, low-crime area in Cleveland with great access to transit. We had to clean up the landscaping and someday we may "remediate" the old painted-over wood paneling, but I believe we would have spent far more on one of these dollar specials, not including the draining investment of time and decision-making. It's also probably a lot easier to get a loan on a $60k home that's worth $60k than on $60k to pour into a worthless home to make it worth $40k.
kewb, The closing costs on a $1 sale are pretty trivial compared to the rehab costs. In my jurisdiction, I think they might be something like $500. If that amount of money is a deterrent to a potential buyer, that buyer is probably not serious about rehabbing the house.
And bonehead, there are probably plenty of vacant lots of anyone wanted to build in these neighborhoods. But the idea of spending $200k+ building a house that will be worth maybe $120k when it's done is not appealing to most potential homeowners. Even my organization has stopped doing this, and switched to rehabs only.
posted by pinespree at 9:42 AM on May 27, 2013 [9 favorites]
I work for a local chapter of a well-known international housing nonprofit, and our primary activity is rehabbing houses similar to these. We generally get them for free, through various avenues (it's easier for us, but most of the houses we get could be purchased by an individual for under $10k).
Despite getting our rehabs for free, we budget for selling them at a loss. Even still, I doubt we would take on any of the houses pictured in the article - I can't imagine any of them being under $50k rehabs, and I suspect 393 Masten would be much more (and we use mostly volunteer labor). We regularly turn down offers of free houses from private owners that are nicer than these.
My wife and I recently bought a house that did not need major repairs for about $60k (including the $3k in repairs that it did need), in a nice, low-crime area in Cleveland with great access to transit. We had to clean up the landscaping and someday we may "remediate" the old painted-over wood paneling, but I believe we would have spent far more on one of these dollar specials, not including the draining investment of time and decision-making. It's also probably a lot easier to get a loan on a $60k home that's worth $60k than on $60k to pour into a worthless home to make it worth $40k.
kewb, The closing costs on a $1 sale are pretty trivial compared to the rehab costs. In my jurisdiction, I think they might be something like $500. If that amount of money is a deterrent to a potential buyer, that buyer is probably not serious about rehabbing the house.
And bonehead, there are probably plenty of vacant lots of anyone wanted to build in these neighborhoods. But the idea of spending $200k+ building a house that will be worth maybe $120k when it's done is not appealing to most potential homeowners. Even my organization has stopped doing this, and switched to rehabs only.
posted by pinespree at 9:42 AM on May 27, 2013 [9 favorites]
I forgot to make a point in my previous rambling post, but if I have one it's this: the prognosis for neglected/abandoned pre-WW2 homes of average quality in cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit is not good. Most of them are not going to be restored in real estate markets that look anything like what we have now without funders willing to throw lots of money at them.
posted by pinespree at 9:49 AM on May 27, 2013
posted by pinespree at 9:49 AM on May 27, 2013
I don't understand why these declining cities don't just knock down these outdated homes and move on.
posted by dfriedman at 10:05 AM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by dfriedman at 10:05 AM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
This country has a weird notion of housing. We just had a recession triggered by a housing bubble which resulted in a bunch of people out of perfectly good houses. In my neighborhood there are several foreclosed houses that are sitting there empty, doing nothing.
And yet we still look to "housing starts" as an indication of momentum in the economy. Do we really need a bunch of new houses when we have perfectly fine houses unoccupied?
posted by Legomancer at 10:06 AM on May 27, 2013 [9 favorites]
And yet we still look to "housing starts" as an indication of momentum in the economy. Do we really need a bunch of new houses when we have perfectly fine houses unoccupied?
posted by Legomancer at 10:06 AM on May 27, 2013 [9 favorites]
dfriedman,
Buffalo has knocked down a LOT of outdated and abandoned houses. In some areas it seems like too many. If you look at the google map linked in the article, a lot of these $1 houses have very few houses near them anymore. And like pinesprees says no one wants to spend $200k building a house on one of those empty lots when it's not going to be worth that much. So to me, the $1 houses are a great (albeit not perfect) idea, and they'll hopefully bring some money back into the city. None of them are in great neighborhoods, but a bunch of them are in okay neighborhoods that are on decent -looking streets. And while it may not make economic sense for a lot of people, I think for someone younger and/or someone who is capable of doing a lot of the work themselves, it could be a fantastic deal.
posted by jonathanhughes at 10:27 AM on May 27, 2013
Buffalo has knocked down a LOT of outdated and abandoned houses. In some areas it seems like too many. If you look at the google map linked in the article, a lot of these $1 houses have very few houses near them anymore. And like pinesprees says no one wants to spend $200k building a house on one of those empty lots when it's not going to be worth that much. So to me, the $1 houses are a great (albeit not perfect) idea, and they'll hopefully bring some money back into the city. None of them are in great neighborhoods, but a bunch of them are in okay neighborhoods that are on decent -looking streets. And while it may not make economic sense for a lot of people, I think for someone younger and/or someone who is capable of doing a lot of the work themselves, it could be a fantastic deal.
posted by jonathanhughes at 10:27 AM on May 27, 2013
If I had silly amounts of money I would buy up entire city blocks, and create a grand estate. I have no idea why people aren't doing things like this - even if the area is presently dangerous, that's nothing that can't be fixed by a tall wall and some armed security guards.
Also, I would have hounds, so I could release them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:30 AM on May 27, 2013 [17 favorites]
Also, I would have hounds, so I could release them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:30 AM on May 27, 2013 [17 favorites]
One of the interesting things I learned from my urban studies classes is that housing phenomenon in the United States is almost totally determined by psychological and cultural factors before economic considerations ever enter into the picture.
"Filtering" is the process whereby the residents of a neighborhood become more affluent over time, move outward into the suburbs (seeking to spend their increased income on better housing) and they leave their old, shabbier houses behind for new immigrants or other members of the underclass. The city that I studied in depth (Cleveland) is in trouble because the filtering process has broken down: the pre-WW2 houses in Central Cleveland that have been "left behind" for the black and latino underclass by white flight are actually too derelict to effectively maintain. Landlords will not improve the properties because they sense (correctly, probably) that they will never be able to recoup costs.
Consequently you have a situation where wealth flees the city at the earliest opportunity, while the inner core of the city becomes a hollowed-out poverty stricken crater, populated only by impoverished minorities with little hope for upward mobility. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't just Cleveland ... it's basically The Fate of the Rust Belt.
It would actually make way more sense for the vast tracts of substandard housing to just be condemned and for new developments to take their place -- but psychological factors keep that from happening. Inner city residents protest the loss of "community" and suburban residents are averse to pioneering in previously poor areas (poverty creates a kind of negative "cultural memory" within both upper and lower classes. It would be a long time before rich white people ever moved into Compton, CA even if it were completely replaced with McMansions and Eddie Bauer outlets today). Of course this also raises extremely sensitive racial issues surrounding gentrification that also cannot be expressed in terms of simple dollars and cents.
tl:dr: $1 houses are not the answer. People are not thinking with their wallets when they decide where to live.
posted by Avenger at 10:39 AM on May 27, 2013 [11 favorites]
"Filtering" is the process whereby the residents of a neighborhood become more affluent over time, move outward into the suburbs (seeking to spend their increased income on better housing) and they leave their old, shabbier houses behind for new immigrants or other members of the underclass. The city that I studied in depth (Cleveland) is in trouble because the filtering process has broken down: the pre-WW2 houses in Central Cleveland that have been "left behind" for the black and latino underclass by white flight are actually too derelict to effectively maintain. Landlords will not improve the properties because they sense (correctly, probably) that they will never be able to recoup costs.
Consequently you have a situation where wealth flees the city at the earliest opportunity, while the inner core of the city becomes a hollowed-out poverty stricken crater, populated only by impoverished minorities with little hope for upward mobility. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't just Cleveland ... it's basically The Fate of the Rust Belt.
It would actually make way more sense for the vast tracts of substandard housing to just be condemned and for new developments to take their place -- but psychological factors keep that from happening. Inner city residents protest the loss of "community" and suburban residents are averse to pioneering in previously poor areas (poverty creates a kind of negative "cultural memory" within both upper and lower classes. It would be a long time before rich white people ever moved into Compton, CA even if it were completely replaced with McMansions and Eddie Bauer outlets today). Of course this also raises extremely sensitive racial issues surrounding gentrification that also cannot be expressed in terms of simple dollars and cents.
tl:dr: $1 houses are not the answer. People are not thinking with their wallets when they decide where to live.
posted by Avenger at 10:39 AM on May 27, 2013 [11 favorites]
An entire dollar? For around that I could get a castle in Germany.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:42 AM on May 27, 2013
posted by en forme de poire at 10:42 AM on May 27, 2013
Please fix all code violations. You have 18 months to comply.
posted by orme at 10:42 AM on May 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by orme at 10:42 AM on May 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'd love to move to Buffalo, but I've heard the bison there are bullies ...
posted by iotic at 10:46 AM on May 27, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by iotic at 10:46 AM on May 27, 2013 [12 favorites]
If I had silly amounts of money I would buy up entire city blocks, and create a grand estate. I have no idea why people aren't doing things like this - even if the area is presently dangerous, that's nothing that can't be fixed by a tall wall and some armed security guards.
Maybe emulating Pakistan's zoning laws is not the best way for America's beleaguered cities to fix their problems.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:59 AM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
Maybe emulating Pakistan's zoning laws is not the best way for America's beleaguered cities to fix their problems.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:59 AM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
Oh, I'm sure a little load-bearing drywall here and there will work wonders.
Don't forget to deploy some load-bearing posters in the kids' bedrooms for a sturdier build.
posted by porn in the woods at 11:15 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Don't forget to deploy some load-bearing posters in the kids' bedrooms for a sturdier build.
posted by porn in the woods at 11:15 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
tl:dr: $1 houses are not the answer. People are not thinking with their wallets when they decide where to live.
No. $500 apartments are the answer. This is why city neighborhoods with dense housing can gentrify, but neighborhoods based on single houses don't. $500 apartments, with a couple of grand spent on them, become $650 apartments, and the density attracts businesses that cater to individuals -- restaurants, small shops, etc. People notice the stores, see the living price, hey....and then people spend a little more, and they're now $750 apartments.
Eventually, everything gut rehabs or gets built anew and you have a thriving, high income neighborhood. Then, of course, an American Apparel shows up and you know it's time to move. :-)
Those who don't believe this didn't see Wicker Park in Chicago in 1970, or Old Town in 1960 -- or even Logan Square in 2000.
The big factor in density is, in the end, how cheap it can be to live there, which attracts people who like the neighborhood. You don't need a car, which is a huge cost reduction in and of itself, and with an active neighborhood, you don't entertain in home, you go out. That means you need less space, which costs you less, and so forth. You're not paying to maintain a large house, and since rental commitments are much more short term, if it doesn't work out, you move.
I give Logan Square about five more years before it becomes Wicker Park Mk II, btw.
posted by eriko at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2013 [8 favorites]
No. $500 apartments are the answer. This is why city neighborhoods with dense housing can gentrify, but neighborhoods based on single houses don't. $500 apartments, with a couple of grand spent on them, become $650 apartments, and the density attracts businesses that cater to individuals -- restaurants, small shops, etc. People notice the stores, see the living price, hey....and then people spend a little more, and they're now $750 apartments.
Eventually, everything gut rehabs or gets built anew and you have a thriving, high income neighborhood. Then, of course, an American Apparel shows up and you know it's time to move. :-)
Those who don't believe this didn't see Wicker Park in Chicago in 1970, or Old Town in 1960 -- or even Logan Square in 2000.
The big factor in density is, in the end, how cheap it can be to live there, which attracts people who like the neighborhood. You don't need a car, which is a huge cost reduction in and of itself, and with an active neighborhood, you don't entertain in home, you go out. That means you need less space, which costs you less, and so forth. You're not paying to maintain a large house, and since rental commitments are much more short term, if it doesn't work out, you move.
I give Logan Square about five more years before it becomes Wicker Park Mk II, btw.
posted by eriko at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2013 [8 favorites]
So buy the house, squat in it for 18 months, then move on. Total living expenses: $0.67/year.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:25 AM on May 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 11:25 AM on May 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
So buy the house, squat in it for 18 months, then move on. Total living expenses: $0.67/year.
Forgot to factor in hypothermia treatments during a typical Buffalo winter.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:28 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Forgot to factor in hypothermia treatments during a typical Buffalo winter.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 11:28 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Do they provide a list of the ways that the houses are in violation?
I mean, I know you could pay for the inspector to come out to an individual house, but I'm wondering if they have a pre-made list.
posted by Flunkie at 11:42 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I mean, I know you could pay for the inspector to come out to an individual house, but I'm wondering if they have a pre-made list.
posted by Flunkie at 11:42 AM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
There are code violations and there are code violations.
The only way to make this work is to have the majority of break-the-bank-level violations grandfathered in. Don't force homeowners to redo an old electrical system, unless it's dangerous. Don't make them call in a Hazmat team to rip out asbestos or lead paint, or require them to futz with window sizes, means of egress in case of fire, or fire-escape upgrades or third-floor sprinkler systems or the like.
Then, convene a group of compassionate inspectors who are sympathetic to homeowners with small bank accounts, and have them turn a blind eye to minor, inconsequential stuff.
That's the key to making this work.
posted by Gordion Knott at 11:59 AM on May 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
The only way to make this work is to have the majority of break-the-bank-level violations grandfathered in. Don't force homeowners to redo an old electrical system, unless it's dangerous. Don't make them call in a Hazmat team to rip out asbestos or lead paint, or require them to futz with window sizes, means of egress in case of fire, or fire-escape upgrades or third-floor sprinkler systems or the like.
Then, convene a group of compassionate inspectors who are sympathetic to homeowners with small bank accounts, and have them turn a blind eye to minor, inconsequential stuff.
That's the key to making this work.
posted by Gordion Knott at 11:59 AM on May 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
@ pinespree: I do some pro bono and volunteer junk for Cleveland charities, and had the pleasure of working with an org that got a property from the Land Bank. I was very impressed with how quickly the property was turned around and title transferred. Seems like a great mission and a pretty efficient operation to boot (which came as a pleasant surprise!).
posted by jpe at 12:24 PM on May 27, 2013
posted by jpe at 12:24 PM on May 27, 2013
jpe: We work with the Land Bank too, and they are awesome. It is really pleasant to work with a quasi-governmental organization that is so well run and cares so much.
One example: they recently held a lot through their side lot program for a homeowner who was renting and trying to purchase a home for over a year until the sale could go through, then processed the sale the same day.
posted by pinespree at 12:32 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
One example: they recently held a lot through their side lot program for a homeowner who was renting and trying to purchase a home for over a year until the sale could go through, then processed the sale the same day.
posted by pinespree at 12:32 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Will they stick by their $1 valuation when it comes time to assess property taxes?
posted by ceribus peribus at 1:19 PM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by ceribus peribus at 1:19 PM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
That's the key to making this work.
I think that's precisely right, but I think it's exactly the sort of thing modern America can't seem to do when it comes to small fry. (And that we do too much of when it comes to the big fish, but that's another conversation.(
posted by tyllwin at 1:20 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think that's precisely right, but I think it's exactly the sort of thing modern America can't seem to do when it comes to small fry. (And that we do too much of when it comes to the big fish, but that's another conversation.(
posted by tyllwin at 1:20 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
i>I'd love to move to Buffalo, but I've heard the bison there are bullies ...
It's true that some of the local bison at least attempt to confuse other Buffalo bison, but those same Buffalo bison are themselves readily confused by other local bison. This limits bullying.
(or, you know, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:52 PM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's true that some of the local bison at least attempt to confuse other Buffalo bison, but those same Buffalo bison are themselves readily confused by other local bison. This limits bullying.
(or, you know, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:52 PM on May 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
A new house doesn't have to cost $200k to build. There are all kinds of prefab options and micro-houses that cost less, but zoning laws originally meant to stop tenements won't allow you to live in an exceedingly well-built and well-insulated 400 sq ft house in most American cities. Even if 400 sq ft is all you really need.
posted by 1adam12 at 3:12 PM on May 27, 2013
posted by 1adam12 at 3:12 PM on May 27, 2013
Avenger, Compton's home prices have gone up just under 20% since last year. McMansions? No, not yet, although considering how fast other neighborhoods of Los Angeles that were once deemed undesirable have turned over it's not unimaginable.
For example, the downtown area around Skid Row, as in the Skid Row that all metaphorical Skid Rows are named for, now has condos selling for over a million dollars. This is a transformation that has taken place over the past 10 or 15 years. It has now reached critical mass. That's why the former crack house around the corner from me is about to undergo an intensive renovation to become a boutique hotel - it's worthwhile for the developers to spend the money to make that happen.
posted by rednikki at 4:28 PM on May 27, 2013
For example, the downtown area around Skid Row, as in the Skid Row that all metaphorical Skid Rows are named for, now has condos selling for over a million dollars. This is a transformation that has taken place over the past 10 or 15 years. It has now reached critical mass. That's why the former crack house around the corner from me is about to undergo an intensive renovation to become a boutique hotel - it's worthwhile for the developers to spend the money to make that happen.
posted by rednikki at 4:28 PM on May 27, 2013
If you live in NYC/Boston/DC/Calif, you will cry.
My boyfriend's brother bought a house in MI last week for a third of what is owed on my smaller, less nice house in central California.
But my employment prospects are slim to none in MI, and there's no snow here, so I'll stay put for now.
posted by elsietheeel at 4:29 PM on May 27, 2013
My boyfriend's brother bought a house in MI last week for a third of what is owed on my smaller, less nice house in central California.
But my employment prospects are slim to none in MI, and there's no snow here, so I'll stay put for now.
posted by elsietheeel at 4:29 PM on May 27, 2013
Forgot to factor in hypothermia treatments during a typical Buffalo winter.
That's where a oil drum turned into a burning barrel starts working. Get two of these, totally loving expenses raised to something like $2.33 per 18 months, counting labor of course, and assuming one could always find enough free wood to burn. If not gather another dollar and buy the house next door to use for scrap parts, and firewood...wait...the more I think about this the more it totally seems like a great idea...if you like dicking with the city and cops.
Still a very very inexpensive "rental".
posted by QueerAngel28 at 5:12 PM on May 27, 2013
That's where a oil drum turned into a burning barrel starts working. Get two of these, totally loving expenses raised to something like $2.33 per 18 months, counting labor of course, and assuming one could always find enough free wood to burn. If not gather another dollar and buy the house next door to use for scrap parts, and firewood...wait...the more I think about this the more it totally seems like a great idea...if you like dicking with the city and cops.
Still a very very inexpensive "rental".
posted by QueerAngel28 at 5:12 PM on May 27, 2013
A new house doesn't have to cost $200k to build.
Yeah, here in S Wisconsin the median new-home cost is $150K. Maybe that's with lower labor/material costs and they're comparable, maybe they're not as nice as new construction needs to be in W New York.
I don't understand why these declining cities don't just knock down these outdated homes and move on.
Outdated to whom? Historic preservationists love old Victorians. It's more a matter of location being the problem (and a lack of numbers of historic preservationists in the volume necessary for a place like Buffalo).
My community takes a triage approach -- some are razed (alas, mostly the lovely folk Victorian worker cottage tiny-house types), some are rehabbed, and still more are sold to non-profits. In one case a non-profit has built on an infill lot. We don't have the population loss issues that Buffalo has, it's more a matter of people abandoning the downtown areas. But on the other hand we have Paul Ryan (yes, him) living about one block from just-barely-maintained rentals.
One of the programs I wish they would expand (it's grant-funded, though) is no-interest loans for rehabbers. There's a cap on the city's loan amount, though. Still, $15K goes a long-ish way in this neighborhood of homes that often sell in foreclosure for less.
If I had silly amounts of money I would buy up entire city blocks, and create a grand estate. I have no idea why people aren't doing things like this
I think more realistically, places like Buffalo and Detroit should look for ways to de-annex areas on the periphery and allow them to be "re-colonized" by suburbs. Not as estates, but as subdivisions (American terminology here). I think gentrification issues may make this politically unpalatable, but in the long run it may be necessary. The real problem with Detroit isn't a loss of population over the entire metro area, it's a depopulation of the urban area for the suburban periphery.
I can, of course, easily imagine the progressive objections -- favoring developers over people, that sort of thing -- but the only other workable alternative seems to be urban agriculture, which does nothing for the city's infrastructure by comparison.
Anyway, dfriedman, Youngstown is one city that seems to be handling the process of shrinkage somewhat better than most.
posted by dhartung at 6:04 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, here in S Wisconsin the median new-home cost is $150K. Maybe that's with lower labor/material costs and they're comparable, maybe they're not as nice as new construction needs to be in W New York.
I don't understand why these declining cities don't just knock down these outdated homes and move on.
Outdated to whom? Historic preservationists love old Victorians. It's more a matter of location being the problem (and a lack of numbers of historic preservationists in the volume necessary for a place like Buffalo).
My community takes a triage approach -- some are razed (alas, mostly the lovely folk Victorian worker cottage tiny-house types), some are rehabbed, and still more are sold to non-profits. In one case a non-profit has built on an infill lot. We don't have the population loss issues that Buffalo has, it's more a matter of people abandoning the downtown areas. But on the other hand we have Paul Ryan (yes, him) living about one block from just-barely-maintained rentals.
One of the programs I wish they would expand (it's grant-funded, though) is no-interest loans for rehabbers. There's a cap on the city's loan amount, though. Still, $15K goes a long-ish way in this neighborhood of homes that often sell in foreclosure for less.
If I had silly amounts of money I would buy up entire city blocks, and create a grand estate. I have no idea why people aren't doing things like this
I think more realistically, places like Buffalo and Detroit should look for ways to de-annex areas on the periphery and allow them to be "re-colonized" by suburbs. Not as estates, but as subdivisions (American terminology here). I think gentrification issues may make this politically unpalatable, but in the long run it may be necessary. The real problem with Detroit isn't a loss of population over the entire metro area, it's a depopulation of the urban area for the suburban periphery.
I can, of course, easily imagine the progressive objections -- favoring developers over people, that sort of thing -- but the only other workable alternative seems to be urban agriculture, which does nothing for the city's infrastructure by comparison.
Anyway, dfriedman, Youngstown is one city that seems to be handling the process of shrinkage somewhat better than most.
posted by dhartung at 6:04 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
We do better than that in Springfield, MA: we offer select houses for $1,000, but you get between $25,000 and $75,000 to make exterior improvements to them. The catch is that the houses are in local historic districts, and the work has to be done in accordance with the district guidelines.
Here's a newspaper article that describes a couple of recent properties offered.
The reality of some older urban areas is that real estate prices are below the cost of rehab. Vacant lots are not a good solution because they encourage dumping and loitering. Houses on a sparsely populated street aren't appealing ether, it's like living in a ghost town. There is merit to helping a neighborhood stabilize in this way.
We had one house that was falling down, vacant for maybe 20 years. We offered it out to bid with $100k in rehab funds attached to it. Someone bought it, rehabbed it, and sold it for around $200k. He made a small profit. Now the city is collecting taxes on it, it has a wonderful owner, and the neighboring properties are more desirable too. Nothing worse than living next to a abandoned slum, it is like a cancer in a neighborhood.
posted by RalphSlate at 6:16 PM on May 27, 2013
Here's a newspaper article that describes a couple of recent properties offered.
The reality of some older urban areas is that real estate prices are below the cost of rehab. Vacant lots are not a good solution because they encourage dumping and loitering. Houses on a sparsely populated street aren't appealing ether, it's like living in a ghost town. There is merit to helping a neighborhood stabilize in this way.
We had one house that was falling down, vacant for maybe 20 years. We offered it out to bid with $100k in rehab funds attached to it. Someone bought it, rehabbed it, and sold it for around $200k. He made a small profit. Now the city is collecting taxes on it, it has a wonderful owner, and the neighboring properties are more desirable too. Nothing worse than living next to a abandoned slum, it is like a cancer in a neighborhood.
posted by RalphSlate at 6:16 PM on May 27, 2013
Nothing worse than living next to a abandoned slum
Living next to Reavers?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:40 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Living next to Reavers?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:40 PM on May 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not to mention, the additional cost of having to root for the Buffalo Bills.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:17 PM on May 27, 2013
posted by Apocryphon at 11:17 PM on May 27, 2013
No. $500 apartments are the answer. This is why city neighborhoods with dense housing can gentrify, but neighborhoods based on single houses don't.
Fairmount.
posted by Doohickie at 6:20 AM on May 28, 2013
Fairmount.
posted by Doohickie at 6:20 AM on May 28, 2013
If they want to make this more attractive, they need to relax the code laws, and indeed, more laws overall. As it stands, why buy/renovate there when you can buy/renovate elsewhere for cheaper and better?
posted by corb at 7:43 AM on May 28, 2013
posted by corb at 7:43 AM on May 28, 2013
I don't think you could buy/renovate somewhere else cheaper. It's not that Buffalo has some absurdly stringent code -- AFAICT from glancing it's mostly just standard national stuff, presumably with REMEMBER YER SNOW LOAD provisions. It's just that actually bringing a 1920s house fully up to code, in all aspects, would probably require a gut job and hazmat teams no matter where in the US you tried to do it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:11 AM on May 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:11 AM on May 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
« Older What Jane Saw | The Making Of Kubrick's 2001 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:24 AM on May 27, 2013 [10 favorites]