Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Saturday, April 22, 2006
A recent headline caught more than a few urban advocates off guard. “American’s Fleeing Big Cities.” According to a new census report nearly every large metropolitan area had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004.
Working in real estate leads to a natural interest in trends such as these. It’s hard to tell whether Pittsburgh can be included in this category. The first question is whether Pittsburgh is a big city to be fleeing from or a small town to be fleeing to.
Folks have been leaving Pittsburgh (along with Cleveland, Buffalo, Youngstown) for decades now, and while there is incidental evidence that people are now coming in, census data hasn’t yet showed that (while the losses continue to lessen).
The reason given for fleeing the biggest cities, high cost, certainly aren’t present here. That at least leaves the door open for Pittsburgh to be a place to flee to, if she plays her cards right.
The conundrum is that traditionally it has been places that people are fleeing to that experience the high real estate prices. Today it’s the places being emptied. About 60,000 people left San Francisco between 2000 and 2004, Chicago experienced similar numbers. New York City lost some 210,000. Los Angeles had losses topping 110,000.
Richard Florida, (fomer Pittsburgher and) a professor of public policy at George Mason University told USA Today that smaller, wealthier households are replacing larger families in many big metropolitan areas.
“That drives up housing prices even as the population shrinks, chasing away even more members of the middle class.”
That may be, but the question of how long can prices continue to rise when people are leaving needs to be asked. In most cities, smaller, wealthier households moving in marks a paradigm shift and poses new questions for economists. It also poses questions for the direction of the markets in places where former urbanites are moving to. It isn’t the working poor as much as the young and upwardly mobile who are choosing to relocate outside major metropolitan areas.
On the subject of trends, there are two other issues that are sure to come into play. The first is the high cost of fuel. What is that expected to do to housing markets? My inclination is it will favor cities or transit communities. Yet the fuel costs probably aren’t going to increase enough to warrant the price of urban Boston. The combination may just make life harder without having a net impact favoring suburban or urban geography.
The second is global warming. We know it’s happening whether or not it’s caused by humans. This may not in itself favor urban or suburban locations, but is sure to favor regions. Where? Thoughts?
Working in real estate leads to a natural interest in trends such as these. It’s hard to tell whether Pittsburgh can be included in this category. The first question is whether Pittsburgh is a big city to be fleeing from or a small town to be fleeing to.
Folks have been leaving Pittsburgh (along with Cleveland, Buffalo, Youngstown) for decades now, and while there is incidental evidence that people are now coming in, census data hasn’t yet showed that (while the losses continue to lessen).
The reason given for fleeing the biggest cities, high cost, certainly aren’t present here. That at least leaves the door open for Pittsburgh to be a place to flee to, if she plays her cards right.
The conundrum is that traditionally it has been places that people are fleeing to that experience the high real estate prices. Today it’s the places being emptied. About 60,000 people left San Francisco between 2000 and 2004, Chicago experienced similar numbers. New York City lost some 210,000. Los Angeles had losses topping 110,000.
Richard Florida, (fomer Pittsburgher and) a professor of public policy at George Mason University told USA Today that smaller, wealthier households are replacing larger families in many big metropolitan areas.
“That drives up housing prices even as the population shrinks, chasing away even more members of the middle class.”
That may be, but the question of how long can prices continue to rise when people are leaving needs to be asked. In most cities, smaller, wealthier households moving in marks a paradigm shift and poses new questions for economists. It also poses questions for the direction of the markets in places where former urbanites are moving to. It isn’t the working poor as much as the young and upwardly mobile who are choosing to relocate outside major metropolitan areas.
On the subject of trends, there are two other issues that are sure to come into play. The first is the high cost of fuel. What is that expected to do to housing markets? My inclination is it will favor cities or transit communities. Yet the fuel costs probably aren’t going to increase enough to warrant the price of urban Boston. The combination may just make life harder without having a net impact favoring suburban or urban geography.
The second is global warming. We know it’s happening whether or not it’s caused by humans. This may not in itself favor urban or suburban locations, but is sure to favor regions. Where? Thoughts?
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Small Houses
NPR recently did a story on the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company (http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses.htm). This company based in Sabastapol, California offers a variety of small house designs.
Each home appears to be of very high quality and offer one or two rooms plus kitchen, bath, closets and a desk area. The Bungalow is the largest of the designs at about 500sf. Smaller small houses come in at 40-160sf. They all seem to be designed to sit on large lots or in wooded areas. One would feel quite at odds with the surroundings in Brooklyn or Nashville. I started to think that perhaps a city comprised of these tiny homes could be established, perhaps it has. Priced in the $15,000-$40,000 range (plus land and utility connections), they’d also be attractive options for college students with financially able parents.
I suppose there are historical examples of this even in Pittsburgh. Two-room worker houses dot some of the hillsides. These are still used today and still serve their purpose well, although the inferior construction, and simply age don’t lend themselves well to saving energy. Still I suspect it is possible to arrange these modern day “small houses” in an urban setting. They could be attractive to single work-at-home types who want the ease of maintenance and access to city amenities. They also may be an attractive option for seniors who find their bigger house too much to handle, but want to live independently.
The tiny house idea seemed romantic, even practical, but I couldn’t help but think there a more efficient “small house” design already in existence. Then it dawned on me-- it’s called the studio condo. Condo’s have become so popular now they’re average price is more than a single-family house. In many downtown areas the “highest and best use ( a real estate term meaning most profitable)” has switched from translating into commercial to translating into “condo building.”
Whether a tiny house in a village of tiny houses or a stackable version in a city, smaller living spaces are an idea to explore. Many of the occupants of such spaces speak of a “simplicity” they find in living with less. Looking at the tasks that surround me, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think that one day I may reach the same conclusion.
See more in my column September 1, 2005 at http://www.newcolonist.com
Each home appears to be of very high quality and offer one or two rooms plus kitchen, bath, closets and a desk area. The Bungalow is the largest of the designs at about 500sf. Smaller small houses come in at 40-160sf. They all seem to be designed to sit on large lots or in wooded areas. One would feel quite at odds with the surroundings in Brooklyn or Nashville. I started to think that perhaps a city comprised of these tiny homes could be established, perhaps it has. Priced in the $15,000-$40,000 range (plus land and utility connections), they’d also be attractive options for college students with financially able parents.
I suppose there are historical examples of this even in Pittsburgh. Two-room worker houses dot some of the hillsides. These are still used today and still serve their purpose well, although the inferior construction, and simply age don’t lend themselves well to saving energy. Still I suspect it is possible to arrange these modern day “small houses” in an urban setting. They could be attractive to single work-at-home types who want the ease of maintenance and access to city amenities. They also may be an attractive option for seniors who find their bigger house too much to handle, but want to live independently.
The tiny house idea seemed romantic, even practical, but I couldn’t help but think there a more efficient “small house” design already in existence. Then it dawned on me-- it’s called the studio condo. Condo’s have become so popular now they’re average price is more than a single-family house. In many downtown areas the “highest and best use ( a real estate term meaning most profitable)” has switched from translating into commercial to translating into “condo building.”
Whether a tiny house in a village of tiny houses or a stackable version in a city, smaller living spaces are an idea to explore. Many of the occupants of such spaces speak of a “simplicity” they find in living with less. Looking at the tasks that surround me, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think that one day I may reach the same conclusion.
See more in my column September 1, 2005 at http://www.newcolonist.com
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
A Mantle You Can Make
It's not uncommon to find a house that has a place where a mantle used to be. If your house is like mine, there's a missing mantle, but the iron grate in the center is still there.Replacement mantles aren't always easy to find, especially in good condition. They often need scraped and refinished, have pieces missing or don't fit the space. If they are in good condition, the price makes them unattractive.
I recently found a hansome mantle that can be easily recreated and adapted to fit your space.
As you can see, the simple styling provides a mantle you can create with standard lumber.
This mantle is one of two located in a home I am guessing could be from the 1840s. The age of these mantles might not match the age of the house. The home has a center chimney construction and there is a simpler mantle with a much larger opening elsewhere in the house.
All of the wood is about 1" thick. The posts are 34" tall and 7" wide. The shelf is 60" long and 9.5" deep. The backboard is 4" x 60". The keystone is 7" at the up and 6" at the bottom. The half-circle is 1.5". The board behind the keystone (sorry, I don't know the name) is 50" x 8". There are 3" sides and 4" boards that bring the width of the mantle out to match the width of the shelf. (4" plus 1" thick sides and 10"--the mantle is 50", the shelf is 60").
There is some small detailing etched into the pieces behind the keystone.
I may try building one of these soon. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Adding Mullions To Old Windows
When my house was built in 1859, it was common for windows to be made up of small panes of glass. Dividing these separate panes were wood mullions.
Today the look these mullions is commonly provided by adding a decorative mullion over one single pane of glass.
At some point, probably around the turn of the 20th century, the folks who lived here decided to update the front windows by taking out the six small panes in each sash and adding one large pane.
Luckily they didn't update the entire house. The all but two of the windows on the other sides contain the original mullions.
In the front, the windows weren't replaced, rather the mullions cut out to accommodate the larger panes of glass. To regain the original look in the front, I was faced with putting in replacement windows with decorative mullions, finding old windows that were the same size and replacing the original windows with those or having the mullions put back in the existing windows. Each of these options would have involved significant expense.
Instead, after talking with a helpful person in the window department at Home Depot, I decided to see if it would be possible to create decorative mullions. I purchased thirty-two 36" pieces of wood that is about 1/4 inch square, slightly smaller than the width of the existing mullions. Since they would all be on the same side of the building I figured matching the width wasn't essential. I cut each piece to fit inside the sash and then cut a notch in each piece where they crossed.
I did this entirely with hand tools. A hand saw cut the sides of the notch and a razor blade slice was all that was needed to remove the notched piece.
Learning by trial, I improved the construction as I went along by making each notch slightly smaller to provide a more firm fit. At first decided to hold them together with glue, but then decided to add a small staple where they crossed. The final step was to give them a coat of spray paint. The pieces, where I succeeded, were cut just the right size to fit snug inside the sash so they didn't need to by physically attached to the window and can be removed for cleaning.
I have completed two windows on the first floor. I have three upstairs windows, and five in a rental house to go.
The result is satisfying and accomplishes several goals. First, it provides the desired look and looks historically accurate passing at least at first-glance. Second, it saves the original windows. Third--and many people who redo old houses don't think about this, it leaves a story--the large panes of glass became less expensive and so the small panes and mullions were removed (you can see where the mullions had been cut out). Later, other folks came in and wanted to give the house its original look.
Making old houses completely new might sell them, but it doesn't leave much for history. restoring them completely doesn't leave much for history either.
Today the look these mullions is commonly provided by adding a decorative mullion over one single pane of glass.
At some point, probably around the turn of the 20th century, the folks who lived here decided to update the front windows by taking out the six small panes in each sash and adding one large pane.
Luckily they didn't update the entire house. The all but two of the windows on the other sides contain the original mullions.
In the front, the windows weren't replaced, rather the mullions cut out to accommodate the larger panes of glass. To regain the original look in the front, I was faced with putting in replacement windows with decorative mullions, finding old windows that were the same size and replacing the original windows with those or having the mullions put back in the existing windows. Each of these options would have involved significant expense.
Instead, after talking with a helpful person in the window department at Home Depot, I decided to see if it would be possible to create decorative mullions. I purchased thirty-two 36" pieces of wood that is about 1/4 inch square, slightly smaller than the width of the existing mullions. Since they would all be on the same side of the building I figured matching the width wasn't essential. I cut each piece to fit inside the sash and then cut a notch in each piece where they crossed.
I did this entirely with hand tools. A hand saw cut the sides of the notch and a razor blade slice was all that was needed to remove the notched piece.
Learning by trial, I improved the construction as I went along by making each notch slightly smaller to provide a more firm fit. At first decided to hold them together with glue, but then decided to add a small staple where they crossed. The final step was to give them a coat of spray paint. The pieces, where I succeeded, were cut just the right size to fit snug inside the sash so they didn't need to by physically attached to the window and can be removed for cleaning.
I have completed two windows on the first floor. I have three upstairs windows, and five in a rental house to go.
The result is satisfying and accomplishes several goals. First, it provides the desired look and looks historically accurate passing at least at first-glance. Second, it saves the original windows. Third--and many people who redo old houses don't think about this, it leaves a story--the large panes of glass became less expensive and so the small panes and mullions were removed (you can see where the mullions had been cut out). Later, other folks came in and wanted to give the house its original look.
Making old houses completely new might sell them, but it doesn't leave much for history. restoring them completely doesn't leave much for history either.
A House Rating System
Rating the area
Rate the percent homes on the block appear to be occupied
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the general condition of homes on the block.
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the percent of the homes on the block appear to be single units
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the general quality of the architecture of the homes on the block
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the accessibility to transit
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the accessibility to employment centers, schools and stores
1 2 3 4 5
Rating the primary house
Rate the general condition of the house
1 2 3 4 5
Rate how the price of this home compare with others nearby
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the architecture of the house
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the lot including parking, plantings, etc.
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the quality of the current ground plan
1 2 3 4 5
Rating the mechanical house
Rate the roof
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the Heating and Cooling system
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the windows
1 2 3 45
Rate the bathrooms and kitchen for appeal and function
1 2 3 5
Rate the condition of the floors and plaster
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the wiring
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the basement and attic ares
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the percent homes on the block appear to be occupied
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the general condition of homes on the block.
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the percent of the homes on the block appear to be single units
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the general quality of the architecture of the homes on the block
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the accessibility to transit
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the accessibility to employment centers, schools and stores
1 2 3 4 5
Rating the primary house
Rate the general condition of the house
1 2 3 4 5
Rate how the price of this home compare with others nearby
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the architecture of the house
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the lot including parking, plantings, etc.
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the quality of the current ground plan
1 2 3 4 5
Rating the mechanical house
Rate the roof
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the Heating and Cooling system
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the windows
1 2 3 45
Rate the bathrooms and kitchen for appeal and function
1 2 3 5
Rate the condition of the floors and plaster
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the wiring
1 2 3 4 5
Rate the basement and attic ares
1 2 3 4 5
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)