Whether it is a trend or not it is great to see these structures being used by families. I do hope they have large families through. Man that is a lot of space.
Whether it is a trend or not it is great to see these structures being used by families. I do hope they have large families through. Man that is a lot of space.
One great party that was thrown at this house to benefit the WNY Cystic Fibrosis Foundation was the “Haunted Mansion Masquerade”. Twelve wineries, Primer Liquors, and eight great restaurants (Left bank, Mode, Duo, Protocol, Rich’s Catering, Integrity Catering, Nektar, and Snooty Fox). The best Halloween party in the city. I am not sure it will be at this house again this year but you can find out more from the website http://www.cff.org/Chapters/wny/ .
Glad there are people in our world with the money and inclination to do this. Old houses usually make inefficient offices. Hope this trend continues.
Dan and Al-Alo - Excellent posts and great points. These should be used as the model for future posts.
These are some really good points being discussed here... true that the suburban newer builds may be more energy efficient (at least prior to updating the old homes), and are just as spacious—but there really is no comparison when it comes to the quality and charm of the architecture. Which to me, is the most important thing about the space I call home. I know plenty of friends and family in newer-built houses and, nice as some of the features are, they're just so lacking in character and individuality. The house I own in the city is certainly not a mansion, but was built for a middle-class family...yet still boasts features such as a fireplace, stained and leaded glass, natural woodwork, sliding pocket doors & hardwood floors. No middle class new build could afford these things (just look at the cost of replacement in my homeowners' policy).
I'd also like to note that not ALL suburbs have new, cookie-cutter plastic houses. I grew up in the village of Hamburg, and my parents' house is one of the many Victorians built circa 1900—very much like the one I now own on Richmond. They've updated but not to a vast degree. Being able to walk to the drugstore, our schools, local stores etc. was also a huge benefit similar to living in the city. I'm the first to praise city living, but there are some areas of the suburbs that reflect the same quality of living, at least to some degree.
al-alo, you bring up some good points. There's some things, though, that I gotta' mention.
You're comparing a custom built house for the wealthy of the late 19th and early 20th century, built near the core of Buffalo, with a new build for middle-income to upper-middle-income families in the exurbs.
1) Someone living in an old 1870s-era farmhouse in Clarance, an 1890s-era Italianate in the Village of Hamburg, or s post-WWI Craftsman in East Aurora will be burning up as much gasoline as someone in a Tesmer tract mansion out towards Clarence. You also assume that tract mansion residents are all driving to jobs in the city, when they could be working in office parks a few miles away. Meanwhile, it's impossible for a resident of Elmwood Village to avoid a trek to the suburbs for certain services and products. Many city residents also outcommute to the 'burbs.
Age of the house does not necessarily imply the commute of its residents and the energy consumed in day-to-day activities.
2) Yes, heating to the top of cathedral ceilings of a tract mansion or even the two-story foyer f a 1960s-era Northtowns Neo-Mediterranean is a waste. However, not all rooms in a tract mansion will have cathedral ceilings; most others will have the usual 8' to 9' ceilings. Meanwhile, in a turn-of-the-last century city mansion, 10' to 12' ceilings are the norm. Think of the heat wasted in every room.
3) From the standpoint of today, preserving an oder home may be greener than the act of building a new house. However, comparing the act of building a house in Buffalo in 1900 versus a tract mansion today, the tract mansion will be MUCH greener, even if it isn't LEED Unobtanium certified. Consider:
* You know that "tight grain" in old houses? That's because it's virgin old growth timber. IT's about as far from FSC and SFI certification as you'll get. * The stone used for foundations? Much of it came from the Bennett Quarry, which up until the 1950s left a two-to-three square mile scar on the city's north side. There was no comprehensive plan for remediation and reuse, so much of it was used as a massive garbage dump. Today, it's the site of Central Park Plaza (dead. amd almost no permeable surface on the site), McCarthy Park, some single-family residential development east of Main, and a big gaping hole in the ground that remains on Amherst Street. * Paint? Oil-based with lead. * Jobsite safety? What's that?
4) The floorplans of houses reflect the culture of the time. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a very elaborate ritual involves when receiving guests (check out the rituals described in old Buffalo city directories at the Western New York Legacy Web site.) The houses reflected that, with multiple parlors and receiving areas, each serving a different purpose in the calling ritual. By today's standards, such floorplans seem "chopped up". Now, kitchens aren't off-limits utility rooms; in fact, they're often the focus of entertaining. Closets are larger, and clothes don't need to be stored in attics. Bathrooms are ... well, after considering that one bathroom was the norm in all but the very largest houses until the 1950s, I wonder if those from the pre-WWII era had much stronger kidneys and spinchters.
That being said, I'd take the older house in the city. Why? Just because. I like windows and natural light, and houses designed before artificial lighting was the norm are designed to best capture it. I like city neighborhoods. I like quirky nooks and crannies.
> I also would like to see a McMansion in 100 years and see how well it has lasted.
If it's been lived in and given normal maintenance, a typical Forbes, Marrano or Tesmer McMansion built today should last to 2108 and beyond. Siding will probably need to be replaced as it fades and loses its pliability, the roof will probably need to be replaced a few times, the water heater every 10 years, and the furnace every 20 to 30. Keep it continually habited, keep it heated, keep it dry, keep intrusive root systems away from the foundation, and make sure landscaping is properly maintained, and a McMansion will last hundreds of years. Seriously.
I know it's unpopular to say this, but the houses of today are built with the benefit of building codes, treated lumber, modern plumbing and electrics, insulation, and an efficient HVAC system. They may leave something to be desired in their "charm", and some architectural traits could be seen as downright offensive, such as an abundance of poorly placed gables and side walls with minimal fenestration. In the 1950s, many postulated that post-War suburban "ticky tacky" boxes would all be dust today. A drive through Tonawanda will prove otherwise.
Still, it's a myth that "homes are built cheaply compared to those a century ago." There's survivor bias: you're only seeing the homes that lasted through the decades, and not the houses that were lost due to neglect, structural damage, and so on. Also, apples and oranges: people here seem to compare mass-produced spec houses with historic treasures built for the wealthiest of the day, when they should be compared with their equivalent; the spec homes that built for the middle-class to upper-middle-class of the early 1900s.
Could you build a reasonably-priced new house today with all the craftsmanship and details of our treasures? Sure ... if you're willing to have the same labor practices of 1908. Construction workers today are largely middle-class. At the turn of the last century, even skilled craftspeople were struggling to survive.
One star. I know it's coming.
older homes are far better than any new build. just those damn gas bills are killer!
A few years ago, I was introduced to a friend of friend at a house party in his W. Ferry Mansion. Trying to find a restroom, I almost got lost with so many rooms, long hallways and secret passageways, I couldn't believe I was actually in the city, it felt more like a place one would find in Clarence or in the hills of California from the size of this place. And yes, this was a Single Family Home with maids, multi car garage and more. My point is, it's great to see this type of lifestyle in the heart of the city. So many people (including the suburban crowds) don't realize that the city does offer what they have in the burbs, but with benifits (in the city you can walk to the store for grocerys, clothiing, people watch, attractions) and it's not just full of one and two family homes or apartments. Would love to see more of these mansions return to thier glory intentions as single family homes.
DJB. You’re right on with the tax issue. The state has a bill passed that if you did work in a historic district and you reduced the # of units and converted it back a one or two family home you can get a tax break. The city of Buffalo has not adopted this locally. Have them complain to city hall. Maybe BRO should write about it.
A property like this, compared to a home in Clarence, is like Hutch's to Applebee's. If you don't know the difference, go cruise Transit.
Buffalo Ritz At what interest rate? Mortgage with taxes will be in the range of $1000 a month - and utilities won't be anywhere near $1000 a month.
One of the houses on the Linwood tour of homes is owned by a relative and they put in tons of cash to bring it back to the original floor plan. It had been a doctor's office, hair salon, separate apartment and there was still 2 floors of space for the owner to live in. Now it is one 6,000 square foot house and it is absolutely gorgeous. But, the thanks they get from the city for all the work... a ridiculous tax bill. Can't there be some type of break for people who want to re-hab a house and increase its value in a historic district? A 10 year non-transferable freeze on their taxes - so they pay the tax bill on the original purchase price to give them a break for the cost of the construction?
and when you discount an older homes greenness because of potential inefficiencies is a little limited.
like i mentioned in the previous post, almost all new homes are built in exurbs. no only do you need gas to get around, but you need to eliminate greenspace that acts as a CO2 sponge as well as all the materials needed to construct roads, utilities, schools, etc to serve these new homes.
and the older home already exists. the materials have been harvested. dont send them to a dumpster 'cause you need a walk in closet :)
tell me again, whats greener?
My first house in the city was about 115K and 2,500 sq ft (countable). Now I did only a 15 yr mortgage at 4.75 and it came out to be 1,000 a month after 20% down with taxes. It was about $600 a month balanced for utilities. Not including cable at ...oh gosh a $100.00 a month. Now lets add in maintaining the property. I once read (I can’t remember where 10 yrs ago) that it cost about a $1 a square ft to maintain a house a year. Now that was ten years ago. It cost 4+ a gallon to mow my lawn. Yes I guess if you just figure on mortgage and tax it would be less to live in a 100K home just hope nothing goes wrong, you don’t update, furnish, and your friends cut your grass for free.
Dan,
i cant really agree with all that.
of course, only time will tell. but mc mansions i have had experience with (granted not hundreds) tend to show how poorly built some of them are. of course, the real problem that no one speaks of, is a mcmansion is VERY poorly laid out. they have great rooms that will cost a fortune to heat as gaps in the structure appear with age. the small windows let in limited amounts of ventilation in the warm weather. what does get in, is blocked by poorly designed floor plans. lets not forget the general lack of sufficient eve overhang. lots of sun right on the house, heating it unnecessarily.
granted, all of those are really just architectural issues. they could be improved with the click of a mouse. but, you really have to search for a well designed new home. almost all older homes (at least the un-butchered ones) have most of these characteristics.
but your beefs with older homes are misplaced. for a grand or too, you can get some blown in insulation and a few baffles and rolled insulation in the attic. Walls insulated, check.
now onto those old leaky windows. well, there are a few options. interior storms (generally plexi with magnetic strips) are a less expensive and less invasive alternative to window replacement. also, some older windows can be rebuilt to improve their efficiency. replacement is always an option. figure 20 windows in living areas. id bet you could change that out for 10k. replacing a furnace and hot water tank? well, do you need it or no? depends on the structure.
that all assumes no work has been done at all for the past 40 years on the house.
i would also say that you are absolutely correct about surviving structures. the crappy ones were torn down years ago. but there are quite a few middle class houses throughout the region. i would guess the surviving housing stock is nearly 90% middle class. almost all with nice details and craftsmanship.
i would also say while many codes and materials have improved, some have not. primarily wood. when 2x actually meant 2". tighter grains. older growth.
as far as the electrical and hvac systems: it really isnt fair to compare new builds to as build 100+ year old houses. almost all have been rewired. all have newer systems. many have copper lines, which are now replaced with pex and pvc - can u say Polybutylene?
so there is all that.
finally, mcmansions are almost exclusively built in the ex-urbs. do you want to fill that gas tank just to get to a granite countertop?
No, that was not including user fees, that would be more. NorPark, if you own a home, you know that it cost money to maintain it. Some people update the roof, add electrical, repair plumbing, driveways repaired, landscape… That is all part of owning a home, and it is not covered by your mortgage or taxes. That is why some people choose to rent. I prefer home ownership and see it as an investment in the area. But, try and run a 300K home on $2,000 a month.
Dan, I couldn't have said it better. Are all of these old homes "green"?
I would love to know why the purchasers of these homes should get any tax breaks at all. Why is there such a worship of people who have money to do these renovations?
On another topic related to this, what happened to all of the businesses that once inhabited these houses? It is a depressing comment on the state of business in this city.
Sounds like a bit of a stretch Ritz, unless you have a extremely overpriced handyman who works for you full time and a lawn mower that has a 12cyl engine in it which you use to mow your huge city lawn 3 times a week. You say 600 balanced a month for utilities, do you mean gas and electric is 600 bucks a month, or are you figuring in your quarterly user fees as well, because even its thats the case thats pretty unsane.
I think it is more than just an age / size comparison when you think about the craftsmanship / artistry that went into structures like this, ben's comparison is much more applicable. The lack of quality (not costly) materials and individual design in many newer homes leaves them with a very homogeneous feel. Design is more than a bay window and color of vinyl.
I also would like to see a McMansion in 100 years and see how well it has lasted.
GDC, I own property in the 'burb's, built 1950'ish. I have city property built in 1850. Given an hours notice to an impending tornado/other natural disaster, my family would be in the city property, no question. The first floor of the home pictured above likely has a 12" joist in the basement, covered by a 1 inch (pine?) subfloor, and three quarter inch of oak on top of that. No one builds a house like that anymore.
If anyone wants to live in the 3 Bedroom 3rd floor apartment of this Mansion, (2000sqft), it's currently listed on Craigs list @$2000 a month. The place is furnished and includes utilities (i.e. Corporate Rental).
That would be an awesome place to rent, although you could probably buy about a $300,000 house with a $2,000/month mortgage payment.
you could buy a 100K house + utlities +taxes not including new funishings for about $2,000 a month.
Dan and aL-alo, what a great discussian between you two, wish more where like that. Open minded and well thought out. Not only where you both informed and articulate, but actualy better written and more open minded than most of the actual stories/posts on BRO.
Silverthorne Mansion (is not) a single family residence... there's an apartment for rent in it... isn't that 'multi-family' ??
Well met. Dan and Al-alo. There are always two sides of the story but one can pull up commute time to work stats from the census to see that most city residents commute a shorter distance to work and assuming you live near one of the several commercial strips odds are you can do most shopping in relatively close proximity to home. Remember the distance from Allentown to North Buffalo for shopping is still closer than most homes in Amherst, Tonawanda or Clarence to similar commercial areas. Then again there will always be needs to head out to the burbs and always be a need for them to head into the city.
I also have to agree with Dan that reusing previously harvested materials whether for housing or anything is always green than harvesting new materials from the earth. Virgin forests or not.
Newer homes can be made more efficient in HVAC than older homes but often their design works against them. most older homes are built closer together and with a landscaping ideal that shielded each other from wind and sun and therefore had no need for AC. How many new homes have central AC as a necessity for a comfortable environment? My apt in Allentown was always comfortable all summer long never needed a fan or anything to cool the place down because the trees and neighbors did that. In the winter I never had a heating bill about 200 for a month because the neighborhood itself helped to keep the cold winds off the homes and above the streets.
I would still be willing to bet that a properly insulated older home would be more efficient in holding heat because of the type of construction than a newer home. My friend just insulated his 1920's home from basement to attic. Will be looking forward to seeing how it affects his bills this winter.
Ben, age is def a difference in the two areas, but Size wise, it's not much different.
sbrof> Newer homes can be made more efficient in HVAC than older homes but often their design works against them. most older homes are built closer together and with a landscaping ideal that shielded each other from wind and sun and therefore had no need for AC. How many new homes have central AC as a necessity for a comfortable environment? My apt in Allentown was always comfortable all summer long never needed a fan or anything to cool the place down because the trees and neighbors did that. In the winter I never had a heating bill about 200 for a month because the neighborhood itself helped to keep the cold winds off the homes and above the streets.
Very true. Older homes were designed in an era before elaborate HVAC systems were the norm. Therefore, design and siting played a much more important role in keeping buildings as warm as possible in the winter, and as cool as possible in the summer. Consider fenestration, or window placement; on older homes, ALL elevations have windows. This allows most rooms to get light, and some radiant heat, during the winter. During the summer, all the windows can be opened up for cross-ventilation. Transoms above room doors permitted a breeze to blow trough a house, while still permitting occupants to keep doors closed for privacy.
The windowless side elevations in today's tract mansions were intended to serve as insulation. Up until the 1970s, all but the most expensive windows were still considered leaky. Double-pane glass was uncommo in newer houses until the late 1970s, With brute-force HVAC allowing the interior of a house to remain at a consistent temperature, and artificial lighting being far more effective than the gaslamps and dim incandescents of the late 1800s and early 1900s, defenestration was intended to cut heating and cooling costs.
On a square-foot basis, even with insulation, it would cost a lot more to run HVAC and keep an older house at a constant temperature year 'round than a newer McMansion. However, without brute-force HVAC, the older house will probably be more comfortable, albeit somewhat nippy during the winter and on the warm side during the summer; the newer house isn't sited to take advantage of the sun's warming effects, and the fenestration and floorplan hinder natural cross-ventilation.
Dan,
on your first point: those older homes in the suburban town centers can all be more energy efficient than any new development is. first, the lots are smaller. no vast swaths of green space, no long distances for utilities to travel. secondly, they were mostly built in some proximity to a "main street", where a habitant could get some goods and services without requiring auto travel. and like i said previously, the materials are already harvested, and civic improvements already built - no "new" carbon footprint required. one last thing. you mention that many people travel from x to y for work or play. all true. but you have to admit, city or inner streetcar suburbs are in general closer to everything .
to be fair, it would be untrue to say a mcmansion couldnt be built on a city sized lot in walking proximity to some amenities (see Amherst proposed development), but it is much more unlikely.
on your second point: it is true that the old mansions had many rooms with high ceilings. but almost all older homes were not mansions. im not sure if we have been comparing apples to oranges to grapefruit.
the mansions that line Delaware were the largest of the large, ornate of the ornate-tious. most middle class homes in Buffalo are much smaller. think of the cottages of the lower west side, the doubles of north and east side buffalo, or the bungalows all over the place. very few high ceilings. even comparing an EV victorian to an "average" Buffalo home could be a stretch, as most of those homes were upper middle class+.
on your third point: no doubt that the older ways of harvesting materials was unsustainable and even dangerous. However, they have already been harvested. there isnt any putting that stuff back. building a new house, even with sustainable harvested lumber, isnt exactly kind to the environment. PVC for windows doors, siding and sewer lines doesnt have the cleanest manufacturing process. that marble from India? im sure the labor and environmental laws there dont quite hold the same standards as are current in US. Or the fixtures made in China? i dont even want to think about it. not to mention the CO2 cost of moving that stuff here.
Ill give you that when many of these things were made 150, 100 or 50 years ago, most were manufactured with little care for the human and environmental impact. but i say again, what is done is done. no need to heap on more.
on the 4th one: you are absolutely right, floorplans reflect the needs and desires of the day. but many common sense and inexpensive design features are currently ignored (ie, using stairways as thermal chimneys). how hard is it to just do what has worked for hundreds of years and just put in larger closets? its not like trying to build a fission reactor!
Report this