[net.consumers] House improvements--swimming pools

slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (09/27/85)

>>  	    improvements make for a high appreciation rate, and others 
>> 	    actually detract from the value of a house, such
>> 	    as, for instance, an inground swimming pool)
>> 
>Why is this the case?  It seems counter-intuitive to me.

I don't know for sure, but it seems like the upkeep on a pool
would be a detriment.  There are chemicals, filter pump and heating
costs, and the effort of cleaning it and getting it covered and 
uncovered.  In this area, the cost of water can be non-trivial 
(depending on which suburb you live in).  Also, I believe that your 
liability insurance rates can be higher.  There is always the chance 
that some neighborhood kid will get in there and drown (there were 
several cases like that in Denver last year).

In addition, there are a lot of people who are just not interested
in swimming.  They would not want to buy the house (it's not easy
to rip out a pool) and this makes your market smaller.

What other "improvements" can detract from property values, and 
which improvements are good ones to make?  Does anyone out there
have any information on some? 
-- 

                                     Sue Brezden
                                     
Real World: Room 1B17                Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
            AT&T Information Systems
            11900 North Pecos
            Westminster, Co. 80234
            (303)538-3829 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Your god may be dead, but mine aren't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/03/85)

In article <37@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes:
>
>What other "improvements" can detract from property values, and 
>which improvements are good ones to make?  Does anyone out there
>have any information on some? 
>                                     Sue Brezden

The subject is often mentioned in home-improvement how-to books and
suchlike handy-person's guides. As I recall, the main factor is the
general desirability of the feature -- if a lot of people want it, it
adds to the value; if only a few people want it, and especially if its
presence also decreases options or eats up space that could otherwise be
used, it reduces the market (as was mentioned on swimming pools), and
so either reduces the value, or simply means you would have to keep the
property on the market until one of the limited number of buyers that
want that feature, and is willing to pay for it, shows up.

The most desirable improvement, I believe, is kitchen modernization.
I actually wonder about that, since everybody wants something different
from a kitchen, and has their own desires and dreams of an "ideal
kitchen". I think you can make this be a detraction if you go to an
extreme, like a gourmet or cookbook writer installing professional
stoves, chinese-restaurant wok burners, huge professional refrigerators,
etc. If you keep in the "mainstream", though, it pays back something
over your investment (like 150% of the improvement cost added to your
home value). The "detractions" are figured as losses by comparing the
investment cost to the home-value increase, so they come up with figures
like 75% paid back, etc.

If it increases storage space, improves the appearance, or makes the
home more comfortable, it probably is an asset. If it adds to the
maintenance cost, is aimed at a limited-interest group (like installing
an observatory dome on your roof), or makes the home different  or
unusual when compared with the neighborhood norm, it probably will be a
debit.

Of course, if you plan on living the rest of your life somewhere, fix it
up the way you want. Who cares what problems your heirs might have. It's
your life, and you should live it the way you like best! Pay attention
to this sort of concern if you move a lot, or want to keep mobile for
job reasons.

Will

hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (10/03/85)

In article <37@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes:
>
>What other "improvements" can detract from property values, and 
>which improvements are good ones to make?  Does anyone out there
>have any information on some? 

The Wall Street Journal had an article on the subject a month  or  so  ago.
As I recall, their comments were something like:

Skylights  -- once popular, now add nothing to value and may detract
Solar heating -- unlikely to add full value in northern states
Kitchen remodelling -- expensive and unlikely to add more than 50% of cost

There were one or two worthwhile additions I can't  remember  now  and  the
above  is  from  foggy  memory.  You  also  have  to  take into account the
neighborhood and value of surrounding  houses.  Adding  $100,000  worth  of
work to a house in a neighborhood of $90,000 houses is almost certain to be
a losing proposition.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI                    Common Sense is what tells you that a ten
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.             pound weight falls ten times as fast as a
Santa Monica, CA  90405           one pound weight.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe