Moving house...literally! Why?

Friends and I have noted a number of shows where people (mainly in USA) move their houses! Houses get braced, house sections cut (where required) then literally moved!:eek

Why? I find this concept phenomenal.confused

Given the logistics, costs and "rebuild" for this type of "moving house", wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to build a house in a desired location.

If a location is great but house is pretty bad shape - a knock down occurs and a new house built which is commonly done here. But "moving house"!.


LS

 

i think you'll find that even if the cost of moving is in the tens of thousands, it is still cheaper than building new. not to mention time.

 

I think it is mainly done with historically valued properties. People in the USA are fanatic when it comes to old wood. :drool

 

If you think that's bad. When I was living in Calif., they had a news article that showed someone went on vacation and they got the HOUSE burgled! No, I don't mean the house contents, I mean the whole house was jacked up, disassembled into several parts, and towed away. Leaving the distraught owners with just a vacant block!:cry

 

I think that's called foreclosure.

 

If there was some company that could pick my house up and move it for me, I would have no hesitation in paying for the service.
Beats moving into someone else's house and having to redecorate and de-fumigate it

 

Makes me wonder about building costs over there. Here we do renovations. Eg. Friend bought old house (circa 1917) that hadn't been updated, cheap. Now with renovations, not only has spectacular house but added value up around $150K after investing $75K for renos!

I would renovate before "moving house" - cheaper, less damage!

 

Amazing!

Down here, government and historical preservationists would shoot you before allowing such an uproot.

 

Aaah! Now I'm slowly starting to see the light, it's the way houses and foundations are built in the USA that allows "house moving".

Here we are dominantly brick houses cemented onto solid foundations (try jacking and disassembling that!).

Our holiday bungalow houses (wood and/or fibro type sitting on a cement foundation) would be similar to those that they "move around" in the USA.

Thanks Phantom. Your post drew the picture I needed to understand "Why"!

Cheers

LS

 

Agreed, but in some instances the local government can re-zone land for commercial business. So, a Wal-Mart or Home Depot can move in and bring in millions in tax dollars. Any old house, grave yard or whatever must then go.
If it means padding city/state bottom lines, nothing is sacred.

 

That's a crying shame. The land is just as much a part of history as a building.

I can't think of anything similar happening here (any Aussies who do, please jump in). Often it's the preservationists who make such a howl it becomes a community project / legal wrangle.

What regularly happens here is that a site/building is given a "heritage" title (can even be a house normal people living in). Once that happens, then any works done need to follow strict guidelines - you can forget about pull down for commercial use.

LS

 

Yeah, that's like the 'National Trust' listings in the U.K. One of my aunts & Uncle's had an old genuine Tudor house in Ipswich, which was classified under the National Trust. They could live in it, and have their own furniture and stuff, but weren’t allowed to do anything structural to it. I know those Tudor doorways were real low (about 5 foot), and the kitchen and most of the rooms were pretty tiny by modern standards. We used to call it "The little doll's house", lol - not a whole lot bigger in most ways. Rumored that Oliver Cromwell himself stayed there for a while, not sure whether that's a fact or ledged, but I wouldn't be surprised if was true.

They are called kit homes, or some such term. I see them heading up the Great Northern Highway over here, headed up the North West. They have the house in two parts, moved by two prime mover semis. It's a biatch when you get stuck behind them, and you have to phone whoever you're going to, and tell them you're going to be late, 'cos you're stuck behind a house, LoL! rolleyes

 

We have the same here but that would be Federal Protection. Say war memorials, national wildlife preserves, battlefields, etc. Teddy Roosevelt saw to as much land be protected as he could get away with. But if you live on land that comes under federal protection, no matter how long you have been there. You must then go. There have been land owners and federal agents loose their life over these disputes.
Oh and they do move whole buildings. They say if you can jack it up, then it can be moved. And its true!

 

That Tudor sounds lovely:heart Certainly can't see that being jacked up and movedLOL

Aaah! Yes, I understand "kit homes" which are moveable. (There's also companies eg a German company where you can design your home and they'll precisely build a 2 storey within a week (on your cement foundation) right down to a light fitting in different countries - use their own team! Fantastic, but not moveable).

But these homes being moved in the USA aren't "kit homes" per Evilfantasy posts. And when historical sites/buildings are taken over for commercial use, I think that's a "crime".

Perhaps they need some of our loud mouthed lobbyists to go over there and save their "heritage" type sites/buildings from being moved - they're pretty effective here and gain results. For example, our Queen Victoria Building was going to be torn down for commercial development which set up such a hue and cry that we've kept the building, partially guttered and rebuilt interior while maintaining some historic content internally. So we've accommodated historic with commercial needs.

LS

 

I know that several years ago there was a historic building on the SYracuse University hill that was moved. I believe it was moved because the location it was on was deteriorating due to surrounding construction over the years. I think it was part of the original college there and they moved it to preserve it for historical reasons since it was a more effective solution than trying to shore up the area it was on.


~C

 

That probably had State (and possibly Federal) approval based on reasons you've provided. That would make sense and be a valid reason for preserving a historical building. It wasn't a commercial based reason per Evilfantasy posts.

(It also appears that there wasn't sufficient/proper analysis/investigations done prior to surrounding constructions over the years. That is, not enough forethought to constructions towards future repurcussions.)

Evilfantasy also brought up a point on "re-zoning laws". If this occurs, then I can understand the need/want to "move house" - not everyone can financially afford to fight re-zoning, (and sometimes dependent on legislation have no say anyway).

Otherwise, the logistics/costs of "house moving" in the USA really amazes if the above doesn't apply. (Unless they are "kit home" types as Phantom pointed out.)

LS

 

It could be looked at like this. If you bought a nice home 20 years ago for say 100k. Now you have decided to buy a piece of property elsewhere. It would be far cheaper to pay 20k to lift and move your current home then it would be to pay 5 or 600k for a new one with the same square footage as your current paid for home.

 

You think someone might have spotted this "burglary" in progress......

 

Yes. You have a valid point. From my (naive) perspective, I was imagining the type of houses we have (predominatly double or single brick houses on cement foundations, more common than wood/fibro houses).

Cost of building new in many instances here would be over $20K.

However, people here tend to opt for renovations and can do amazing changes with $20K, particularly when as a owner/builder (ie owner project manages contractors while also working on house). This tact is so popular that it is a regular practice to buy/renovate/sell at a profit. A couple of friends have done this full time. Over 5 years they've built up a 5 property portfolio and now live in a spectacular waterfront house.

Thanks for qualifying - it also clarifies LauraB earlier post.

Cheers

LS

 

@Lev.........Ya THINK!!!!! roflmao

@legalsuit, it is a baffling thought though confused

 

Half the neighborhood saw it. Some were even watching the dudes do it, and one old lady even gave them coffee, LoL! rolleyes They were wearing overalls with a company logo on them and a semi with the same, If memory serves me. Everyone thought the owners must have decided to move.

A similar, somewhat less extreme crime occasionally occurs over here. The hoods do a home invasion, tie up the occupants, then proceed to strip the entire house at their leisure. Everyone thinks the people are just moving house, and don't take much notice. If the hoods get queried, they just shrug their shoulders, and show them a fake work order, and say they're just following instructions.

 

That only provides another negative in my books for living in a "moveable house". Aaah! The beauty of living in a solid house that can't be moved. Renos any day for me...increases house value too!

 

Wow...very strategic huh? We had a new style burglary occur in one part of the UK I lived in. As houses were being built, the thieves would go in and night and strip the contents before anyone moved in...complete fitted kitchens, bathrooms and central heating systems. (Cops were looking for well-fed thieves who made a hot, clean getaway )

 

That happens frequently down here around new development areas. In more built up areas, it's lower scale (whatever can be carried out non-conspicuously like light fittings, etc).