On Oct 19, 2:30*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour



wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:42*am, blueman wrote:
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.

You are right in the short term.

Right in the long term, too.

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?

So....it's only your old house that gets better and more valuable?
Hmmm. *That seems a might convenient - for you!

One of the common pitfalls of personal observation is that people make
automatic and often erroneous assumptions. *There are countless old
houses that have been torn down or remodeled to the point where they
are not an old house anymore. *The ones that are still around are the
ones that people valued more, for one reason or another, or had no
lapse in maintenance and didn't deteriorate.

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...

Please don't get me wrong. *I'm a retro-grouch in many things. *I
definitely do believe that the old ways were in many instances just as
good if not better. *One of my pet peeves is that there are no
incentives to induce people to value the old things more. *Most people
will run up against the cost/benefit thing when dealing with their
house, or buying a new (to them) one, and will have to let something
go. *When the something turns out to be old windows, or any other old
building or part of one, well, we lose that. *We are in essence
letting market value erase our history.

That's what happened with the 1693 house I mentioned, and also with
another 18th century house just a few blocks away. *Scumbag lawyer
convinced a bankruptcy judge that he was going to keep the house, and
as soon as the closing ink is dry, he knocks the house down. *The only
thing they could charge him with was demolition without a permit, and
he got a slap on the wrist fine. *Make's me want to puke.


Lots of cities are implementing "heritage districts" and rules that
give a lot more than a slap of the rist to those destroying buildings
in those heritage districts.

The big surprise?? Home values in those heritage districts, where you
are severely limited in what you can change on the visible exterior of
the buildings, almost invariably goes UP.

Well, hell. You've hit on the magic formula. Just buy an old house
and you'll never lose money on it, no matter what you do. You should
fire this information off to The Motley Fool as a foolproof investment
plan.

You have a point, but it is not the only one out there. Don't belabor
it.

R