Older homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

No.
Bought and sold 2 70-year old houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many people will actually pay to have all asbestos removed before buying a property or before moving into one?

Plenty of paranoid types with more money than common sense in this area who will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

You encapsulate an asbestos floor, and then there’s no risk to anyone. It didn’t bother us when we were looking for houses. Unless you like setting money on fire paying for removal.

We paid maybe like $2k to have asbestos removed. Not really "setting money on fire" and will pay off when we can confidently assert the home has no asbestos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

No.
Bought and sold 2 70-year old houses.

No to what? Name the state that doesn't require you to disclose asbestos.

You absolutely need to disclose it in the DMV if you know it exists...even if you carpeted over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

No.
Bought and sold 2 70-year old houses.

No to what? Name the state that doesn't require you to disclose asbestos.

You absolutely need to disclose it in the DMV if you know it exists...even if you carpeted over it.

There was nothing about asbestos. I guess the sellers didn’t bother to find out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

No.
Bought and sold 2 70-year old houses.

No to what? Name the state that doesn't require you to disclose asbestos.

You absolutely need to disclose it in the DMV if you know it exists...even if you carpeted over it.

There was nothing about asbestos. I guess the sellers didn’t bother to find out?

That's possible...or they purposely left it out and hoped the buyer wouldn't ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a 1950s ranch. Renovated it, so more open with high ceilings. Had to redo plumbing, electric, but everyone comments on how well-built it is. Our HVAC inside system is in a weird area because originally no central air, so to get it serviced or when we need a new one that will be annoying (we did not put the system there, previous owners did).

Neighbors have new build from maybe 2019, it is poorly built. Neighbors complain all the time and inside it just looks cheap. It is a larger home (4000-4500 square feet not including basement), but they are having issues with almost everything.

Pros and cons to everything. You have lead and asbestos, but who knows what all the new construction materials will do to us over time either.

I think the only issue is if you have to disturb it. In most cases, people just go over it, no?

False. I have a friend whose kid is in really poor shape just from living in an old home and it wasn’t even “disturbed”. Think every time you open a door or window, lead particles enter the air and also your childrens’ brains causing permanent damage.

Live new. We bought a gorgeous new build in part for that reason.

Maybe the kid is just dumb?

I grew up in an old house, in a neighborhood built entirely between the 1890s and 1920s. Packed with kids. We all grew up just fine and dandy. High performing schools sending many graduates to elite universities.

I currently live in a neighborhood built mostly in the 30s and 40s. Packed with kids too. The schools send graduates to the best colleges in the country.

If you're scared, then you know where you need to live. But you are more scared than realistic.

🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

Anecdotal. No statistical evidence, especially as many other factors go into determining a home's value.

My own realtor, who is experienced and knows our market extremely well, shrugged and said encapsulate with LVP or tile. If buyers want to remove it, they will remove it but it doesn't affect value of a house that is otherwise already in great shape and updated.

In your market of +1.5M houses, if two houses are identical with the only difference being one has the basement asbestos tiles and the other doesn't, is there a meaningful price difference? You'll likely find the answer is no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

There were other things going on with your house, not just asbestos. I bought an old house last year that had very visible basement asbestos tile and there were 6 other offers and a bidding war.
We just covered it up with floor leveler and put LVP over it. NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

Anecdotal. No statistical evidence, especially as many other factors go into determining a home's value.

My own realtor, who is experienced and knows our market extremely well, shrugged and said encapsulate with LVP or tile. If buyers want to remove it, they will remove it but it doesn't affect value of a house that is otherwise already in great shape and updated.

In your market of +1.5M houses, if two houses are identical with the only difference being one has the basement asbestos tiles and the other doesn't, is there a meaningful price difference? You'll likely find the answer is no.

Well, you didn't actually provide any statistical evidence...simply your opinion. So, do you have any statistical evidence?

It's odd...I mean, spending $2k or $5k is really chump change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

Anecdotal. No statistical evidence, especially as many other factors go into determining a home's value.

My own realtor, who is experienced and knows our market extremely well, shrugged and said encapsulate with LVP or tile. If buyers want to remove it, they will remove it but it doesn't affect value of a house that is otherwise already in great shape and updated.

In your market of +1.5M houses, if two houses are identical with the only difference being one has the basement asbestos tiles and the other doesn't, is there a meaningful price difference? You'll likely find the answer is no.

Well, you didn't actually provide any statistical evidence...simply your opinion. So, do you have any statistical evidence?

It's odd...I mean, spending $2k or $5k is really chump change.

Alternatively, you could easily argue that as it is only chump change, most buyers won't factor it into their asking price because they'll do it themselves. It's not a 100k kitchen replacement or a 20k HVAC upgrade.

I did go to an open house in my neighborhood that was an estate sale and the agent proudly blasted the asbestos tiles had been removed from the basement. You absolutely could see that it had been done. And you absolutely saw you needed to put down a new floor as it was covered with the stains or residues of where the old tiles had been. House sold well and for a good price. I've also seen similar estate sales in the neighborhood with asbestos tiles in situ and selling prices with multiple offers were in the similar range as the house with the asbestos removed. There are so many factors that go into the sale price of a house and asbestos or absence of asbestos tiles is just one among many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

Anecdotal. No statistical evidence, especially as many other factors go into determining a home's value.

My own realtor, who is experienced and knows our market extremely well, shrugged and said encapsulate with LVP or tile. If buyers want to remove it, they will remove it but it doesn't affect value of a house that is otherwise already in great shape and updated.

In your market of +1.5M houses, if two houses are identical with the only difference being one has the basement asbestos tiles and the other doesn't, is there a meaningful price difference? You'll likely find the answer is no.

Well, you didn't actually provide any statistical evidence...simply your opinion. So, do you have any statistical evidence?

It's odd...I mean, spending $2k or $5k is really chump change.

DP. Chump change or not, I see no reason to spend money if I don’t have to. Our realtor said not to bother with asbestos removal, and it didn’t affect the sale of our house which went pending for well above asking the day it hit the market.

[Anonymous]

You do know on the sale of any home built before 1978 you have to give that standard Absestos warning any how.

My 1955 old house only had absestos tile in my small basement and some absesto white insulation in crawlspace under house. My basement had wall to wall carpet. How is that worth any money off house.

Funny part is after 12 years my house got flooded in Hurricane sandy. My wall to wall basement carpet was under four fee of salt water over night and I only got water drained a few days later. The salt water disolved the glue. on the tiles and myself and BIL was cutting carpet to throw out we tossed the tiles and EPA clean up was picking up stuff anyhow. Same for white insulation in crawl space. And then to get my FEMA funds after restoration they came back and check whole house absestos and found zero.

Guess what when I sold house in 2019 I still had to do Absestos disclosure. Does not matter there is none.

And by the way my 1955 house had zero absetos when built. Someone renovated basement in the 1960s and put down tile and heating oil company put up insulation on hot water pipes in crawl space since it was not heated in crawl space. Not every house built had absestos.