response 1 of 70:

Oct 19 15:33 UTC 1998

I watched a house being moved once, but that's all  I know about it.

response 3 of 70:

Oct 19 15:56 UTC 1998

Ask a house mover. When I was a kid I recall seeing houses being moved
frequently. Perhaps because almost all houses were wood frame, box-like,
and smaller than most houses today. 

response 5 of 70:

Oct 19 17:19 UTC 1998

John!  There is a wonderful old house on US-23 (Whitmore Lake Road) near
Whitmore Lake.  It has already been lifted off its foundation and set
in the field next door, but apparently the group that was going to move
it couldn't raise the money.  I bet you could get the house for almost
nothing.

response 7 of 70:

Oct 19 21:00 UTC 1998

Call Ed Linkner,  973 1010.  He moved two beautiful Queen Anne houses from
the intersection of Packard and South Main to their current site on Huron
Parkway near Platt.  

response 9 of 70:

Oct 19 22:07 UTC 1998

The Historical Society probably knows about house moving from the customer's
point of view.

response 11 of 70:

Oct 20 02:38 UTC 1998

I'd just as soon build my own house to my own preferences then move someone
else's that was built for a different property and deal with the problems.
It's probably more trouble in the long run.

response 13 of 70:

Oct 20 10:25 UTC 1998

The houses are generally cheap to free.  The expensive part is the lifting,
moving and setting.  The potential problems include the house not making it
as well as minor to significant damage in transport, not to mention that
the electrical system and plumbing do not get left behind.

We watched the huge brick house on Maiden Lane being moved.  Awesome!

response 15 of 70:

Oct 20 18:13 UTC 1998

Depending on the logistics, moving a house is usually much cheaper than
building a duplicate.

response 17 of 70:

Oct 20 21:50 UTC 1998

Unfortunately, with old houses you also get little or no wall insulation,
leaky windows, faulty wiring, rusty plumbing, sagging floors, and other things
that cost to fix up.  My neighbor across the street bought a house that had
once been moved, and has eventually given up trying to fix the cracks in teh
real plaster walls.  Other owners have added drywall on top of the plaster,
which puts it even with the trim.  You also do not get the floor plan of your
choice, or a kitchen designed for the way they are now used.  Can you afford
to pay for some help in designing a new house that hassome of what you are
after in an old house?  What exactly is it that attracts you in old houses?
We are building a house that people think is 100 years old already, with
stucco siding (modern stucco, two coats smeared over cement board, which will
not crack like the older stuff does).  And you can do veneer plaster over
drywall to give a hard surface, and use firecode drywall over metal channels
to make the walls more soundproof than plaster walls generally are.  You can
put in plenty of insulation and make the house much more comfortable as well
as cheaper to heat.  There are used antique doors around, or metal imitation
that will not crack and insulate much better.  Locally made custom windows,
we know a company that makes good quality casement of fixed ones.  Ceiling
height is obviously adjustable, drywall comes in 10' lengths.   You are
welcome to a tour of our new 'old' house.  The stairs do not creak, there are
no drafts (rubber gasketing around the frames, rubber weatherstripping around
the sashes).  Klaus is also building a house he designed, using a new system
of poured concrete in styrofoam, cheap and draftfree and quiet.
        A new house can have as many electrical outlets as you need.  My
charming 1920's apartment has three plugs stuck in one outlet.  The ceiling
is cracked along the lines of the rocklath.  THe doors hit the floor when you
swing them.   THe plumbing is full of 'rock'.  The doors are thin plywood,
one layer.  Sashcords break easily.  It does have a nice oak floor but oak
flooring is still sold.

response 19 of 70:

Oct 20 23:46 UTC 1998

I've seen keesan's house.  Very nice, except I'd worry a bit about
indoor air pollution.  It's also completely atypical of modern house
construction, and I shudder to think how much the typical house
contractor would charge to build such a house.

Most modern houses are built with fairly extensive amounts of particle
board, which I suspect will not age very well at all.  Particle board
does very interesting things when exposed to water, and even when dry,
does not have the give of wood or metal.  I suspect a lot of it will
tend to crumble with age, or worse if the inevitable plumbing accident
occurs.  And they will occur; modern houses are increasingly built with
plastic plumbing, which tends to crack with age.  Besides particle
board, most modern houses use fairly extensive amounts of other
materials (such as insulation, plastic, adhesives, and carpeting) that
give off high levels of VOC's, and it is rare to find a vent over the
stove that vents externally.  This, coupled with the "tight"
construction of most modern houses, means they're likely to have very
high levels of indoor air pollutants, and while the levels of some of
these will drop as the house ages, because of cooking, or smoking (at
least 25% of all households), indoor air pollution levels may remain
fairly high.

Modern houses are also commonly built with no trees nearby (and even if
they are, it will still take 20 years for them to grow), and have air
conditioning installed.  Even if the house had *perfect* insulation
(infinite R), air conditioning would still be necessary.  Household
activities, such as people, incandescent lighting, cooking, computers,
and such all generate heat.  Most modern houses don't have insulation
nearly that good, but do have nice dark roofs, windows, etc., that
absorb heat.  An increasing number of house buyers even in the north
expect A/C as a matter of course as well.  A/C, needless to say,
consumes electric power, and tends to contain various other materials
(such as the refrigerant) in it that aren't necessarily all that good
for the environment.  Environmentally speaking, it would be much better
to have trees to shade the house, and to open windows at night in the
summer.

The "design your own plan" is a nice luxury.  It is actually nice to be
able to include enough closet space, book shelves, and other small
touches that most architects seem to skimp on.  However, it's not that
big a benefit.  Few people know themselves well enough to be able to
come up with the ideal design the first time around.  Most likely, it
will only be discovered after the fact that that cool island in the
kitchen is actually always in the way, that the 3rd bathroom never gets
used, and that there really should have been 3 bedrooms, not 2.  Also,
the holographic entertainment center that you just *had* to get in 2030
just doesn't fit in the corner of the living room that you designed for
that 1998 big screen TV, and it's a real pain to change the batteries in
your electric car in the garage in the winter because the garage just
isn't quite long enough to roll the batteries out of the car.  While it
can be fun to design your own house, in the long run, the house you end
up with isn't likely to be *that* much more suitable than any other
house.

Besides, reusing old doors is *cheating*.  It's not quite a new house if
it has old doors, now is it?

response 21 of 70:

Oct 21 02:02 UTC 1998

Steel-frame houses.  They're becoming quite popular.

response 23 of 70:

Oct 21 02:06 UTC 1998

Steel frame construction.  Reinforced concrete.  Adobe.  Etc.