Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don’t think this has anything to do with the alley. The large two story windows in the rear now have support posts holding them up or stabilizing them. Looks like major structural or installation issues. I would have backed out of that contract also.
Interesting// are the posts supporting from the outside or inside? I’m having trouble picturing this without it looking hideous!
Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don’t think this has anything to do with the alley. The large two story windows in the rear now have support posts holding them up or stabilizing them. Looks like major structural or installation issues. I would have backed out of that contract also.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honest question- if they didn’t raze the house, isn’t it still a flip? A very expensive, extensive one for sure, but the old house isn’t completely gone.
The developer might have preferred to raze it, but by leaving a couple of walls up he would be grandfathered in and not have to comply with the current lot set back rules. For all intents and purposes though, this is a new build, not a flip.
Nothing to do with set back in this case. Setback rules in DC currently say “in line with neighboring houses” so they could have built in the same place with a raze. In this case, it’s because you save at least 100-200k in site prep and concrete work by using an existing foundation and just adding onto it versus paying for a complete raze, new site work, and a new foundation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honest question- if they didn’t raze the house, isn’t it still a flip? A very expensive, extensive one for sure, but the old house isn’t completely gone.
The developer might have preferred to raze it, but by leaving a couple of walls up he would be grandfathered in and not have to comply with the current lot set back rules. For all intents and purposes though, this is a new build, not a flip.
Nothing to do with set back in this case. Setback rules in DC currently say “in line with neighboring houses” so they could have built in the same place with a raze. In this case, it’s because you save at least 100-200k in site prep and concrete work by using an existing foundation and just adding onto it versus paying for a complete raze, new site work, and a new foundation.
More cut corners. The list goes on. After an afternoon walk, I noticed the garden hoses are still attached to the spigot and strewn across the lawn in February, after multiple snow storms and below freezing temps. It takes 60 seconds to wrap up a hose and unscrew it from the spigot to help prevent frozen/burst pipes. Not one other house that I have seen in the neighborhood still has garden hoses left out across the lawn and landscaping. It's the little things. If someone doesn't take 60 seconds to do that (especially when the house is on the market), what else isn't done? The biggest concern seems to be the back windows which appear to have major issues. Lots of new flashing material being cut in the front yard all week. Poor installation and water issues on a wall of windows aren't easily resolved and can last a lifetime. Nightmare. Whoever buys this house should demand a warranty from the developer, so they're not left with a lifetime of frustration.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honest question- if they didn’t raze the house, isn’t it still a flip? A very expensive, extensive one for sure, but the old house isn’t completely gone.
The developer might have preferred to raze it, but by leaving a couple of walls up he would be grandfathered in and not have to comply with the current lot set back rules. For all intents and purposes though, this is a new build, not a flip.
Nothing to do with set back in this case. Setback rules in DC currently say “in line with neighboring houses” so they could have built in the same place with a raze. In this case, it’s because you save at least 100-200k in site prep and concrete work by using an existing foundation and just adding onto it versus paying for a complete raze, new site work, and a new foundation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honest question- if they didn’t raze the house, isn’t it still a flip? A very expensive, extensive one for sure, but the old house isn’t completely gone.
The developer might have preferred to raze it, but by leaving a couple of walls up he would be grandfathered in and not have to comply with the current lot set back rules. For all intents and purposes though, this is a new build, not a flip.
Anonymous wrote:Honest question- if they didn’t raze the house, isn’t it still a flip? A very expensive, extensive one for sure, but the old house isn’t completely gone.
Anonymous wrote:So $3m and no parking? That’s going to be a tough sell
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don’t think this has anything to do with the alley. The large two story windows in the rear now have support posts holding them up or stabilizing them. Looks like major structural or installation issues. I would have backed out of that contract also.
Yikes!
Anonymous wrote:Actually, I don’t think this has anything to do with the alley. The large two story windows in the rear now have support posts holding them up or stabilizing them. Looks like major structural or installation issues. I would have backed out of that contract also.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They alley is not being extended. The contracts will keep falling through until that is made clear. Not sure if it is the realtor or developer who keeps trying to say that.
Oh right, maybe it is that "neighbor" with no skin in the game!
I’m the developer…er…I mean neighbor. The alley is being extended. You mad bro?
Anonymous wrote:They alley is not being extended. The contracts will keep falling through until that is made clear. Not sure if it is the realtor or developer who keeps trying to say that.
Oh right, maybe it is that "neighbor" with no skin in the game!