Not for purchase. This is an old fashioned low rise apartment complex.
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
Printable View
Not for purchase. This is an old fashioned low rise apartment complex.
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
you are out of your depthQuote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Since when has that stopped him?Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
we’re way better off with 75K Amazonians commuting to SLU every day than housing people in that CAPEX cesspool
have any of you fools ever read through new build apartment vacancies in Seattle over the past 5 years?
no need to convert office to housing if the gold toilets are out of reach anyway, it’s just a shiny thing to sell
Why don't you explain yourself, rather than just say, "you're stupid."Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
I've been perusing homes in Tacoma the last couple of months and noticed a lot of them have unpermitted remodels. All of my friends have unpermitted remodels, one of them a developer who just remodeled an entire house unpermitted other than electric. If you live in a old house like me it is virtually guaranteed some updates have been made unpermitted and probably not to code. Trying to comply with modern code in a 100 year old house is cost prohibited, or sometimes just impossible. Some of these codes have nothing to do with health and safety and are for things like energy efficiency. If our cities have tons of old houses that are unpermitted and not to code, I imagine there are a lot of old office buildings where codes and permits could be pragmatically relaxed to make the conversion more practical. The powers that be rather see these old structures rot into oblivion, torn down, and replaced with cookie cutter "green" plastic junk from China.
Its called "How to win an argument!" on social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
To permit or not is a nuanced topic. Do not extrapolate commercial to residential refitting of skyscrapers in Seattle to old houses in Tacoma.
Most real estate brokers pull the permitting history before preparing a sales agreement. Fully permitted will always be the most resell.
There are a lot of items that can be done by competent homeowners without permits. That being said, a permit is always going to pay for itself many times over when you sell, that’s not even taking into consideration if you have an insurance claim which a permit can have huge implications.
I very carefully didn’t say thatQuote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Just cuz some scofflaws did some scofflawin doesn’t make it any more health-, safety- or welfare-ish — that is a bizarre rationale.
And there is a very specific carve-out for homeowners to do work on their own abode within some guardrails. Because commercial structures are public, there is a higher standard.
That's true. When we lived in Washington we were legally allowed to do our own asbestos removal in our house, as long as we followed state guidelines, whereas on a commercial structure there are all kinds of regulatory hoops to jump through.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
Ya, same with working on old homes with lead paint. Contractors are supposed to follow the EPA rules any time the area being worked on is more than 6 square feet, and they charge out the ass to do so. If you are the home owner you either don't do anything, do it yourself if you have that kind of time, or find some contractor who doesn't care about the rules (most people go this route).
I have heard people argue this, but does anyone have a real world example of an insurance company denying a claim just becuase someone didn't have a permit for everything in their house? The unpermitted work could be 100% to code, so why should whether it has a permit or not matter in the insurance context? Seems the insurance company would have to prove that the unpermitted work was not to code, and that the failure to adhere to the code was the reason for the damage, before they could deny the claim. Then you also have the issue of whether the home owner even realized their home was not fully permitted. Sure, good realtors check permits. But lots of people buy without the full permit history of the house, particularly for old houses. And I am convinced more than half the homes here have unpermitted additions.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
In WA, if an insurance company improperly denies your claim and you sue them and win, you get three times damages plus attorneys fees. So insurance companies better be they are 100% on the right side of the law when they deny a claim.
IME working on many insurance jobs over the years, they never ask whether there was unpermitted work on the home. Even on a huge one (~$700k in damage), I don't think they even posed the question.
The same goes for selling houses with unpermitted work. It seems to be an urban legend that such will cause problems, but I've never come across any real life examples of said problems.
Do any of you have real examples of unpermitted work (assuming it was up to code) causing problems down the road? I'm not talking about people getting caught while they are doing the work--- the building dept wants its pound of flesh after all.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by climberevan
I’ve seen Buyers bail due to unpermitted work.
Most often because they want to make improvements. If the scope of their remodel involves anything that was unpermitted it all has to be brought up to current code. Most reputable contractors where I’ve worked won’t get involved with jobs that have unpermitted work unless you’re willing to tear it all out. Sometimes it’s kind of ridiculous, like adding insulation under a concrete slab, but sometimes it’s a good cautionary approach, like homeowners love to add pitch to septic lines which actually makes them clog.
My personal rule is that I have a licensed tradesman come in behind me if I touch electrical or plumbing that I’m not 100% sure it’s perfect.
Most people don’t advertise that they had an insurance claim denied, but I certainly wouldn’t want to file a claim on a fire that was caused by faulty wiring in an unpermitted addition. I trust your anecdotal experiences, but that still wouldn’t provide comfort if I was in that predicament with my home and equity.
I’ve been working with this approach. And lots of pics. So many pics. Thanks to Ullr for high capacity thumb drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
the insurance companies denying a claim because of non permitted work is an urban myth
insurance companies are scum but they haven't stooped to that level yet because they will need lots of investigative work behind their accusations
I used to do insurance restoration work but fuck that shit the money is terrible and the hassle factor is a mess won't even consider it unless the customer is going to triple the ins. pay out
people do get caught up where I live when the real estate listing or short term listing says 6 bedrooms and 4 baths when the assessors report lists 4 beds and 3 1/2 baths or if the sq ft amounts do not add up
basement finishes adding baths or bedrooms without a permit will get you
the gov't likes to go after owners for more money under the guise of their concern for your life and safety
I have been called about many red tagged jobs over the years as well as other things like beds and baths and sq ft not lining up I always tell the customer that I will come for a "free" one hour consultation after that I will send a contract and start charging usually requesting a 600 to 1000 deposit almost all the people balk at the idea because their cheapness is what got them in trouble to begin with
and yeah fuck permits I do as much un permitted work as possible seriously saves everyone
Permits are silly at times, like supposedly needing one when I put in a new water heater last year. But you want to remove a load bearing wall? Better get a contractor with permits on that one.
What that asshole Freddy said. I try and explain that there is no benefit to me to not get a permit.
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
Let’s all be glad we aren’t Turkey
especially everyone in seismic zones, and hurricane zones and tornado alley and snow zones and flood zones and wind corridors, etc etc etc
all thanks to that pesky government oversight, even with self-builds that use prescriptive code for getting structural spans correct despite not pulling a permit
That’s a great reminder. I should do more of this before I cover stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCMtnHound
As said before, there is a large difference between single family residential, and multifamily residential/commercial. Even more so when you are dealing with 3+ stories. Its like the difference between a guy who owns and maintains a single engine cessna vs owning, operating and maintaining a Boeing 777 in commercial service.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
Sure, some codes and permitting procedures could be relaxed or expedited, but those are insignificant compared to the size of the fundamental challenges associated with retrofitting a downtown office tower into a cost effective multifamily residential (or even mixed use) tower.
warehouse construction boomed during the pandemic and has now stopped. If there is another big need for warehouse space, maybe portions of the towers could be used for that. While still an expensive retrofit, i would have to assume that it would be cheaper, quicker and easier than a residential retrofit.
How do you even change the code to make it economical to do these large scale retrofits?
Relax the fire/life safety requirements? Haha no.
Relax the accessibility requirements? That’s a political nightmare….
Relax the energy code requirements? Is that really the smartest thing to do?
You could expedite and lower the cost of the permit process… but that’s a drop in the bucket…
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Just task fastfred on it. I like his can do attitude.
I mentioned the McMenamins Elks Temple in Tacoma. That building sat completely vacant and derelict for 33 years. It cost $34 million to renovate and the only reason it happened was because McMenamins (the biggest restaurant/brewery/hotel chain in the PNW) has deep pockets and was willing to take on the project at a massive financial loss. They figure it helps their overall brand and they will cover the loss by increased traffic at other locations.
Tacoma's Old City Hall, built in 1893 and one of the most magnificent structures in the PNW, has sat vacant since the 1950s. They supposedly have plans to renovate it but I will believe it when I see it. I imagine all these vacant office buildings will suffer the same fate. Sit vacant for decades even though they sit on some of the most valuable land on Earth.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l_-_Tacoma.jpg
Tacoma tore down their old courthouse:
https://www.historylink.org/Content/...acoma-1907.jpg
to build this communist looking piece of shit
Attachment 448464
Seattle is trying to force energy efficiency on all its old structures. The end result is no one will touch the old buildings and prefers tearing down and building from new instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
Id suggest relaxing certain aspects of the energy and building codes. For example, currently, you pretty much qualify for LEED silver and nearly gold just by meeting the basic requirements for new builds in Seattle. Id relax that for these special projects. Can't change requirements related to life safety or ADA, thats a hard no, agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
And i agree, and said it above, these permit/code changes that are feasible (IMO) are insignificant compared to the size of the fundamental challenges that would be required. that said, my scope ends at the building envelope (some would say 3' from it), so i only have a topical understanding of the internal design aspects.
Just because a building is old doesn't mean it needs to stay up. Maybe they should proactively demolish them.