On the Market: Another Yakima Avenue Favorite
The beautiful historic home of Judge Grosscup (circa 1903) at 901 North Yakima has hit the market at a few bucks under $1.2 million. This is a gorgeous four square home with a healthy amount of stone on the exterior. The first time I noticed this home it wasn’t because of the architecture; it was because of the car out front. I remember a relatively rare BMW 850 sitting on the street and collecting leaves. Very infrequently we’d notice an older gentlemen taking the car out. Pre-remodel, back when the BMW was out front, I remember a propensity for security bars over dark curtain drawn windows. Then one day we noticed the car was gone and th curtains were opened. Something had changed. As the remodel got going the bars disappeared, the windows seemed to open up, and us passers-by got a glimpse into the gorgeous interior. From what I can tell, the home has been beautifully remodeled over the last few years by the current owners. There isn’t much of a front yard, but the view out the back makes it worth every penny… or at least a lot of pennies.
Filed under: On the Market
5 comments
J Jesse November 17, 2012
One of the problems with having a historic building is that the city pretty much demands that if it is remodeled or upgraded that there are certain things that must be done in accordance to the buildings historical character… so I understand. That’s great on paper, in a historical or city staff meeting, or by the public’s perception but it might not be so great with the owner who can’t afford those things.
The problem I see with historic rehabilitation laws is that they’re front-loaded in the sense of what must be done to the building if a remodel happens. Therefore, if you get a building that’s too expensive to remodel because of this, it sits… and sits… and sits until it isn’t viable for a remodel but rather a demolition and just selling the vacant land so the project will “pencil out”.
As well, an old building has other issues besides historic laws. They often need to be lead abated at a significant cost, wiring is often ancient knob and tube, and pipes can be lead or even clay (outside).
I think it’s important that the pain inflicted in sitting on a building and letting it rot until it’s necessary demolition day needs to be amped up. Basically, it needs to cost the owner far more to sit on one of these structures and demolish it by neglect that it does to restore it. Not just the historic guidelines are important, but the other issues need to be looked at, by the city, as well.
F fred davie November 18, 2012
Jesse, I would tend to agree with your posting. If our society really wants to preserve these old buildings then we need to step back and take a hard look at the numbers.
One of the numbers you didn’t mention but which I think is relevant is the cost of labor. We have established a price of labor which I believe is detrimental to the preservation of historic structures. It might be possible to completely refurbish a historic building using minimum wage labor and yet be impossible to refurbish the same building using prevailing wage labor.
Apparently there is an inverse relationship between the cost of rehabilitating a historic structure and the likelihood of rehabilitating a historic structure.
Liberal employment policies are probably dooming many otherwise salvageable buildings.
J Jesse November 18, 2012
@ Fred: Exploiting desperate workers with minimum wages in this economy is not the solution.
Private sector rehabs need not pay prevailing wages. Only the gov’t is dumb enough to waste money on prevailing wages that are way over market rate.
R Reuben McKnight November 19, 2012
Thanks for the thoughts.
Although it is true that a historic rehabilitation budget tends to cost more in skilled labor than new construction does (new construction invests more in materials, often sourced from outside the local economy), it is a misconception that historic buildings are too expensive to rehab because of “historic requirements.”
There are many factors affecting the costs of rehabbing older buildings, historic or not. For example, full code upgrades that are triggered by either the substandard building abatement process, by overall construction project value, change of use, or by the intended use (retail versus restaurants, residential versus offices). An unreinforced masonry building may be subject to seismic upgrades, egress requirements (including pressurized stairwells and elevators), sprinkler systems, energy code upgrades and so on.
Some of these financial hurdles can be addressed through amendments to city codes, including land use, building code, and our enforcement code. We’re working on those factors.
Other tools we already have, including our local property tax incentive and the Federal Investment Tax Credit for historic rehabilitation, actually add value to a building if it is historically designated by potentially lowering operating costs and bringing in equity dollars at the front end.
J Jesse November 19, 2012
Arent things like seismic upgrades, lead abatement, and other full code upgrades with older buildings pretty much always problems in older buildings and therefore historic rehab requirements? I mean, the historic codes and the problems with historic buildings are one in the same. Perhaps the rules for each reside in different city departments but the costs all land in the building owners spreadsheet.
I’m glad all things are being looked at.