Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We had a 50 year old pool -- regular concrete -- that had leaks. I thought we should just sell "as is" and work thru that issue when we had a buyer. Real estate agent said -- since we had renovated the house to sell turn key, this would be a bad decision. So, we spent over $20K getting it repaired to sell the house.
The pump was in bad shape and the pool solar heater was broken but we couldn't even get on anyone's list to get it repaired to meet our late March listing target for a house in the SF Bay area. Replacing the pump, removing the heater, and adding the new (local ordinance) drain required as pumps were replaced would have been another $15K+ So we decided to offer a buyer credit. They took the credit and decided to have the pool filled with dirt instead of making repairs. We wasted $20K.
Ouch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
I think this is pretty much a binary issue. People who aren't pool people won't even look at the house unless you offer a really huge discount on the price. For me for example, it would probably have to be something like a $30K additional discount so I could afford to have it removed and re-landscaped. Pool people would look at it, but it would have to be in good shape and a usable configuration.
So, the question is, do you want to put money in and limit the market to pool people or take it out to maximize the market? If it were me and I was going to have to spend money anyway to fix it properly, I'd go ahead and take it out and replace it with a nice deck and grill area.
True, but if you just leave it as is you're better off negotiating a slight credit to refurb or tear out. This way you're leaving the decision up to the buyer (whomever and whatever side of the pool line they may be )
It's far easier to give the buyers a 2-5k credit to refurb or tear out rather than spending 10-20k and then catering to a certain buyer AND try to get your 10-20k back.
While pools are nice most people spend a additional 80-100 bucks a month for a pool guy. Not to mention the added cost of water and electrical utilities. And the additional repair/maintenance that may be needed every X years
Last edited by Electrician4you; 11-24-2016 at 08:53 PM..
I agree with the do nothing idea. Disclose what you know, price it appropriately, and see what happens. If it is done in your area, describe the pool "as is".
EXACTLY! I WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THE BUYER. They can work out a price with you towards repairs but I wouldn't drop it $30K!
We plan to sell our house in the next year. We have a 20 x 40 inground pool in the back yard (vinyl liner type pool)- it was there when we bought the house about 35 years ago.
The liner will need to be replaced before next season-the walkway around the pool should also be replaced. We had several estimates at around $30,000 to have the work done.
My husband would rather just have the pool filled in for around 7-10K or more (depending on how we want to restore the area).
I know some people looking for houses want a pool - others don't- this is a family neighborhood so it is likely a family with several children would buy the house-
So what would you do- fill it in or fix it up? or is there something else we should consider-
Is doing nothing an option?
Just replace the liner. Swimming pools are a PLUS for many families with children. They provide exercise, a source of entertainment and are a great way to get to know your children's friends.
When our kids were growing up, our pool was a great way to make our house "the neighborhood hang out".
KEEP THE POOL. The liner is not that expensive. Replace it with a serviceable one. Nothing fancy but "inground pool with new liner" will attract many people.
We plan to sell our house in the next year. We have a 20 x 40 inground pool in the back yard (vinyl liner type pool)- it was there when we bought the house about 35 years ago.
The liner will need to be replaced before next season-the walkway around the pool should also be replaced. We had several estimates at around $30,000 to have the work done.
My husband would rather just have the pool filled in for around 7-10K or more (depending on how we want to restore the area).
I know some people looking for houses want a pool - others don't- this is a family neighborhood so it is likely a family with several children would buy the house-
So what would you do- fill it in or fix it up? or is there something else we should consider-
Is doing nothing an option?
I would fill it in. A 35+ year old damaged vinyl lined pool would not be an amenity imo. I think folks might wonder what else might be damaged.
I lived in NJ for 17 years, so I know all about the weather up there. It just seems an added expense for so few months out of the year. Not to mention the fact that the pool the OP is speaking of isnt "move in ready". Its very old, and needs a lot of work. It would be interesting finding out the percentage of people up north shopping for homes that want pools. I bet its well under 50%.
Nothing wrong with swimming at a YMCA or a pool club. They usually have indoor pools anyway, and you can swim year round.
Im having a pool put in next year. Being in Florida, Im expecting to be able to use it nearly year round. Will be well worth it here.
We bought a house with a pool in the same condition. The seller offered $2500 to use towards replacing the liner. We spent $3000 and got the pool in great condition for our family. We love pools and have had them all over the country.
Hell, I lived in Phoenix for 25+ years and owned 3 houses. Refused to even look at them if they had a pool.
Agreed. If the pool isn't an amazing addition, I'd get rid of it. What was once seen as a symbol of opulence is now seen as a chore and unlisted HOA fee for the maintenance, not to mention potential liability. This is especially true if the pool is taking up too much space. Many buyers would rather have a backyard than a back pool, and kids want waterparks. The only use for pools are for old people who want to exercise each day with low impact.
Many buyers would rather have a backyard than a back pool.
This. I would've liked a pool, but many houses I saw that had them it took up the whole yard which was a turnoff.
I think it depends on OP's market. In a hot market, you'd probably want to leave it (and in which case probably isn't worth repairing it either), because people that want a pool realize it will likely add some cost to the price of a house. If you are worried about a potential lack of buyers, I'd say fill it in. I think there are a lot more people that say "I won't buy a house with a pool" than there are people that say "I won't buy a house WITHOUT a pool"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hell, I lived in Phoenix for 25+ years and owned 3 houses. Refused to even look at them if they had a pool.
