On Oct 16, 10:32*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44*am, blueman wrote:

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.


*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R

On Oct 16, 9:50*am, "charlie" wrote:
"blueman" wrote in message

...



blueman writes:
I need to run a wire from a switch on the wall up the wall and across
the ceiling to a new overhead light. (Note that unfortunately, the
joists run perpendicular to the direction that I need to traverse the
ceiling)

Doing so presents the following two problems for me:
1. How do I make the right angle turn through the top plate and into
* *the ceiling joist bay?

2. How do I go through the joists as I traverse the ceiling from the
* *wall edge to the center light location?

Note I don't have the option of using an unfinished attic or basement
to help me. I am trying to avoid ripping up more plaster than I need to.

I plan on buying a long flexible 1/2" bit which I believe should at
least help me with #2, though I'm a bit short on the details of where
I drill the entry and exit holes and how I achieve the right bend and
angle to go through the middle of the joist.

However, I am a lot more stumped about how I make the right angle
transition from the wall bay into the ceiling joist bay.

Could anybody give me some detailed pointers and/or point me to any
online videos? (I tried googling but found only general suggestions
such as using a flex bit)

Thanks.

Here is my report back on what I did and how I did it.

I ended up going the direct route of snaking across the ceiling and
down the wall. Again, my primary priority was doing this in a lasting
and professional way since I feel an obligation to the generations of
previous owners of our historic house (main part is Italianate built
in the 1860's and the garage is part of a wing that reportedly dates
back to the late 1700's!!!).

First, cutting through the ceiling was even harder than anticipated --
even to just cut out the hole for the ceiling box and the intermediate
holes for snaking the wires. There were multiple layers. Starting from
the exterior:

1. Rough 1/2" layer of hard plaster/stucco
2. Tough metal lathe. Actually the lathe on the ceiling was mostly solid
* metal with some grooves. The lathe on the sides was thick fine
* mesh.
3. Another 1/2 layer of plaster keyed into wooden lathe
4. 1/2" wooden lathe
5. Loose fill insulation (not sure what it is but it was very light,
* gray in color and almost like very light sawdust or cotton whisps)

I needed to use a diamond cutter in my rotary zip saw to cut through
the stuff and it made a real mess -- unfortunately, I didn't have a
helper to hold a shop vac...

fyi: diamond tools don't last long cutting metals. you want to try an
abrasive type of cutting tool instead.


diamond tools don't last long cutting metals.

Diamond tools may not last long (iyo) cutting metal but they work just
fine on rebar or wire in concrete or metal lath in plaster.

I've had 100's of inches of concrete with rebar cored drilled. I've
even done some myself with a Hilti diamond core rig.
I might even have some #9 rebar slugs that where completely cored out
of a concrete footing with a 2 1/2" core bit.

I know I have some cores where steel was cut nearly the entire core
length.

Diamond tools will make short work of embedded steel.

cheers
Bob

"blueman" wrote in message
...
blueman writes:
I need to run a wire from a switch on the wall up the wall and across
the ceiling to a new overhead light. (Note that unfortunately, the
joists run perpendicular to the direction that I need to traverse the
ceiling)

Doing so presents the following two problems for me:
1. How do I make the right angle turn through the top plate and into
the ceiling joist bay?

2. How do I go through the joists as I traverse the ceiling from the
wall edge to the center light location?

Note I don't have the option of using an unfinished attic or basement
to help me. I am trying to avoid ripping up more plaster than I need to.

I plan on buying a long flexible 1/2" bit which I believe should at
least help me with #2, though I'm a bit short on the details of where
I drill the entry and exit holes and how I achieve the right bend and
angle to go through the middle of the joist.

However, I am a lot more stumped about how I make the right angle
transition from the wall bay into the ceiling joist bay.

Could anybody give me some detailed pointers and/or point me to any
online videos? (I tried googling but found only general suggestions
such as using a flex bit)

Thanks.

Here is my report back on what I did and how I did it.

I ended up going the direct route of snaking across the ceiling and
down the wall. Again, my primary priority was doing this in a lasting
and professional way since I feel an obligation to the generations of
previous owners of our historic house (main part is Italianate built
in the 1860's and the garage is part of a wing that reportedly dates
back to the late 1700's!!!).

First, cutting through the ceiling was even harder than anticipated --
even to just cut out the hole for the ceiling box and the intermediate
holes for snaking the wires. There were multiple layers. Starting from
the exterior:

1. Rough 1/2" layer of hard plaster/stucco
2. Tough metal lathe. Actually the lathe on the ceiling was mostly solid
metal with some grooves. The lathe on the sides was thick fine
mesh.
3. Another 1/2 layer of plaster keyed into wooden lathe
4. 1/2" wooden lathe
5. Loose fill insulation (not sure what it is but it was very light,
gray in color and almost like very light sawdust or cotton whisps)

I needed to use a diamond cutter in my rotary zip saw to cut through
the stuff and it made a real mess -- unfortunately, I didn't have a
helper to hold a shop vac...

Also the joists were irregularly spaced and more like 4x lumber.
There was also a fireblock-like horizontal element in the stud
bay. 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 added metal plates over
any place that I passed over a structural element.

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. I again added protective metal plates.

To prevent the loose fill insulation from continuing to leak out from
the ceiling holes on me and the floor, I stuffed in some loose
fiberglass insulation (pulled off some extra bats). This served both
to replace some of the stuff that fell out and also served as a block
against new loose fill floating out which otherwise continued to fall
on me and the floor.

Even after creating the path, pulling the wire through was still very
difficult despite the fact that the path was only 10 feet long and had
only one corner (at the floor-ceiling junction). This was presumably
due to the irregular nature of the space and protruding nails,
plaster, etc. along the pull path.

I filled in the holes in two steps. First a layer of 20minute setting
compound directly over the lathe or metal plates (I find the setting
compound to be very hard and durable). Then a skim coat of a
concoction that I made to mimic the existing surface created out of
combining about 1-part ready mix stucco patch compound with 1-part
setting joint compound plus water and some Zinser primer (to match the
color since the walls/ceilings seem to be more whitewashed than
painted).

Rewiring the switch box was also a PITA since it was part of a 4-gang
bakelite plastic box embedded in the tiled kitchen backsplash (which
is on the other side of the garage wall). To feed in the new wire, I
ended up needing to literally bust out the old embedded bakelite box
and replaced it with a 4-gang 3-1/2" deep metal box -- I wanted the
extra room since 2 of the 4 switches were three way (including the
gargage light one) and 2 of the switches were big elements (1 Lutron
dimmer and 1 Aube timer) -- there were a total of 8 wires passing in
and out of the box (all same circuit though).

While doing it my way took a LOT longer than some of the other
suggestions, I accomplished the following:
1. No unsightly external boxes or track mold
2. Minimum patching (just a couple of small holes)
3. Minimal mess from demolition and from leaking loose fill insulation
(had I ripped out a large swathe, I would be drowning in fallen
insulation and plaster --- and I would have needed to find a way to
replace insulation in the entire joist bay)
4. Minimized amount of cutting through solid metal lathe
5. No disturbing of structural elements.
6. No intrusion or damage to other adjoining finished rooms.



*Sounds like a nice job was done. Thank you for posting back with details.

On Oct 17, 9:52*am, "John Grabowski" wrote:
"blueman" wrote in message

...



blueman writes:
I need to run a wire from a switch on the wall up the wall and across
the ceiling to a new overhead light. (Note that unfortunately, the
joists run perpendicular to the direction that I need to traverse the
ceiling)

Doing so presents the following two problems for me:
1. How do I make the right angle turn through the top plate and into
* *the ceiling joist bay?

2. How do I go through the joists as I traverse the ceiling from the
* *wall edge to the center light location?

Note I don't have the option of using an unfinished attic or basement
to help me. I am trying to avoid ripping up more plaster than I need to.

I plan on buying a long flexible 1/2" bit which I believe should at
least help me with #2, though I'm a bit short on the details of where
I drill the entry and exit holes and how I achieve the right bend and
angle to go through the middle of the joist.

However, I am a lot more stumped about how I make the right angle
transition from the wall bay into the ceiling joist bay.

Could anybody give me some detailed pointers and/or point me to any
online videos? (I tried googling but found only general suggestions
such as using a flex bit)

Thanks.

Here is my report back on what I did and how I did it.

I ended up going the direct route of snaking across the ceiling and
down the wall. Again, my primary priority was doing this in a lasting
and professional way since I feel an obligation to the generations of
previous owners of our historic house (main part is Italianate built
in the 1860's and the garage is part of a wing that reportedly dates
back to the late 1700's!!!).

First, cutting through the ceiling was even harder than anticipated --
even to just cut out the hole for the ceiling box and the intermediate
holes for snaking the wires. There were multiple layers. Starting from
the exterior:

1. Rough 1/2" layer of hard plaster/stucco
2. Tough metal lathe. Actually the lathe on the ceiling was mostly solid
* metal with some grooves. The lathe on the sides was thick fine
* mesh.
3. Another 1/2 layer of plaster keyed into wooden lathe
4. 1/2" wooden lathe
5. Loose fill insulation (not sure what it is but it was very light,
* gray in color and almost like very light sawdust or cotton whisps)

I needed to use a diamond cutter in my rotary zip saw to cut through
the stuff and it made a real mess -- unfortunately, I didn't have a
helper to hold a shop vac...

Also the joists were irregularly spaced and more like 4x lumber.
There was also a fireblock-like horizontal element in the stud
bay. 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 added metal plates over
any place that I passed over a structural element.

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. I again added protective metal plates.

To prevent the loose fill insulation from continuing to leak out from
the ceiling holes on me and the floor, I stuffed in some loose
fiberglass insulation (pulled off some extra bats). This served both
to replace some of the stuff that fell out and also served as a block
against new loose fill floating out which otherwise continued to fall
on me and the floor.

Even after creating the path, pulling the wire through was still very
difficult despite the fact that the path was only 10 feet long and had
only one corner (at the floor-ceiling junction). This was presumably
due to the irregular nature of the space and protruding nails,
plaster, etc. along the pull path.

I filled in the holes in two steps. First a layer of 20minute setting
compound directly over the lathe or metal plates *(I find the setting
compound to be very hard and durable). Then a skim coat of a
concoction that I made to mimic the existing surface created out of
combining about 1-part ready mix stucco patch compound with 1-part
setting joint compound plus water and some Zinser primer (to match the
color since the walls/ceilings seem to be more whitewashed than
painted).

Rewiring the switch box was also a PITA since it was part of a 4-gang
bakelite plastic box embedded in the tiled kitchen backsplash (which
is on the other side of the garage wall). To feed in the new wire, I
ended up needing to literally bust out the old embedded bakelite box
and replaced it with a 4-gang 3-1/2" deep metal box -- I wanted the
extra room since 2 of the 4 switches were three way (including the
gargage light one) and 2 of the switches were big elements (1 Lutron
dimmer and 1 Aube timer) -- there were a total of 8 wires passing in
and out of the box (all same circuit though).

While doing it my way took a LOT longer than some of the other
suggestions, I accomplished the following:
1. No unsightly external boxes or track mold
2. Minimum patching (just a couple of small holes)
3. Minimal mess from demolition and from leaking loose fill insulation
* (had I ripped out a large swathe, I would be drowning in fallen
* insulation and plaster --- and I would have needed to find a way to
* replace insulation in the entire joist bay)
4. Minimized amount of cutting through solid metal lathe
5. No disturbing of structural elements.
6. No intrusion or damage to other adjoining finished rooms.

*Sounds like a nice job was done. *Thank you for posting back with details.

Ditto that. A lot of times there are lengthy threads with a lot of
suggestions/debate and then it's off into the ether and we never hear
what happened.

BTW, in future, next time you have a question for people to diagnose
upload some pictures on a free hosting site and post the links here.
It makes it more interesting, efficient and fun.

R

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 16, 10:32Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44Â*am, blueman wrote:

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.


Â*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R
No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

On Oct 17, 9:21*am, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour



wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:32*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44*am, blueman wrote:

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.

*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. *The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. *The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. *Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R

No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

good point...the "boutique effect".

Young couples (with $$'s) tired of the SoCal track home & wanting
something "unique" buy into my neighborhood at over priced levels.
Often into homes where half-assed superfical work was done and find
themsleves confronted with $1k's of plumbing or electrical work.

cheers
Bob

On Oct 17, 12:21*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour



wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:32*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44*am, blueman wrote:

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.

*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. *The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. *The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. *Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R

No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

You're not addressing the point I was addressing. Everyone knows
there are people who will buy stuff if it is simply the most expensive
thing out there, figuring it just _has_ to be better or why would the
people be asking that price. That's not the point Blueman brought up
that I took issue with.

He said, "One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that
my house only gets better and more valuable with age". You've agreed
about the not getting better, now we're just down to the more
valuable.

There are the usual fluctuations in desirability of any house as it
ages and that goes to price. An old house will not be on an ever-
increasing upward trend, leaving the newer houses' value in the dust.
It does not work that way.

In my neck of the woods they knocked down a house from 1693. Knocked
it down! They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried.
People didn't w

R

On Oct 17, 2:07*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:21*pm, wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:32*pm, wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44*am, blueman wrote:

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.

*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. *The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. *The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. *Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

Read Blueman's first line in the quote above. He said it got better
_and_ more valuable.

You're not addressing the point I was addressing. *Everyone knows
there are people who will buy stuff if it is simply the most expensive
thing out there, figuring it just _has_ to be better or why would the
people be asking that price. *That's not the point Blueman brought up
that I took issue with.

He said, "One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that
my house only gets better and more valuable with age". *You've agreed
about the not getting better, now we're just down to the more
valuable.

There are the usual fluctuations in desirability of any house as it
ages and that goes to price. *An old house will not be on an ever-
increasing upward trend, leaving the newer houses' value in the dust.
It does not work that way.

In my neck of the woods they knocked down a house from 1693. *Knocked
it down! *They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried.
People didn't w

Oops.

People didn't want to pay the cost of moving the house. A relatively
local historic village recreation that has been bringing houses to
their site for years, didn't want it. The house was in fine condition
for an old house. By Blueman's theory, that house should have been in
the many, many millions of dollars - and they couldn't give it away.
It ****ed me off that it was knocked down, but the market had spoken.

R

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 12:21Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour



wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:32Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44Â*am, blueman wrote:

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.

Â*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. Â*The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. Â*The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. Â*Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R

No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

You're not addressing the point I was addressing. Everyone knows
there are people who will buy stuff if it is simply the most expensive
thing out there, figuring it just _has_ to be better or why would the
people be asking that price. That's not the point Blueman brought up
that I took issue with.

He said, "One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that
my house only gets better and more valuable with age". You've agreed
about the not getting better, now we're just down to the more
valuable.

They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened"
with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"

A house with lime plaster walls and solid wood framing, t&G subfloor,
etc will ALWAYS be a "better built" home than a house built with tin
studs, aspenite subfloor and roof decking, drywall walls, and paper
product sheating.

There are the usual fluctuations in desirability of any house as it
ages and that goes to price. An old house will not be on an ever-
increasing upward trend, leaving the newer houses' value in the dust.
It does not work that way.

In my neck of the woods they knocked down a house from 1693. Knocked
it down! They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried.
People didn't w

R
And in our neighbourhood there have been several (smaller) homes (on
1/2 acre lots) built in the 1960s, sold for very close to half a
million, and bulldozed to put in a new "McMansion".

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 2:07Â*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:21Â*pm, wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:32Â*pm, wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44Â*am, blueman wrote:

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.

Â*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. Â*The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. Â*The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. Â*Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

Read Blueman's first line in the quote above. He said it got better
_and_ more valuable.

You're not addressing the point I was addressing. Â*Everyone knows
there are people who will buy stuff if it is simply the most expensive
thing out there, figuring it just _has_ to be better or why would the
people be asking that price. Â*That's not the point Blueman brought up
that I took issue with.

He said, "One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that
my house only gets better and more valuable with age". Â*You've agreed
about the not getting better, now we're just down to the more
valuable.

There are the usual fluctuations in desirability of any house as it
ages and that goes to price. Â*An old house will not be on an ever-
increasing upward trend, leaving the newer houses' value in the dust.
It does not work that way.

In my neck of the woods they knocked down a house from 1693. Â*Knocked
it down! Â*They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried.
People didn't w

Oops.

People didn't want to pay the cost of moving the house. A relatively
local historic village recreation that has been bringing houses to
their site for years, didn't want it. The house was in fine condition
for an old house. By Blueman's theory, that house should have been in
the many, many millions of dollars - and they couldn't give it away.
It ****ed me off that it was knocked down, but the market had spoken.

R
Smebody wanted the land it sat on for more lucrative endeavours????

On Oct 17, 4:41*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened"
with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"

And what about the things that are so far behind the times that they
become a problem, and things that become dangerous? Electrical wiring
doesn't last forever, and neither does plumbing. Just because you
have that really stout looking STEEL pipe, it doesn't mean it isn't
rotted to **** inside, right? The insulation on the wiring can just
dry up and die, and then the first time it's disturbed it cracks and
you have a potential for a short or fire. Insulation, wasteful
boilers, etc., etc.

A house with lime plaster walls and solid wood framing, t&G subfloor,
etc will ALWAYS be a "better built" home than a house built with tin
studs, aspenite subfloor and roof decking, drywall walls, and paper
product sheating.

It might be that an old IS better than a particular house, but an
older house doesn't accelerate and become even more better unless you
do something to it, which makes it less old (at least for the work
done).

Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.

R

On Oct 17, 4:42*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


People didn't want to pay the cost of moving the house. *A relatively
local historic village recreation that has been bringing houses to
their site for years, didn't want it. *The house was in fine condition
for an old house. *By Blueman's theory, that house should have been in
the many, many millions of dollars - and they couldn't give it away.
It ****ed me off that it was knocked down, but the market had spoken.


Smebody wanted the land it sat on for more lucrative endeavours????

They put up something most people thought was a motel.
Aaarrrggghhh!!!!

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:41 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened"
with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"

And what about the things that are so far behind the times that they
become a problem, and things that become dangerous? Electrical wiring
doesn't last forever, and neither does plumbing. Just because you
have that really stout looking STEEL pipe, it doesn't mean it isn't
rotted to **** inside, right? The insulation on the wiring can just
dry up and die, and then the first time it's disturbed it cracks and
you have a potential for a short or fire. Insulation, wasteful
boilers, etc., etc.

(snip)

I'll offer a big AMEN to that. I love old houses as much as the next
guy, and all the Real Wood instead of ply or OSB, etc. I especially love
the hardwood floors and interior cabinetry, casings and built-ins.
Having said that, however, I prefer modern plumbing and HVAC, modern
insulation/windows, modern 200 amp electrical, and so on. And unlike on
TOH, most people can't cost-justify retrofitting all that to an older
house, much less even finding somebody to do the retrofit. Even a
semi-modern like this 1960 I am sitting in gives me fits at times.
Assuming I can afford to retire on schedule, I'm gonna look for a 1970
or newer for the next one.

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 4:41Â*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened"
with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"

And what about the things that are so far behind the times that they
become a problem, and things that become dangerous? Electrical wiring
doesn't last forever, and neither does plumbing. Just because you
have that really stout looking STEEL pipe, it doesn't mean it isn't
rotted to **** inside, right? The insulation on the wiring can just
dry up and die, and then the first time it's disturbed it cracks and
you have a potential for a short or fire. Insulation, wasteful
boilers, etc., etc.

A house with lime plaster walls and solid wood framing, t&G subfloor,
etc will ALWAYS be a "better built" home than a house built with tin
studs, aspenite subfloor and roof decking, drywall walls, and paper
product sheating.

It might be that an old IS better than a particular house, but an
older house doesn't accelerate and become even more better unless you
do something to it, which makes it less old (at least for the work
done).

Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.

R
Nobody ever said the old houses were untouched. The steel pipe and K&T
wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to
at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant
cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at
resale time.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:25:40 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:41 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened"
with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"

And what about the things that are so far behind the times that they
become a problem, and things that become dangerous? Electrical wiring
doesn't last forever, and neither does plumbing. Just because you
have that really stout looking STEEL pipe, it doesn't mean it isn't
rotted to **** inside, right? The insulation on the wiring can just
dry up and die, and then the first time it's disturbed it cracks and
you have a potential for a short or fire. Insulation, wasteful
boilers, etc., etc.

(snip)

I'll offer a big AMEN to that. I love old houses as much as the next
guy, and all the Real Wood instead of ply or OSB, etc. I especially love
the hardwood floors and interior cabinetry, casings and built-ins.
Having said that, however, I prefer modern plumbing and HVAC, modern
insulation/windows, modern 200 amp electrical, and so on. And unlike on
TOH, most people can't cost-justify retrofitting all that to an older
house, much less even finding somebody to do the retrofit. Even a
semi-modern like this 1960 I am sitting in gives me fits at times.
Assuming I can afford to retire on schedule, I'm gonna look for a 1970
or newer for the next one.


I spent some time working for a high end window company a few years
back - you'd crap your drawers if you saw the bills for some of the
window replacement jobs. One old mansion the bill was in the mid-high
5 figures (pretty close to $60,000 canadian year 1995 bucks)- and
when done, you would not have known, looking at the house, that the
windows were not "period correct" - Yet they were state of the art
high efficiency units.

On Oct 17, 10:36*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:52*am, "John Grabowski" wrote:



"blueman" wrote in message

...

blueman writes:
I need to run a wire from a switch on the wall up the wall and across
the ceiling to a new overhead light. (Note that unfortunately, the
joists run perpendicular to the direction that I need to traverse the
ceiling)

Doing so presents the following two problems for me:
1. How do I make the right angle turn through the top plate and into
* *the ceiling joist bay?

2. How do I go through the joists as I traverse the ceiling from the
* *wall edge to the center light location?

Note I don't have the option of using an unfinished attic or basement
to help me. I am trying to avoid ripping up more plaster than I need to.

I plan on buying a long flexible 1/2" bit which I believe should at
least help me with #2, though I'm a bit short on the details of where
I drill the entry and exit holes and how I achieve the right bend and
angle to go through the middle of the joist.

However, I am a lot more stumped about how I make the right angle
transition from the wall bay into the ceiling joist bay.

Could anybody give me some detailed pointers and/or point me to any
online videos? (I tried googling but found only general suggestions
such as using a flex bit)

Thanks.

Here is my report back on what I did and how I did it.

I ended up going the direct route of snaking across the ceiling and
down the wall. Again, my primary priority was doing this in a lasting
and professional way since I feel an obligation to the generations of
previous owners of our historic house (main part is Italianate built
in the 1860's and the garage is part of a wing that reportedly dates
back to the late 1700's!!!).

First, cutting through the ceiling was even harder than anticipated --
even to just cut out the hole for the ceiling box and the intermediate
holes for snaking the wires. There were multiple layers. Starting from
the exterior:

1. Rough 1/2" layer of hard plaster/stucco
2. Tough metal lathe. Actually the lathe on the ceiling was mostly solid
* metal with some grooves. The lathe on the sides was thick fine
* mesh.
3. Another 1/2 layer of plaster keyed into wooden lathe
4. 1/2" wooden lathe
5. Loose fill insulation (not sure what it is but it was very light,
* gray in color and almost like very light sawdust or cotton whisps)

I needed to use a diamond cutter in my rotary zip saw to cut through
the stuff and it made a real mess -- unfortunately, I didn't have a
helper to hold a shop vac...

Also the joists were irregularly spaced and more like 4x lumber.
There was also a fireblock-like horizontal element in the stud
bay. 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 added metal plates over
any place that I passed over a structural element.

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. I again added protective metal plates.

To prevent the loose fill insulation from continuing to leak out from
the ceiling holes on me and the floor, I stuffed in some loose
fiberglass insulation (pulled off some extra bats). This served both
to replace some of the stuff that fell out and also served as a block
against new loose fill floating out which otherwise continued to fall
on me and the floor.

Even after creating the path, pulling the wire through was still very
difficult despite the fact that the path was only 10 feet long and had
only one corner (at the floor-ceiling junction). This was presumably
due to the irregular nature of the space and protruding nails,
plaster, etc. along the pull path.

I filled in the holes in two steps. First a layer of 20minute setting
compound directly over the lathe or metal plates *(I find the setting
compound to be very hard and durable). Then a skim coat of a
concoction that I made to mimic the existing surface created out of
combining about 1-part ready mix stucco patch compound with 1-part
setting joint compound plus water and some Zinser primer (to match the
color since the walls/ceilings seem to be more whitewashed than
painted).

Rewiring the switch box was also a PITA since it was part of a 4-gang
bakelite plastic box embedded in the tiled kitchen backsplash (which
is on the other side of the garage wall). To feed in the new wire, I
ended up needing to literally bust out the old embedded bakelite box
and replaced it with a 4-gang 3-1/2" deep metal box -- I wanted the
extra room since 2 of the 4 switches were three way (including the
gargage light one) and 2 of the switches were big elements (1 Lutron
dimmer and 1 Aube timer) -- there were a total of 8 wires passing in
and out of the box (all same circuit though).

While doing it my way took a LOT longer than some of the other
suggestions, I accomplished the following:
1. No unsightly external boxes or track mold
2. Minimum patching (just a couple of small holes)
3. Minimal mess from demolition and from leaking loose fill insulation
* (had I ripped out a large swathe, I would be drowning in fallen
* insulation and plaster --- and I would have needed to find a way to
* replace insulation in the entire joist bay)
4. Minimized amount of cutting through solid metal lathe
5. No disturbing of structural elements.
6. No intrusion or damage to other adjoining finished rooms.

*Sounds like a nice job was done. *Thank you for posting back with details.

Ditto that. *A lot of times there are lengthy threads with a lot of
suggestions/debate and then it's off into the ether and we never hear
what happened.

BTW, in future, next time you have a question for people to diagnose
upload some pictures on a free hosting site and post the links here.
It makes it more interesting, efficient and fun.

R

Very interesting problem and solution.

Thanks!

For what it's worth, I just spent a few years in Europe courtesy of my
employer.

Most of the construction was plaster over masonry, even interior
walls. Nobody had ever heard of fishing a wire. Standard practice
was to route out a narrow slot, add wire, plaster over. Once painted
it was invisible.

It left the wire pretty close to the surface and uncautious Americans
often put a nail through it hanging a picture, etc. But since they
always honored the conventions about where to put the wire, the locals
never had that problem.

On Oct 17, 10:29*pm, TimR wrote:

Most of the construction was plaster over masonry, even interior
walls. *Nobody had ever heard of fishing a wire. *Standard practice
was to route out a narrow slot, add wire, plaster over. *Once painted
it was invisible.

It left the wire pretty close to the surface and uncautious Americans
often put a nail through it hanging a picture, etc. *But since they
always honored the conventions about where to put the wire, the locals
never had that problem.

Pray tell, what were those conventions?

R

On Oct 17, 9:13*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.


Nobody ever said the old houses were untouched. The steel pipe and K&T
wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to
at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant
cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at
resale time.

Sigh. So you're making the old house into a new house piece by
piece. Gotchya.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:13 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.

Nobody ever said the old houses were untouched. The steel pipe and K&T
wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to
at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant
cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at
resale time.

Sigh. So you're making the old house into a new house piece by
piece. Gotchya.

R
Well, not everybody can get the 'This Old House' crew to come do it for
them.

I've seen several old houses in my lifetime that I would love to own,
from a layout and ambiance standpoint. However, the upgrades would cost
more than building a new house of similar layout and features, with
modern materials. Sadly, the fine quarter-sawn hardwoods on many of the
interiors now fall into the 'if you have to ask' category on price.
Something about 95% of all the old-growth hardwood within 2000 miles
being cut down already, I think...

One thing seldom mentioned about older fancy houses- in most towns, the
neighborhoods where the rich people lived 1890-1940 or so, have had a
demographic shift. Not much point in having a fine old restored house if
you have to have window bars, motion-activated lights, and wear a
sidearm to walk around the block. Blue collar houses from that era are
mostly gone, in this part of the country, at least. ( But some of them
have some keen interior features as well.) No colonial-era houses around
here- I think the oldest standing house in town is from 1860s or so.

--
aem sends....

On Oct 18, 12:00 am, aemeijers wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:13 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.

Nobody ever said the old houses were untouched. The steel pipe and K&T
wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to
at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant
cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at
resale time.

Sigh. So you're making the old house into a new house piece by
piece. Gotchya.

R

Well, not everybody can get the 'This Old House' crew to come do it for
them.

Not what I meant. I meant that the ever-increasing-in-value old house
that clare was talking about, is also increasing in value because it's
being updated, which makes it That Not So Old Anymore House.

I've seen several old houses in my lifetime that I would love to own,
from a layout and ambiance standpoint. However, the upgrades would cost
more than building a new house of similar layout and features, with
modern materials. Sadly, the fine quarter-sawn hardwoods on many of the
interiors now fall into the 'if you have to ask' category on price.
Something about 95% of all the old-growth hardwood within 2000 miles
being cut down already, I think...

I took out a piece of blocking the other day from a house built in
1928. Just a tubafor. The growth rings were so close I could hardly
count them and I was wearing my reading glasses. Had to be about 30
per inch. The cy-boards you get nowadays. you're lucky if there are
more than five or six rings per inch.

One thing seldom mentioned about older fancy houses- in most towns, the
neighborhoods where the rich people lived 1890-1940 or so, have had a
demographic shift. Not much point in having a fine old restored house if
you have to have window bars, motion-activated lights, and wear a
sidearm to walk around the block. Blue collar houses from that era are
mostly gone, in this part of the country, at least. ( But some of them
have some keen interior features as well.) No colonial-era houses around
here- I think the oldest standing house in town is from 1860s or so.

Yep, what were stately houses on stately streets, serviced by
streetcars, are now inner city housing serviced by buses. Life
marches on.

R

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...

RicodJour writes:

On Oct 17, 9:52*am, "John Grabowski" wrote:
"blueman" wrote in message

...



blueman writes:
I need to run a wire from a switch on the wall up the wall and across
the ceiling to a new overhead light. (Note that unfortunately, the
joists run perpendicular to the direction that I need to traverse the
ceiling)

Doing so presents the following two problems for me:
1. How do I make the right angle turn through the top plate and into
* *the ceiling joist bay?

2. How do I go through the joists as I traverse the ceiling from the
* *wall edge to the center light location?

Note I don't have the option of using an unfinished attic or basement
to help me. I am trying to avoid ripping up more plaster than I need to.

I plan on buying a long flexible 1/2" bit which I believe should at
least help me with #2, though I'm a bit short on the details of where
I drill the entry and exit holes and how I achieve the right bend and
angle to go through the middle of the joist.

However, I am a lot more stumped about how I make the right angle
transition from the wall bay into the ceiling joist bay.

Could anybody give me some detailed pointers and/or point me to any
online videos? (I tried googling but found only general suggestions
such as using a flex bit)

Thanks.

Here is my report back on what I did and how I did it.

I ended up going the direct route of snaking across the ceiling and
down the wall. Again, my primary priority was doing this in a lasting
and professional way since I feel an obligation to the generations of
previous owners of our historic house (main part is Italianate built
in the 1860's and the garage is part of a wing that reportedly dates
back to the late 1700's!!!).

First, cutting through the ceiling was even harder than anticipated --
even to just cut out the hole for the ceiling box and the intermediate
holes for snaking the wires. There were multiple layers. Starting from
the exterior:

1. Rough 1/2" layer of hard plaster/stucco
2. Tough metal lathe. Actually the lathe on the ceiling was mostly solid
* metal with some grooves. The lathe on the sides was thick fine
* mesh.
3. Another 1/2 layer of plaster keyed into wooden lathe
4. 1/2" wooden lathe
5. Loose fill insulation (not sure what it is but it was very light,
* gray in color and almost like very light sawdust or cotton whisps)

I needed to use a diamond cutter in my rotary zip saw to cut through
the stuff and it made a real mess -- unfortunately, I didn't have a
helper to hold a shop vac...

Also the joists were irregularly spaced and more like 4x lumber.
There was also a fireblock-like horizontal element in the stud
bay. 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 added metal plates over
any place that I passed over a structural element.

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. I again added protective metal plates.

To prevent the loose fill insulation from continuing to leak out from
the ceiling holes on me and the floor, I stuffed in some loose
fiberglass insulation (pulled off some extra bats). This served both
to replace some of the stuff that fell out and also served as a block
against new loose fill floating out which otherwise continued to fall
on me and the floor.

Even after creating the path, pulling the wire through was still very
difficult despite the fact that the path was only 10 feet long and had
only one corner (at the floor-ceiling junction). This was presumably
due to the irregular nature of the space and protruding nails,
plaster, etc. along the pull path.

I filled in the holes in two steps. First a layer of 20minute setting
compound directly over the lathe or metal plates *(I find the setting
compound to be very hard and durable). Then a skim coat of a
concoction that I made to mimic the existing surface created out of
combining about 1-part ready mix stucco patch compound with 1-part
setting joint compound plus water and some Zinser primer (to match the
color since the walls/ceilings seem to be more whitewashed than
painted).

Rewiring the switch box was also a PITA since it was part of a 4-gang
bakelite plastic box embedded in the tiled kitchen backsplash (which
is on the other side of the garage wall). To feed in the new wire, I
ended up needing to literally bust out the old embedded bakelite box
and replaced it with a 4-gang 3-1/2" deep metal box -- I wanted the
extra room since 2 of the 4 switches were three way (including the
gargage light one) and 2 of the switches were big elements (1 Lutron
dimmer and 1 Aube timer) -- there were a total of 8 wires passing in
and out of the box (all same circuit though).

While doing it my way took a LOT longer than some of the other
suggestions, I accomplished the following:
1. No unsightly external boxes or track mold
2. Minimum patching (just a couple of small holes)
3. Minimal mess from demolition and from leaking loose fill insulation
* (had I ripped out a large swathe, I would be drowning in fallen
* insulation and plaster --- and I would have needed to find a way to
* replace insulation in the entire joist bay)
4. Minimized amount of cutting through solid metal lathe
5. No disturbing of structural elements.
6. No intrusion or damage to other adjoining finished rooms.

*Sounds like a nice job was done. *Thank you for posting back with details.

Ditto that. A lot of times there are lengthy threads with a lot of
suggestions/debate and then it's off into the ether and we never hear
what happened.

Thanks to you and the parent poster (John) for the kind words...

BTW, in future, next time you have a question for people to diagnose
upload some pictures on a free hosting site and post the links here.
It makes it more interesting, efficient and fun.


Good idea. I just have to figure out how to use them. Any suggestions
of a good (free) site that is not burdened by adware or other annoyances?

On Oct 17, 11:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:29*pm, TimR wrote:



Most of the construction was plaster over masonry, even interior
walls. *Nobody had ever heard of fishing a wire. *Standard practice
was to route out a narrow slot, add wire, plaster over. *Once painted
it was invisible.

It left the wire pretty close to the surface and uncautious Americans
often put a nail through it hanging a picture, etc. *But since they
always honored the conventions about where to put the wire, the locals
never had that problem.

Pray tell, what were those conventions?

R

You make your slot very carefully vertical. Anywhere you see a switch
or an outlet, you assume there is a wire running vertically floor to
ceiling; But you won't have a wire even a short distance away from
that vertical channel. The rest of the wall is safe.

Obviously there is a horizontal channel too. That will be
consistently low or high. I don't know how they chose, I didn't get
that detailed and there was a language barrier.

On Oct 18, 7:53*am, TimR wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:29*pm, TimR wrote:

Most of the construction was plaster over masonry, even interior
walls. *Nobody had ever heard of fishing a wire. *Standard practice
was to route out a narrow slot, add wire, plaster over. *Once painted
it was invisible.

It left the wire pretty close to the surface and uncautious Americans
often put a nail through it hanging a picture, etc. *But since they
always honored the conventions about where to put the wire, the locals
never had that problem.

Pray tell, what were those conventions?


You make your slot very carefully vertical. *Anywhere you see a switch
or an outlet, you assume there is a wire running vertically floor to
ceiling; *But you won't have a wire even a short distance away from
that vertical channel. *The rest of the wall is safe.

Obviously there is a horizontal channel too. *That will be
consistently low or high. *I don't know how they chose, I didn't get
that detailed and there was a language barrier.

Wait a minute, you're telling me they use _logic_...? Wouldn't that
take all the fun and excitement out of remodeling???

"Hey be careful - you don't know what's inside that wall."
"Listen, I know what I'm doing, I've done it a thousand times before,
there's no WAY a wire could be.....ZAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!:
"Woah. That was close..."
"...and exciting!"

See what I mean? Without the excitement and danger, you might as well
get a regular job or knit or something.

R

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.

R

RicodJour wrote:

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.

In my area the older houses are sold as "tear-downs" and sell for a bit
less. The real cost is in the land. A $300K house on a $1.7 million lot
costs $2 million. A $50K house on a $1.7 million lot costs $1.75 million.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:15:16 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 9:13Â*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour


Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.


Nobody ever said the old houses were untouched. The steel pipe and K&T
wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to
at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant
cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at
resale time.

Sigh. So you're making the old house into a new house piece by
piece. Gotchya.

R
They still have all the original structure and charm. All the stuff
that made them desireable to so many with money.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:33:20 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 18, 12:00 am, aemeijers wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:13 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

Not sure if you're purposefully misunderstanding what I'm saying, or
what, but that's all I have to say on that.

Nobody ever said the old houses were untouched. The steel pipe and K&T
wiring. The old boilers are GONE. Many are "restored" and upgraded to
at least current specs electrically and mechanically, at significant
cost - yet the owners virtually ALWAYS recoup their investment at
resale time.

Sigh. So you're making the old house into a new house piece by
piece. Gotchya.

R

Well, not everybody can get the 'This Old House' crew to come do it for
them.

Not what I meant. I meant that the ever-increasing-in-value old house
that clare was talking about, is also increasing in value because it's
being updated, which makes it That Not So Old Anymore House.

I've seen several old houses in my lifetime that I would love to own,
from a layout and ambiance standpoint. However, the upgrades would cost
more than building a new house of similar layout and features, with
modern materials. Sadly, the fine quarter-sawn hardwoods on many of the
interiors now fall into the 'if you have to ask' category on price.
Something about 95% of all the old-growth hardwood within 2000 miles
being cut down already, I think...

I took out a piece of blocking the other day from a house built in
1928. Just a tubafor. The growth rings were so close I could hardly
count them and I was wearing my reading glasses. Had to be about 30
per inch. The cy-boards you get nowadays. you're lucky if there are
more than five or six rings per inch.

One thing seldom mentioned about older fancy houses- in most towns, the
neighborhoods where the rich people lived 1890-1940 or so, have had a
demographic shift. Not much point in having a fine old restored house if
you have to have window bars, motion-activated lights, and wear a
sidearm to walk around the block. Blue collar houses from that era are
mostly gone, in this part of the country, at least. ( But some of them
have some keen interior features as well.) No colonial-era houses around
here- I think the oldest standing house in town is from 1860s or so.

Yep, what were stately houses on stately streets, serviced by
streetcars, are now inner city housing serviced by buses. Life
marches on.

R
A LOT of those nighbourhoods are seeing another demographic shift, as
the Yuppies and new rich start heading back into the city center,
buying up and restoring the former homes of the "old money".

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 18, 3:42Â*am, blueman wrote:
RicodJour writes:
On Oct 16, 11:44Â*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. Â*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.

R
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.

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

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 18, 3:42Â*am, blueman wrote:
RicodJour writes:
On Oct 16, 11:44Â*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. Â*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.

R
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.

wrote:
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.

An increase in property value in a historic district is often offset by
how much you're forced to spend to keep up with the district's demands.
This phenomenon extends to operating expenses exacerbated by the
inefficiency of the authentic yet drafty windows.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:09:25 -0700, Bob wrote:

wrote:
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.

An increase in property value in a historic district is often offset by
how much you're forced to spend to keep up with the district's demands.
Not terribly onerous, and grant money is often available for external
appearance items.

This phenomenon extends to operating expenses exacerbated by the
inefficiency of the authentic yet drafty windows.
Which CAN be replaced

writes:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:07:48 -0400, blueman wrote:

"Cliff Hartle" writes:
I think you have to think outside of the box.

Can you go down and then up some where else like where it will be easier to
run parallel to the joints?

There's nothing saying you have to take the direct route.

True. But the garage is on slab (so no good down). Also the other 3
walls are exterior walls so even harder to get around.
Up is hard because there is living space above and no attic.
Not saying it is impossible, but probably harder than the direct route
which is only about 5 feet up and 5 feet across the ceiling.


Gotta love slab construction, eh???
Absolutely.
But in my case, the main part of the house (150 years old) has a
basement (with brick columns - pre-Lolly days). The kitchen "wing"
which is 200+ years old is built over a crawl space and the adjoining
garage which is part of the same "wing" but obviously was
"retrofitted" in is just an (old) concrete slab with no crawl space
below.