RicodJour writes:

On Oct 16, 11:44*am, blueman wrote:
dpb writes:
blueman wrote:
...
... Luckily by removing the wooden lathe (which itself often had a
gap between it and the underlying structural member), I was able to
find plenty of room to snake my pull string without having to drill
through (or notch) the structural elements. ...

I didn't end up needing to notch the corner since there was plenty of
room to bury the cable below the structural lumber due to all the
layers. ...
...
While doing it my way took a LOT longer than some of the other
suggestions, ...

And, as suggested, you found a _far_ different set of conditions than
anybody here could have any hope of knowing any about and so the
reason for many of the suggestions were obviated.

That's not intended at all at criticism; only observation that advice
is only as good as the input and _if_ the condition had indeed been
that of solid plaster against the joists your solution options would
have been pretty much as suggested.

Thanks and I certainly didn't mean to appear to be criticizing or
ungrateful for the many and varied suggestions offered by you and
others. As you can probably tell, when it comes to working on my home,
I tend to be more on the perfectionist side of things -- I know that
such an approach would never be profitable as a business but it does
usually let me get the results I want even if the effort is sometimes
over the top. In fact, that is one of the reasons I DIY rather than
hire even though it costs me more in time than I would have to pay
someone else -- but at least I get the quality and approach I want
(along with self-satisfaction) which is something that money often
can't buy anymore.

Well said, and entirely understandable and laudable.

Sounds like kewl place; I've noted here before that did quite a number
of major restorations of antebellum houses in Lynchburg, VA, years ago
that had all kinds of similar surprises buried in them. *Par for the
course...

Thanks - sounds like you have had the same mixture of fun and
frustrations that I have had. But I wouldn't trade my old house for
any post-1920's or so house -- though perhaps I would be tempted by a
new megamansion (at least until the newness wears off).

One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that my house
only gets better and more valuable with age whereas even the latest
and greatest megamansion starts looking "dated" after a decade or so
since it's key selling point are modernity, latest-and-greatest, and
up-to-date styling -- none of which by definition are lasting
attributes. It's like a slower version of the problem that a new car
loses value the second you drive it out of the lot whereas an antique
car increases in value with proper upkeep.

Unless the new house is in some wacky area and there was a wacky buyer
who overpaid, or unless the entire market is taking a downturn, new
houses and old houses go up in value at roughly the same rate.
Otherwise, an old house would be way more expensive than a new house -
and they're not.

R

You are right in the short term.
But how much will today's new McMansion be worth in 50 or 100 years?
Is it likely to even last 100 years or will it need to be torn down?

It always amazes me on home improvement shows to see them having to
replace windows and doors after 20 years while my windows are 150
years old and going strong. Similarly, houses built only a couple of
decades ago often have more rot than my old timbers -- even though my
house undoubtedly went through many periods of neglect. They just
don't make wood or houses like they used to. But maybe I'm just a
biased old house snob...