how to own one of Baltimore's dilipidated houses? (foreclosures, neighborhood)

[PreservationPioneer]

I don't know why someone who doesn't like row-houses would live in Baltimore. Instead of trying to remake the city in terms of what you think it should look like, move out to the suburbs, and let the people who love the city the way it is live there. Baltimore certainly needs love but it doesn't need to become something it isn't. People who want to demolish the city's rowhouses are like the evil boyfriend who never loved you for who you were. Row-houses are Baltimore's identity....all tied up into its lore and legend. Baltimore without row-houses would be like Miami without the ocean, Oscar without Hammerstein, Manhattan without Broadway. I could go on...

Sorry, some of these messages just have me all stirred up. I LOVE Baltimore. I want it to become a better city, but not at the expense of its character or identity!

[KennyP]

It's like I'm speaking a freakin' foreign language. Row.houses.are.cool,

I never once suggested destroying livable structures.

Instead, I hope Baltimore developers would choose to usher in modern buildings that honor history with modern efficiency. Build these in place of ABANDONED structures.

It's an extremely simple concept to grasp.

[jonjj]

New construction has already occured in many neighborhoods around the city that has not destroyed the density/fabric of Baltimore's history. Kenny has a point. There are plenty of abandoned streets in or near the proximity of decent areas that could use a revamp. As long as the new construction adds to the fabric, I am all for it. An examples includes the area north of Little Italy that definitely changed the southeast sector for the better.
However, some streets/neighborhoods would be better off if the existing structures were rehabbed. Think Fulton Avenue on the west side or areas bordering Bolton Hill. How excellent it would be if those homes/businesses were revitalized for the next generation.

[Billiam]

Originally Posted by KennyP

It's like I'm speaking a freakin' foreign language. Row.houses.are.cool,

I never once suggested destroying livable structures.

Instead, I hope Baltimore developers would choose to usher in modern buildings that honor history with modern efficiency. Build these in place of ABANDONED structures.

It's an extremely simple concept to grasp.

Though many of the abandoned structures could easily be made livable again. If we demolished every abandoned structure in the city, then we would be erasing entire neighborhoods and the priceless historic significance that go along with them. Honoring the history of the city with new rowhouses is fine with me, but they do not have the authenticity of what previously exsisted, not to mention they usually are not as attractive as what was there before.

[davecj]

Originally Posted by KennyP

It's like I'm speaking a freakin' foreign language. Row.houses.are.cool,

I never once suggested destroying livable structures.

Instead, I hope Baltimore developers would choose to usher in modern buildings that honor history with modern efficiency. Build these in place of ABANDONED structures.

It's an extremely simple concept to grasp.

Just playing devil's advocate but from someone who has renovated an old row home, it would be far more efficient to just build a new home than do what we did. Sure you have 4 walls up but have you ever tried building new in something old? Nothing fits and it all has to be custom made. 9 times out of 10 you have to remove so much that it's all new material anyway. Plaster and lathe are one of my favorites.

Now mind you you'll never be able to duplicate the feeling of a new home in an old home with new construction but it's something to think about.

[DCnative27]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Faulty argument, because you just said the problem with this area was the lack of amenities in the neighborhood.

If people are willing to build new property there, they are also willing to live there, so why not restore the old homes instead?

Nothing faulty about what I said. I think people would consider a neighborhood with new homes that have modern amenities like larger bedrooms, closets, stairwells, bathrooms and maybe even an attached garage over tiny old historic homes in a part of the city that has none of the amenities of Federal Hill or Patterson Park.

[DCnative27]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

Tiny homes= more efficient, easy and inexpensive to renovate and own.

Knocking down to build something new = wasteful, inefficient, more expensive than restoration of existing homes, and insensitive to Baltimore's historic fabric and integrity.

Creating suburban style homes in the city will never be attractive to people who want to live in the real Baltimore. It will only appeal to people who wish it was Phoenix or Charlotte.

I agree, but when you have entire city blocks of them far away from the city center, it should be considered why those tiny homes were abandoned to begin with. Why are these houses so hard to market to potential homeowners? You can only do so much, with tiny bedrooms, bathrooms, stairwells, and closets.

Also the houses don't look that good, I'm sorry some home designs aren't good because their historic. No disrespect to Baltimore but I personally think some of those rowhouses are ugly, just like I think the shotgun houses in New Orleans are ugly. Face it some historic houses are ugly!!!

[mrizzy]

Originally Posted by davecj

Scope information can be found here Greater Baltimore Board of Realtors - GBBR Scope

As far as buying the property, you would do a title search to make sure it's clear of all liens and to ensure the property is actually owned by the seller. That's not really something that happens much if ever. The only thing I've heard of is people who pretend to be owners of foreclosed homes and rent them out to steal the security deposits.

More than likely you'll want to get the property reassessed if you do buy. We bought a place in the heart of Canton for $87k that was assessed at 150k. We showed the assessment office that the property was now worth 87k and it cut our taxes in half.

In my experience, it has NOT been that way.
I tried to reassess a property bought for$30,000. It was reassessed for $59,000. They claimed the property alone is worth $50,000.
Another example: property bought for $10,000. Assessed for $101,000! I went to get it reassessed for $25,000. Agreed for ONE year. Still not rehabbed due to sickness. Nonetheless, it was reassessed for 99,000!!
I did an evaluation of cops on the [dead end] street. One after another, sold or for sale at $7,000 or less. No recent sales after the 2008 burst bubble. (two had previously sold for $350,000!!! & $145,000 and then were foreclosed upon. Bank put them up for $25,000 and ultimately lowered the prices to $5-10,000.

Nothing i showed them convinced them. They kept the assessment at $99,000 but they only charged $49,000 rate for this year. Next year will be $74,500 and the following year will be the full $99,000
They claim that "sold" comps in "the neighborhood" prove the value.
Baloney!

[pwduvall]

Originally Posted by davecj

Just playing devil's advocate but from someone who has renovated an old row home, it would be far more efficient to just build a new home than do what we did. Sure you have 4 walls up but have you ever tried building new in something old? Nothing fits and it all has to be custom made. 9 times out of 10 you have to remove so much that it's all new material anyway. Plaster and lathe are one of my favorites.

Now mind you you'll never be able to duplicate the feeling of a new home in an old home with new construction but it's something to think about.

I'm not sure what you mean by efficient. I'm in the middle of a project where ten vacant rowhouses are getting gut rehabs. The average house has some structural damage and need partial roof and joist replacement. The average cost on these average sized rowhouses is about $100 a square foot. The most damaged "houses" will cost $20 more per square foot (which might include cutting down the tree in the front room.) You simply can't build a new house from scratch for $100 per square foot, especially if you consider demolition of the old rowhouse and site preparation. The "efficiency" cited above must have to do with something other than just cost.

I recently updated a historic house in relatively good condition. That cost about $60 per square foot and included a modem kitchen, all new plumbing (incl. extra 1 1/2 bath), mostly new electric, and central a/c. If you like living in an old style house, this kind of place is a steal.

[Infinite_heights77]

"Baltimore certainly needs love but it doesn't need to become something it isn't."

*Disagree! Yes, it does!!! Baltimore needs better models of urbanity, civility and love. Baltimore needs to be something other than what it is now, or has been in the past.

"Baltimore without row-houses would be like Miami without the ocean, Oscar without Hammerstein, Manhattan without Broadway. I could go on"

*Awwwwww, I think you're stretching a bit! "Miami without the Ocean" Baltimore row-houses are all that unique and I can do without some of them looking dilapidated and degenerate.

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

I don't know why someone who doesn't like row-houses would live in Baltimore. Instead of trying to remake the city in terms of what you think it should look like, move out to the suburbs, and let the people who love the city the way it is live there. Baltimore certainly needs love but it doesn't need to become something it isn't. People who want to demolish the city's rowhouses are like the evil boyfriend who never loved you for who you were. Row-houses are Baltimore's identity....all tied up into its lore and legend. Baltimore without row-houses would be like Miami without the ocean, Oscar without Hammerstein, Manhattan without Broadway. I could go on...

Sorry, some of these messages just have me all stirred up. I LOVE Baltimore. I want it to become a better city, but not at the expense of its character or identity!