Our house is roughly 1200 sq ft in size in 1:1 scale. With 8 foot ceilings, that works out to 9600 cubic feet of liveable volume. In HO scale, that works out to .0146 cubic feet (9600/658503 - HO occupies 1/658503 of the volume of the prototype). That 9600 cubic feet is worth roughly $550k in the current depressed real estate market in Monterey, CA, or about $57.29/cubic foot.
Now, if we take that $550,000 and divide it by 658,503, a model of the house I'm living in should only cost about 85 cents (and fully built up at that) using the identical pricing criteria per cubic foot of the full sized original. And a model is pretty bare bones. I'd like to see an HO scale model house with central heat, hot and cold running water, double pane windows and hardwood floors. There's something seriously wrong here.
Now watch. At least half the responses will assume I was actually being serious about this.
Andre
Andre,
just look at it from the other side. A decent kit of house of this size will cost you, say, twenty bucks. That´d make $ 13,170,060 for your 1:1 scale house in kit form.
You are a lucky man, as you paid only $ 550,000 for it - already built up and with features you need to add to your kit...
Monterey? I'm from Spreckels, ever make it that far inland?
I have to take issue with your analysis.
Most of your volume is air which is free in any scale.
You need to figure the volume of materials in the full size house and compare it to the volume of materials in the scale house.
Then you need to add a weighting factor based on the average density of the materials in the full size versus the model.
Finally you need to pay for the model in HO dollars.
Paul
andrechapelonNow, if we take that $550,000 and divide it by 658,503, a model of the house I'm living in should only cost about 85 cents [...] There's something seriously wrong here.
Answer #1 -- The difference is the architect's "Selective Compression" design fee...
Answer #2 -- The difference is Inflation.... (get it?)
C'mon, we all know the real estate mantra - Location, Location, Location. The trouble is, Monterey is pricey land, probably fertile, with a pleasant climate year-round.
Suppose your home was, well, down by the tracks. We have a lot of rail lines on our layouts, and chances are most of our housing is both on the right side of the tracks and on the wrong side. Add to that the cold, damp "basement" weather, or maybe that oppresive "garage" heat in summer, and the "location" factor explains most of the price differential.
Besides, did you ever try to grow tomatoes in pink foam?
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasleyBesides, did you ever try to grow tomatoes in pink foam?
(Raises hand) Guilty...
I don't think it was the foam though that was the problem... more likely the Instant Water...
IRONROOSTERFinally you need to pay for the model in HO dollars
Aren't most of our homes only worth HO dollars these days anyway?
(BTW, that 1200sf house in sunny CA cost WAY more than a 3500+sf house in America's Heartland)
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
You also need to consider the era in which this railroad you are placing said house. Then you need to find the value per square foot data for those particular years and do an adjustment to the price cost. However, if you said home was designed and built after the era of the railroad in which it was set, then essentially you will be homeless on your railroad.
Robert H. Shilling II
Your biggest problem may be if your scale home is built on pink or even blue foam. More than likely the state of California has declared foam to be a carcinogen and a danger to scale rodents. The HOEPA may need to be called to replace it with a more benign material, such as Model Power Grass Mat. HOPETA may picket you if any scale rodents are endangered in the process. All in all, a PITA, even dealing with government agencies, which, as everybody knows, can not be compressed or reduced in scale. Gary
Housing is not sold by the cubic foot. It is priced by what the market will bear.
1200 square foot houses here in Charlotte range from $80,000 to $250,000 depending on the neighborhood, and 1200 sq ft condos in city center high rises can approach a million.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
andrechapelonThat 9600 cubic feet is worth roughly $550k in the current depressed real estate market in Monterey, CA, or about $57.29/cubic foot.
Well personally, I think your getting ripped off in any event. I'm glad I don't live there. $550,000 for 1200 sq feet? On how much land? Here in Maryland, not the cheapest place in the country by any means, a 1200 sq foot rancher on an acre or less is about $325,000 tops - and it better have a granite kitchen and be completely up to date for that much.
Here, $550,000 will buy you a 3,000 sq ft of McMansion in a nice quiet subdivision, possibly on an acre or two.
I live in a fully restored, 3750 st ft, 1901 Queen Anne with a six car detached garage (with 800 sq ft train rooom above), built in pool, 1 acre of land, 900 st ft wrap around porch, slate roof, etc, etc.
I would not place its value above $1,000,000.
I make a fair part of my living off investment properties and the rest as a residential designer and construction profressional.
Happy to not live in southern CA, Boston, Chicago or any other over priced real estate market.
Sheldon
andrechapelonOur house is roughly 1200 sq ft in size in 1:1 scale. With 8 foot ceilings, that works out to 9600 cubic feet of liveable volume. In HO scale, that works out to .0146 cubic feet (9600/658503 - HO occupies 1/658503 of the volume of the prototype). That 9600 cubic feet is worth roughly $550k in the current depressed real estate market in Monterey, CA, or about $57.29/cubic foot.
I see why people are moving in droves out of California. 550K
1,200 square feet is a good size garage in Iowa. Cost here ~ $150,000.
Here's what 550K will get you in Bettendorf.
That's over 6,000 square feet, 6 bathrooms, and a theater room.
Come to think of it, the first floor of my garage is 1200 sq ft. It only cost $40,000 to build. For another $40,000 I could turn it into a nice house.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI live in a fully restored, 3750 st ft, 1901 Queen Anne with a six car detached garage (with 800 sq ft train rooom above), built in pool, 1 acre of land, 900 st ft wrap around porch, slate roof, etc, etc.
Sheldon,
Are you looking for a pool boy?
Sir Madog Andre, just look at it from the other side. A decent kit of house of this size will cost you, say, twenty bucks. That´d make $ 13,170,060 for your 1:1 scale house in kit form. You are a lucky man, as you paid only $ 550,000 for it - already built up and with features you need to add to your kit...
Good point, but didn't pay a thing for it. My wife inherited it from her mother. Her parents built the thing in 1950. Total cost (including land) in 1950: $7500. Since we moved in in 2001, we've had the house re-wired, re-plumbed, replaced the old wall heater with central heat and put a new roof on it (passed final inspection yesterday).
There are several advantages to HO scale buildings. You don't need to maintain them the way you do full sized ones. It's physically less demanding when you do. HO scale shingles don't weigh 34 kg (75 lbs) per bundle and you don't have to pay over $300 to rent a dumpster for construction debris.
Weighmaster Andre, Your biggest problem may be if your scale home is built on pink or even blue foam. More than likely the state of California has declared foam to be a carcinogen and a danger to scale rodents. The HOEPA may need to be called to replace it with a more benign material, such as Model Power Grass Mat. HOPETA may picket you if any scale rodents are endangered in the process. All in all, a PITA, even dealing with government agencies, which, as everybody knows, can not be compressed or reduced in scale. Gary
I hate to burst your bubble, but pink foam is available at the local Home Depot. It never has been outlawed. The reason for the lack of the stuff out here was lack of demand, not government fiat. That seems to be changing. There's a house a couple of doors up from us that is getting a new roof which was insulated with pink foam. Interesting construction method. They used 2x4's to build up pockets in which to lay the foam over the old sub roof, inserted the foam between the 2x4's and built a whole new sub roof on top.
As I mentioned earlier, we just put a new roof on our place. As for dealing with the local building department, it was totally painless.
I will remark that it was a lot easier in one respect than for the HO equivalent. We got rooftop delivery of the roofing materials for $25. Given that the weight of the material was about 2 1/2 tons, that's dirt cheap. Take that, M.B. Klein.
They are? Then how come our population exceeds that of Canada?
There's are several problems with the house you pictured.
1. It's a McMansion, which basically means it's more of an attempt to engage in conspicuous consumption than to actually provide shelter.
2. It would cost an arm and a leg to heat even allowing for excellent insulation.
3.It would be a royal pain to keep clean.
4. The architecture sucks.
5. It's in Iowa. NOTE: I have nothing against Iowa, but you have to drive about 2,000 miles to see stuff like this:
mmmm--The home we have is about 1600 sq. ft, has a full basement and has a double garage which is more storage for stuff than cars......
And we are about 200 yd from both the CN and CP mains---heeheehee
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
andrechapelon There's are several problems with the house you pictured. 1. It's a McMansion, which basically means it's more of an attempt to engage in conspicuous consumption than to actually provide shelter. 2. It would cost an arm and a leg to heat even allowing for excellent insulation. 3.It would be a royal pain to keep clean. 4. The architecture sucks. Eye of the beholder. 5. It's in Iowa. NOTE: I have nothing against Iowa, but you have to drive about 2,000 miles to see stuff like this:
4. The architecture sucks. Eye of the beholder.
I must have missed something. While I understand that your points could justify buying a 1200 sq ft house instead of a 3500 sq ft house, I do not understand how they support the notion that the 1200 sq ft house is WORTH as much as a 3500 sq ft house.
andrechapelon5. It's in Iowa. NOTE: I have nothing against Iowa, but you have to drive about 2,000 miles to see stuff like this:
What...homelessness? He he. Enjoy your view living in a tent, because that's all you could afford.
andrechapelonThey are? Then how come our population exceeds that of Canada?
Do you know how cold it gets in Canada? Brrrrrrrrr. That's not a surprise. The only reason your population is booming is because of the illegal immigrant migration.Without the inflow of illegals, I think California's population would be about 2, or something close to that. California will be annexed soon as Mexico's Northern Frontier.
Driline andrechapelonOur house is roughly 1200 sq ft in size in 1:1 scale. With 8 foot ceilings, that works out to 9600 cubic feet of liveable volume. In HO scale, that works out to .0146 cubic feet (9600/658503 - HO occupies 1/658503 of the volume of the prototype). That 9600 cubic feet is worth roughly $550k in the current depressed real estate market in Monterey, CA, or about $57.29/cubic foot. I see why people are moving in droves out of California. 550K 1,200 square feet is a good size garage in Iowa. Cost here ~ $150,000. Here's what 550K will get you in Bettendorf. That's over 6,000 square feet, 6 bathrooms, and a theater room.
Interesting. This place is selling at approximately $475,000 here in London. There are a number of new developments in the works here
Here's a cheap piece of crap for $346,000 in Davenport Iowa. It only has one in ground pool. I mean.....how embarrassing.
Location, location, location.
In any case, I wasn't justifying anything. Real estate prices vary all over the place. That's just the way things are. Try pricing a condo in downtown Tokyo.
Gee, only around $500,000 for a house, that's cheap. Here on the peninsula 30 miles from San Francisco, a three bedroom two baths will run you $1,500,000 or more. Next town over, add a million!
One big mistake in costing house prices is using $/square foot, this method was used by people talking to "contractors" and saying "I'll pay you - - - $/per square foot. as his eyes light up he agrees, who wouldn't, if a contractor or realtor tries to sell you a house by the square foot, walk away fast. Ask a contractor for his labor cost and a bill of materials list and see what he does, I quoted out the cost of a "1200" foot house, to lock-up, all the lumber, nails, windows,shingles, trusses,floor, etc. no interior, guess how much these materials cost? $12,000. now how does the cost get from this to $500,000 ? ? house prices are priced 750% above actual construction, also ask just how much your contractor charges for labor? House prices are the biggest rip since used cars, but I must admit, I checked the prices in London, England for a 2 bedroom apartment 2nd floor, they want 345,000 pounds(514,000 U.S. dollars) Housing is certainly is not a supply and demand product.
andrechapelon There's are several problems with the house you pictured. 1. It's a McMansion, which basically means it's more of an attempt to engage in conspicuous consumption than to actually provide shelter. 2. It would cost an arm and a leg to heat even allowing for excellent insulation. 3.It would be a royal pain to keep clean. 4. The architecture sucks. 5. It's in Iowa. NOTE: I have nothing against Iowa, but you have to drive about 2,000 miles to see stuff like this:
Is this also "conspicuous consumption"?
Again, my detached garage is 1200 sq ft, with my 800 sq ft layout room above it (the corner of which is visible in the lower left of the photo).
You are more than welcome to only live in 1200 sq ft if it suits you. Personally, I would rather not.
Less is not more. I don't want more than I need for my purposes, but that is not for others to judge, as long as I am paying the heating bill and the taxes.
I'm sure you are quite happy where you are and that's fine. Not everyone is even remotely interested in ocean views.
But in my case I can be on the Atlantic coast in two hours, or in the mountains in two hours, not to mention the beautiful Piedmont country side right here where we live. Lush and green in summer, beautiful colors in the fall, and this year a very white winter.
All without piped in water.
We have wonderful and interesting things all around us. The Strasburg Rail Road is only 1 hr away, The B&O museum only 45 min, the Victorian splender of Cape May about 2 hours away.
All the wonders of the Chesapeake Bay right around the corner, it is called "The Land of Pleasant Living".
I'm sure where you live is very nice, to you, but nothing I have seen or heard would motivate me to pay $500,000 for a 1200 sq ft house ANYWHERE.
And if I am a "conspicious consumer" because I live in 3750 sq ft of 1901 Queen Anne style splender, than so be it.
I spent 3-1/2 years and a sum of money I won't mention carefully restoring this house for myself, my wife, my family and to preserve it for the community. I am more than entitled to enjoy it.
Even when we do "downsize", 2000 sq ft of living space, all on one floor (with 2000 sq ft of layout space below, and 800-1200 sq ft of garage/shop, but no more pool) is as small as we are likely to be comfortable with.
To each their own.
PS - the pool boy position has been filled (by me, see us poor people wash our own cars and clean our own pools and cut our own grass).
tatans One big mistake in costing house prices is using $/square foot, this method was used by people talking to "contractors" and saying "I'll pay you - - - $/per square foot. as his eyes light up he agrees, who wouldn't, if a contractor or realtor tries to sell you a house by the square foot, walk away fast. Ask a contractor for his labor cost and a bill of materials list and see what he does, I quoted out the cost of a "1200" foot house, to lock-up, all the lumber, nails, windows,shingles, trusses,floor, etc. no interior, guess how much these materials cost? $12,000. now how does the cost get from this to $500,000 ? ? house prices are priced 750% above actual construction, also ask just how much your contractor charges for labor? House prices are the biggest rip since used cars, but I must admit, I checked the prices in London, England for a 2 bedroom apartment 2nd floor, they want 345,000 pounds(514,000 U.S. dollars) Housing is certainly is not a supply and demand product.
Only $12,000? That's interesting. The roofing material for our re-roof cost us a bit over $3600 and that was just material to replace an existing roof and we didn't hire a contractor. The OSB alone (60 sheets) was nearly $600 as there was no solid sub-roof. We also replaced all the windows and 3 of the doors (one a large French door) a couple of years ago and IIRC, the material cost for that was around $2500 and we didn't go for upscale windows.
I realize you're speaking only of materials for the shell, but I'm a bit skeptical about your quoted material price. In any case, there's more to the price of a house than materials and labor. Land costs can have a big impact. In our case, the land represents nearly 50% of the estimated market value. In any case, we couldn't rebuild the structure with anything approaching the quality of the original material as all the framing and siding except for the added on family room and carport is heart of redwood.
And, with that, we're getting way off topic.
andrechapelonI see why people are moving in droves out of California. 550K 1,200 square feet is a good size garage in Iowa. Cost here ~ $150,000. Here's what 550K will get you in Bettendorf. They are? Then how come our population exceeds that of Canada? There's are several problems with the house you pictured. 1. It's a McMansion, which basically means it's more of an attempt to engage in conspicuous consumption than to actually provide shelter. 2. It would cost an arm and a leg to heat even allowing for excellent insulation. 3.It would be a royal pain to keep clean. 4. The architecture sucks. 5. It's in Iowa. NOTE: I have nothing against Iowa, but you have to drive about 2,000 miles to see stuff like this: Andre
Yeah, but he hardly gets to see this either..
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR