Forum Header

Georgia Appraiser Forum

Provided by:   John M. Bryant, Inc., A Georgia Appraisal School

School Calendar | Phone Book | Appraisal Topics | Appraisal Questions | Other Topics

Forum Rules
Online Courses
Appraiser Search
MLS Analyzer


Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
nogava

Platinum Member
Registered:
Posts: 321
Reply with quote  #1 
Original improvements built in 1930.  Torn down to foundation last year and rebuilt as new construction from foundation up.  Going with C2 (refi) and low effective age.  All records reflect original structure.

But what are you disclosing for year built on page one?

May not matter since there is discussion about everything in the addendum, but curious what you would go with from a form filling standpoint.

__________________
OIIIIIIIO
0
Meatloaf

Avatar / Picture

Platinum Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,265
Reply with quote  #2 
The year built should reflect the age of the foundation.

I would go with 1930.

Sounds silly but think of it this way.

Would you totally gut and spend billions on a skyscraper that was sitting on a 100 year old foundation?  No, you would start fresh.  Why do people do that with houses?  The foundation isn't likely to last as long as the expected life of a house built new today..... So in about 20-30 years it will likely start to fail structurally.

__________________
The AMC is my B!TCH!
0
RubberStamp

Platinum Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,130
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatloaf
The year built should reflect the age of the foundation.

I would go with 1930.

Sounds silly but think of it this way.

Would you totally gut and spend billions on a skyscraper that was sitting on a 100 year old foundation?  No, you would start fresh.  Why do people do that with houses?  The foundation isn't likely to last as long as the expected life of a house built new today..... So in about 20-30 years it will likely start to fail structurally.


Was thinking the same.  Why in the world would you keep the old foundation it is just lazy.  If you are going to tear down..  tear it down.  Although there might have been some kind of weird stips if it was in a historic area or something where maybe you could grandfather something?

__________________
We argue this: Meanwhile the agent's assistant just did 5 unofficial appraisal inspections they paired with a Zestimate and granted 90% LTV - all guaranteed no buy back.
0
BillDing

Avatar / Picture

Platinum Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,532
Reply with quote  #4 

My guess is that it's a tax savings or maybe even a code issue where upon 100% rebuild, they would have to change something...setback, garage or house limitation, etc.  

To save what..$7k to pour a new foundation in lieu of owning a new construction home?  Just stupid.


__________________
****I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you***
0
MikePower

Avatar / Picture

Platinum Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,267
Reply with quote  #5 
Typically, they keep the same foot print, then do an addition, including going up, by reinforcing the original foundation.

Allows the builder/investor to save a ton of time and money in regards to permitting and approval process, especially in the City.

Mike P.
0
nogava

Platinum Member
Registered:
Posts: 321
Reply with quote  #6 
That's about what they did.  The property is in downtown Canton, and the setbacks are next to nothing on that street.
__________________
OIIIIIIIO
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Appraisal Topics | Appraisal Questions | Other Topics