Relatively new building demolished.................WHY?

[petros]

Asbestos was common at that time. Was the building new when Ag Can moved in?

Yup. New in 67

 

[taxslave]

Meaning it would have had asbestos everywhere, although that is not really an expensive problem. The real expense still is in bringing an old structure up to modern building rules.
I know of a few firehalls and schools that were quake proofed at a cost in the ball park of a new structure , leaving the owners with an expensive old building.

 

[JLM]

From what I've been told if asbestos is just left alone there isn't a problem, I've also been told there are two types of asbestos, one potentially harmful, one not. Can someone confirm this?

 

[petros]

Serpentine is the deadly sh-t. If it isn't friable it's relatively safe.

 

[Sal]

Happens in the D.C. suburbs all the time. Back when land was cheaper, people'd buy a half-acre plot and put a cheesy little ranch house on it. Now that the average price of suburban land is about what it would cost to cover any given plot in gold three inches thick, rich folk are buying the land, razing the crappy little rancher, and putting up homes that are anywhere from elegant to garish.

yes, that is common here on the river or bordering one of the golf courses...little homes from an era when they built small homes...they smash them down and put up a luxury home...so you pay maybe 400,000.00 for the land with a small home and then put up a larger home worth much, much more...

 

[JLM]

yes, that is common here on the river or bordering one of the golf courses...little homes from an era when they built small homes...they smash them down and put up a luxury home...so you pay maybe 400,000.00 for the land with a small home and then put up a larger home worth much, much more...

Yeah, I can see that, and you can benefit even more if you are carefully dismantling the old house, especially the old dimensional lumber and all the hardware. (I sure hope they removed all the fixtures before imploding the building)

 

[petros]

Yeah, I can see that, and you can benefit even more if you are carefully dismantling the old house, especially the old dimensional lumber and all the hardware. (I sure hope they removed all the fixtures before imploding the building)

Yeah some guy bought all the contents and was in the midst of scrapping the wiring, plumbing and heating in the building but got locked out after his crew disturbed asbestos pulling the copper

When it comes to old houses there is no money in trying to recover structural lumber.

 

[JLM]

Yeah some guy bought all the contents and was in the midst of scrapping the wiring, plumbing and heating in the building but got locked out after his crew disturbed asbestos pulling the copper

When it comes to old houses there is no money in trying to recover structural lumber.

If it's still sound it should save a few trees (which I believe is the modern endeavour) -

 

[Sal]

Yeah, I can see that, and you can benefit even more if you are carefully dismantling the old house, especially the old dimensional lumber and all the hardware. (I sure hope they removed all the fixtures before imploding the building)

there's always money to be made if one can be bothered

 

[taxslave]

If it's still sound it should save a few trees (which I believe is the modern endeavour) -

Good luck getting it approved by the building inspector.

 

[JLM]

there's always money to be made if one can be bothered

Well, if it's sound with few knots and not warped it's better than half the sh*t in the lumber yards today.

Good luck getting it approved by the building inspector.

Then he's probably either stupid or corrupt!

 

[taxslave]

Well, if it's sound with few knots and not warped it's better than half the sh*t in the lumber yards today.




Then he's probably either stupid or corrupt!

Most probably both but he does have the power.

 

[WLDB]

That being said it is often cheaper to knock down an old building and start over rather than try to upgrade. Especially so if there is earthquake proofing to be done.

The renovations that have been going on on parliament hill for years are a good example of that. They've been working on that at least five years and have several more years of work to go. Ive read several pieces saying it would have been cheaper to tear them all down and start from scratch. The cost would have been significantly reduced had the buildings actually received proper maintenance over the years. Apparently they didn't.

As for this building - I didn't know it was going down til it happened. I was able to feel it. Pretty neat but scary til I figured out what it was.

 

[JLM]

Maybe there's a lesson here for the future. Any new buildings should be planned for a life span of 150 years!