Demolishing Homes In Maplewood

Jaytee said:

jamie said:

I would easily take this house for $550K cheaper over St. Lawrence: https://www.trulia.com/home/576-prospect-st-maplewood-nj-07040-52634699

that’s a much better buy. Even if you have to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom you’re still getting so much more property for your money.

I totally agree with both of you. However, someone will show up from NYC with easy money and want a turnkey house.

yahooyahoo said:

I totally agree with both of you. However, someone will show up from NYC with easy money and want a turnkey house.

I know… one can only hope they’re checking out the town on the internet… and MOL pops up…

Jaytee said:

I know… one can only hope they’re checking out the town on the internet… and MOL pops up…

but somebody is going to buy it. There's one born every minute. 

Jaytee said:

jamie said:

I would easily take this house for $550K cheaper over St. Lawrence: https://www.trulia.com/home/576-prospect-st-maplewood-nj-07040-52634699

that’s a much better buy. Even if you have to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom you’re still getting so much more property for your money.

I have always loved that house. Still not looking to pay $1.395M for a house. 

@KarenMarlowe

Agreed. The Prospect house's front door / entrance is phenomenal. I saw the photo and knew exactly which house it was since it's so unique.

$1.9m and crappy vinyl windows 

I believe 32 Maplewood Ave. has been demolished.  It was a sweet old Craftsman-style home.  Based on the realtor photos, it had a cottage vibe.  Anyone know what's going up in its place?  I'm guessing it'll be one of the ersatz farmhouses cropping up around town. 

It was great to hear that the Township Committee is on it as far as strengthening protections for Maplewood's historic architecture, but it's too late for 32 Maplewood Ave. and probably other houses that are currently being targeted for demo.  

I couldn't believe it when I drove by and saw the empty space. What is happening? I am worried about our quaint town with such an assortment of house designs. Let's correct this before it is too late!!!

galileo said:

Let's correct this before it is too late!!!

What do you propose? A ban on demolition permits?

Elle_Cee said:

I believe 32 Maplewood Ave. has been demolished.  It was a sweet old Craftsman-style home.  Based on the realtor photos, it had a cottage vibe.  Anyone know what's going up in its place?  I'm guessing it'll be one of the ersatz farmhouses cropping up around town. 

It was great to hear that the Township Committee is on it as far as strengthening protections for Maplewood's historic architecture, but it's too late for 32 Maplewood Ave. and probably other houses that are currently being targeted for demo.  

I’m amazed that someone bought it for $777,000 and razed it. Although from what I have seen in the market lately that’s a low price for a 4 BR house in a walk-to-train location. It makes me wonder if there was a structural problem or something else going on that made demolition and construction more feasible than renovation. 

Whatever happens, we’ll see in a few months if they can recoup the investment. 

mrincredible said:

I’m amazed that someone bought it for $777,000 and razed it. Although from what I have seen in the market lately that’s a low price for a 4 BR house in a walk-to-train location. It makes me wonder if there was a structural problem or something else going on that made demolition and construction more feasible than renovation. 

Whatever happens, we’ll see in a few months if they can recoup the investment. 

if they build a monstrous structure like that one which initiated this thread, they might ask for $2,000,000…

Jaytee said:

if they build a monstrous structure like that one which initiated this thread, they might ask for $2,000,000…

I think you’re absolutely right that their plan is to build something huge. 

mrincredible said:

Jaytee said:

if they build a monstrous structure like that one which initiated this thread, they might ask for $2,000,000…

I think you’re absolutely right that their plan is to build something huge. 

I see that the house on St. Lawrence is not yet under contract at a time when Maplewood is still very much a sellers' market.  So, I guess size isn't everything.  A renovated home (452 S. Ridgewood in South Orange) is under contract for a price in the vicinity of $1M.  Based on pictures, that house if really nice.

The property on 32 Maplewood Ave is not that large, so I can't imagine something huge.  

tjohn said:

I see that the house on St. Lawrence is not yet under contract at a time when Maplewood is still very much a sellers' market.  So, I guess size isn't everything.  A renovated home (452 S. Ridgewood in South Orange) is under contract for a price in the vicinity of $1M.  Based on pictures, that house if really nice.

The property on 32 Maplewood Ave is not that large, so I can't imagine something huge.  

About 8200 sf from Zillow. It looks like maybe there’s some town property or something backing up to the lot. 

Does Maplewood have regulations for the percentage of a lot that can be covered by buildings?  I know some towns do. I think some house buyers are more interested in maximizing interior space over having a yard. 

mrincredible said:

tjohn said:

I see that the house on St. Lawrence is not yet under contract at a time when Maplewood is still very much a sellers' market.  So, I guess size isn't everything.  A renovated home (452 S. Ridgewood in South Orange) is under contract for a price in the vicinity of $1M.  Based on pictures, that house if really nice.

The property on 32 Maplewood Ave is not that large, so I can't imagine something huge.  

About 8200 sf from Zillow. It looks like maybe there’s some town property or something backing up to the lot. 

Does Maplewood have regulations for the percentage of a lot that can be covered by buildings?  I know some towns do. I think some house buyers are more interested in maximizing interior space over having a yard. 

That last item seems like an example of a quantifiable provision that can be added to building codes if not already present.

I think they have to build big in NJ homes for NYC transplants. I see newly constructed apartments in NYC that might have 1 closet in the whole 1 bedroom apartment. Apparently it’s not illegal to do so either. I would imagine the builders are heavily invested in storage units. The younger generation has a different set of priorities and tastes than the older generation and the change is becoming more apparent. 

KarenMarlowe said:

Jaytee said:

jamie said:

I would easily take this house for $550K cheaper over St. Lawrence: https://www.trulia.com/home/576-prospect-st-maplewood-nj-07040-52634699

that’s a much better buy. Even if you have to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom you’re still getting so much more property for your money.

I have always loved that house. Still not looking to pay $1.395M for a house. 

FWIW: There is already an "Under Contract" sign on this Prospect house. I did take a peek during the open house. It was lovely. (Although I found out that the area above the rooms on each side of the house were just roofs, and not 2nd floor terraces. Looking at it from the outside all these years, I just assumed they were terraces).

mrincredible said:

tjohn said:

I see that the house on St. Lawrence is not yet under contract at a time when Maplewood is still very much a sellers' market.  So, I guess size isn't everything.  A renovated home (452 S. Ridgewood in South Orange) is under contract for a price in the vicinity of $1M.  Based on pictures, that house if really nice.

The property on 32 Maplewood Ave is not that large, so I can't imagine something huge.  

About 8200 sf from Zillow. It looks like maybe there’s some town property or something backing up to the lot. 

Does Maplewood have regulations for the percentage of a lot that can be covered by buildings?  I know some towns do. I think some house buyers are more interested in maximizing interior space over having a yard. 

Lot coverage is included in the zoning regs:

_______ Zone R-1-7, R-1-5 & R-1-4 Maximum Building Coverage: the total ground floor areas (footprint) of the principal structure shall not exceed 30% of the total area of the lot.

_______ Zone R-1-7,R-1-5 & R-1-4 Maximum Lot Coverage, the total coverage for entire lot shall not exceed 45%

_______Zone R-2-4 Maximum Building Coverage: the total ground floor areas (footprint) of the principal structure shall not exceed 35% of the total area of the lot.

_______Zone R2-4 Maximum Lot Coverage, the total coverage for entire lot shall not exceed 50% for a one family house and shall not exceed 40% for a two family house.

Thanks Max. 

Interesting that a 2-family house has a lower allowed percentage. 

They could still go up to 37 feet high. ? 
Younger people buying homes don’t want to be cutting grass every weekend. I’m just annoyed that the houses that made our towns so attractive to buyers can be torn down by some developer just to flip it into a glorified apartment. How can we stop this trend? Prohibit developers from paying cash for the house? It’s up to the seller to decide right? So the young couple looking to buy their first home can’t compete with the big shot whose pockets are filled with cash? If people cared enough about their neighbors and neighborhood they would refuse to sell to the flippers. But no…

Jaytee said:

They could still go up to 37 feet high. ? 
Younger people buying homes don’t want to be cutting grass every weekend. I’m just annoyed that the houses that made our towns so attractive to buyers can be torn down by some developer just to flip it into a glorified apartment. How can we stop this trend? Prohibit developers from paying cash for the house? It’s up to the seller to decide right? So the young couple looking to buy their first home can’t compete with the big shot whose pockets are filled with cash? If people cared enough about their neighbors and neighborhood they would refuse to sell to the flippers. But no…

So, if a flipper offers the owner 5% more than the next highest bid, they should still refuse the offer?

Jaytee said:

They could still go up to 37 feet high. ? 
Younger people buying homes don’t want to be cutting grass every weekend. I’m just annoyed that the houses that made our towns so attractive to buyers can be torn down by some developer just to flip it into a glorified apartment. How can we stop this trend? Prohibit developers from paying cash for the house? It’s up to the seller to decide right? So the young couple looking to buy their first home can’t compete with the big shot whose pockets are filled with cash? If people cared enough about their neighbors and neighborhood they would refuse to sell to the flippers. But no…

Can’t regulate who buys the house or how they pay. 

Need to tighten the zoning and design standards to control zoning and design.

Jaytee said:

If people cared enough about their neighbors and neighborhood they would refuse to sell to the flippers. But no…

I see your point, but I don’t know if this is fair. Let’s say you’re a retiree and ready to sell and move somewhere else to a smaller, less expensive home. You want to maximize the return on your investment of decades of annual 5-figure tax bills, the upkeep you’ve put into your home etc. 

Maybe you’ve also been through a previous move and dealt with the anxiety of waiting for your buyers to close on their mortgage so you can purchase a new home. I certainly have. 

Along comes someone who is willing to write you a check for the full amount and is probably going to be fairly flexible in terms of closing dates. Even if the bid price is the same, that’s a tremendous amount of stress off your plate. Often times builders who are planning to flip will also forego inspections, figuring they can correct any problems during renovation. Again, for the seller, a big weight is lifted.

And what if the cash purchaser is offering significantly more than anyone else?  If someone is offering to put an extra $50K into your plans for retirement, who wouldn’t turn that down?

Incidentally we once lost a bid on a house where we were the higher bidder (by about $10-15K), but the other bidder was offering cash. We had to offer a mortgage with a contingency that we sell our house. We were well-qualified and had a pre-approval but the seller saw the value in taking a check and walking away.

I can’t argue with acting in your own best interest, financial or otherwise. There’s no way to legislate against that anyway. 

jimmurphy said:

Need to tighten the zoning and design standards to control zoning and design.

This is where you might get some traction. In the case of a house like 32 Maplewood Ave, maybe a developer doesn’t have a way to recoup the cost of demolition and rebuilding if they can’t build a large enough house. 

You also have to rely on strict enforcement. 

The owner selling the house honestly does not know what the buyer is going to do. Unfortunately there are buyers who praise the house and when it is theirs they tear it down. Many an owner,if they knew what was going to happen to their home would think twice about selling it to the purchaser.

When I was buying my home the owner was very picky with who she was selling it to. She mentioned several times that her husband had done so much work on the house that she wanted it to go to a family who would keep it in good shape. I guess that generation are all gone now, it’s all about how much money one can get out of the sale, who cares about their neighbors? We don’t even sit on front porches anymore because we don’t want to see our neighbors. 
Porch fest actually brings back the old charm we had…. And I guess that’s why I moved from Brooklyn, I wanted a front porch…

Owners being "picky" about who they sell to can be a route to racist exclusions. I am not saying anybody here is even close to suggesting that, but it is a practice that can have unforeseen consequences.

The only real solution is stricter redevelopment laws, and that should happen soon or we will lose our beautiful town to a sea of McMansions.

Jaytee said:

When I was buying my home the owner was very picky with who she was selling it to. She mentioned several times that her husband had done so much work on the house that she wanted it to go to a family who would keep it in good shape. I guess that generation are all gone now, it’s all about how much money one can get out of the sale, who cares about their neighbors? We don’t even sit on front porches anymore because we don’t want to see our neighbors. 
Porch fest actually brings back the old charm we had…. And I guess that’s why I moved from Brooklyn, I wanted a front porch…

How much money are you willing to forego so that you can preserve the “charm” of your neighborhood?

tjohn said:

How much money are you willing to forego so that you can preserve the “charm” of your neighborhood?

money is not everything in life… that’s partially why our society is the way it is. When I sell my house I will be picky about it. I’m not selling my house to anyone coming to offer me cash, whether they’re accompanied by a pit bull or a contractor’s utility truck. But that’s me. I happen to care about my neighbors.

Jaytee said:

money is not everything in life… that’s partially why our society is the way it is. When I sell my house I will be picky about it. I’m not selling my house to anyone coming to offer me cash, whether they’re accompanied by a pit bull or a contractor’s utility truck. But that’s me. I happen to care about my neighbors.

You'll only sell to someone who will have a mortgage?  Very odd. 

What is someone inherited money and has cash?  

What if they won the lottery?

After stripping and refinishing much of the original chestnut moldings in our house myself, I often mused about adding a deed restriction that prevented buyers from ever painting them.

Maybe you should go that route.