The Home Crowd

Ever sit at home and watch any of the many home remodeling shows on cable where the homeowner is looking to turn a quick profit after sprucing up a very bland home? If you haven’t, it goes like this:

• The Buyer buys a home in poor condition at a price below market value (hopefully?).
• So called ‘expert’ comes in and brings up the “Wow” factor, by telling the owner/flipper things like “This $800 of new sod can raise the property value by $3000!!!” or “This $10,000 kitchen remodel should bring you back 20K, nice and easy!!!”
• The Owner, thrilled by their impending windfall, dishes out the cash necessary, usually just right before finding a ton of wood rot in the bathroom, which they have no choice but to fix, and not fitting into the remodeling budget. But all the other improvements should bump up the value to cover the little expenses, right?
• And the show ends, usually with owner getting realistic quotes from ‘actual’ professionals, and settling for a good deal less than their asking price.

Personally, I like the shows that follow the pros around a bit better. They do simple cosmetic fixes, and repair where necessary.

The reality of remodeling, however, is not as television friendly. Rarely do remodeling projects return more than 100% of the cost. What’s notable about the Cost vs. Value report (below) is that the returns on remodeling average 70-80%. Traditionally the best returns come from projects such as Kitchen and bathroom remodels, upgrading flooring, and cosmetic refinements such as exterior remodels and beautification. Then again, many of these projects are sales friendly. Ads for homes often have a short synopsis, and terms such as “granite countertops”, and “Hardwood flooring” make for quick selling points that pop out to potential buyers. If there’s a picture attached to an ad, then of course the exterior upgrades and carefully manicured landscaping will instantly draw interest.

But keep in mind, that’s only my opinion. What truly matters is numbers, research and statistics. Over the last few years, I’ve followed up with the Cost vs. Value report prepared in conjunction by Remodeling Magazine and Realtor magazine with the support of surveys completed by thousands of members of the National Association of Realtors, a market research firm, as well as an estimating software developer.

The most recent edition for 2007 has the figures given and comparisons to previous years, or the trends, so to speak.

Of projects that saw national cost recovery rates of more than 80 percent in 2007, only one — a minor kitchen remodel, with 83 percent of cost recovered — was a strictly interior job. The others were an upscale siding replacement using fiber cement materials (88.1 percent), a wood deck addition (85.4 percent), midrange vinyl siding replacement (83.2 percent), and upscale vinyl and midrange wood window replacements (81 percent and 81.2 percent, respectively).

On most projects, the value of remodeling trended down in 2007 compared with 2006. No project exceeded an 88 percent return. The likely culprits for the year-to-year drop: rising remodeling costs and slowing home appreciation brought on by the lackluster housing market in many areas.

The story was somewhat different in the Pacific region, however, where REALTORS® estimated cost recovery of more than 100 percent for six projects: a wood deck addition, a minor kitchen remodel, fiber-cement siding replacement, wood window replacement, and an upscale wood and vinyl window replacement.

What is there to learn from the Cost vs. Value report? Depends on what type of project your thinking of tackling. Maybe that home office works out great for you, and whichever line of work your in, so long as you’re sticking around for the foreseeable future. However if you build a home office with the intentions of Wow-ing a potential buyer, the numbers show that your remodeling dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Remodeling Magazine’s Cost vs. Value 2007 report

Realtor Magazine’s Cost vs. Value 2007 article

Remodeling Magazine’s Cost vs. Value 2006 report

Sony recently showcased their newest OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) display.  The display boasts an 11 inch 960×540 pixel resolution screen, but most importantly a screen that is 0.3 mm thick.

Now, we all know there will be some will see the as both “Must Have”, and “Must have right now” and will shuck out major bucks to have a pretty, thin TV first.  But do yourself a favor, wait it out a bit.  Enjoy the giant LCD/Plasma you bought last christmas “for the family” (yourself) and have nicely affixed to your living room wall.  There’s still debate going on with which to get of those two “should I have a bright picture or better picture, or better picture and not so bright?”.  You can almost bet though, that by the time that battle has been won, OLED TV’s or possibly the next ‘big’ thing in TV’s will be available.  Right now, as it stands, LCD’s and Plasmas consume alot of energy.  Plasmas suck alot of energy, and LCD’s use a backlight as a source of their brightness.  The OLED screens, however generate their own light and are more energy efficient.  The downside right now of the OLED is that the organic materials used in manufacturing degrade and break down over time, rendering the picture diminished much sooner than the LCD/Plasma units on the market today.

But inevitably, you’ll be able to replace that bulky flat panel on the wall, which of course, replaced that giant plastic box you had sitting in an entertainment center with something that resembles the thickness of the posters on your kids’ walls.

From Engadget

A bed that makes itself huh?  Just another item in the long shopping list from the ‘homes of tomorrow’.  I mean, we already have the little round robot vacuum that tears around the house while you’re out.  Anyhow, this was one of the featured inventions at the International Exhibition of Inventions in Geneva recently.  There was no vid unfortunately, but as you can see from the picture, arms connected to your sheets, duvet, etc. pull the covers back up and over your bed.

This seems nice for people like me who are lazy, or without a clean-freak spouse or housekeeper.  I’d hate to see what would happen if this thing went haywire.  I suppose it wouldn’t go over well with your boss if you used the ol’ “I’m only late because I was restrained in bed!” excuse.  Sure he’d be impressed, but you’ll still hear about it at your annual review.

From USA Today (via OhGizmo)

Got an old rear-projection TV and a wall?  Then you’re in luck…

Plus, think of all the money you’ll save by not having to buy a wall mount!

In 1915, Sears began selling home kits by way of mail order from a specialty catalog. The homes were transported largely via railcar, with the average home filling two cars each. By 1925, Sears had sold 30,000 homes. Unfortunately, due to the great depression that hit a few years later, and it’s lingering economic effects, Sears’ sales suffered, and by 1940 had stopped selling homes. In these 15 years of operation though, Sears sold 75,000 homes across the country. Numbers which, any homebuilder today would be proud to boast.  The kit homes, were of good quality, very stylish, and most importantly, very affordable. The “Magnolia” model (pictured below) sold for $5,140 which adjusted for inflation from 1918 to today would cost approximately $80,000.

(click image to enlarge)

Now, keep in mind, that only covers the cost of your home kit, no labor, contractors, sub-contractors, interior designers, furnishings or the most atrocious of all costs nowadays….the land itself.  But after all is said and done, construction-wise, you’d still find yourself in a relatively affordable home.

Nowadays, the kit homes themselves are a piece of American history, and rightfully so, have developed a following among those who wish to live in their own collector’s item.  The construction had a solid feel, and from most accounts, the kit homes still standing today have stood the test of time well.  I’m not sure the same will be said of the pre-fab homes built over the last few decades that usually come in a couple pieces and are transported by a flatbed truck.

Makes ya wonder though, if the Great Depression never happened, would Sears be THE name in homebuiding today?  Maybe they’d have ventured into master-planned communities, urban infill projects, possibly entire Sears branded cities and infrastructure?

Sears Modern Home (via Architecture Coach)

For everyone who’s seen pictures of cargo ships and thought to themselves “Geez, I sure wish I could live in one of those shipping containers!”, well you’re in luck.  Developers are looking to build a seven-story condo project built from these containers in Salt Lake City.  “City Center Lofts” as it’s called, looks to take advantage of the sustainable qualities (i.e. recycling/re-use) of these used shipping containers which can cost 1000-3000 dollars each.

But “Lofts”, really?  We officially throw that word around too much.  When I see that giant steel shoebox with barn doors on one end, I don’t really think “Wow, that could be a great LOFT!”  ….. Maybe “Compartment”.  But then again, I guess we’re chunking at least 50K off each unit price when the project is called “City Center Compartments”.

I am however, intrigued by this idea.  The idea of using shipping containers as housing has been around for a long time, but hasn’t been much more than fixtures at travelling art installations.  Seeing this materialize may shape many views on sustainability.  The designer, Adam Kalkin, has built shipping container homes previously, but this project seems to have the largest scope of any of his listed works.

“Residential design using shipping containers. . .is still a novel approach anywhere in the country,” says Elizabeth Mitchell, director of the Utah chapter of the American Institute of Architects. “You’re re-using all the energy and raw materials that went into creating the shipping container rather than using new materials - it’s an element of sustainable design. But the architects who get into this are mostly intrigued, I think, by the aesthetic challenge of taking something industrial in appearance and transforming it into a place someone would want to call home.”

(From the Salt Lake Tribune via Grassroots Modern)

And here’s the link to the project page - City Center Lofts

Upsides     - Sustainability (Saving the world)/Being Hip, Trendy, and Modern

Downsides - You live in a storage container/The container is in Salt Lake City

And, you never know, it could spur a whole new surge in mobile homes..

photo credit: Spatial Mongrel