5 ms·

When I lived in Japan I would visit friends of my host families and even up in Sapporo (a relatively new city of only ~200 years) I would see these "old" houses

by xrd 5y ago

When I lived in Japan I would visit friends of my host families and even up in Sapporo (a relatively new city of only ~200 years) I would see these "old" houses and be fascinated by them (maybe this was down south in Hokkaido in Hakodate, I don't recall). One time my host mother explained that some of those houses are designated at the second tier of "important cultural property" (the first tier is even more restrictive) which meant they could not do modern style improvements to them by order of the government. It was really fascinating to see these houses falling apart and the people that owned and lived in them being unable to repair them to preserve the cultural heritage of Japan. I shudder to think how my fellow Americans would react to such laws.

ghaff 5y ago
Older buildings in the US can absolutely come with a lot of restrictions especially related to changing exteriors. You're more likely to run into this in urban areas than rural though.
retrac 5y ago
Here in Ontario, Canada in a medium-sized city, the downtown core is littered with heritage properties. My friends own a home built around 1900 and they cannot alter the front in any significant way, and the interior woodwork of the front room is deemed heritage-signicant and has to be preserved as well. They got permission from the city to rebuild the front deck (a later addition anyway) as long as they literally just rebuilt it as-is. They knew that going in, and it is a beautiful majestic old building. I believe there are laws like that throughout Canada and the USA, though our town may be more aggressive than some places. It does sometimes lead to the kind of disrepair you speak of.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  If the government / city specifies the architectural style, it should provide helping funds? I know this happens in many places, but it's insane to mandate this, but expect 100% of funding to come from the property owner. Maintaining a consistent / historical style is a benefit to the community, and so the community should help pay for its own good.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Hahaha funny joke. There are many of these unfunded mandates all around. Usually there is a small fund but it runs out instantly.
  - scheme271 5y ago
    I don't think they provide funds directly in the US, but often you can get tax breaks and incentives from federal and state governments. This often applies to annual taxes as well as money used to restore the property.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      I've looked at the specifics of some of the tax breaks (roughly: no taxes on the increased value of the property for some number of years), but they mostly seem oriented towards speculators or commercial, rather than residental. The primary impediment to residential renovation is typically cash on hand to initiate the project. Which, if true, seems like something like providing a loan facility, borrowed against the future tax credit, maybe with the tax credit packaged for resale on the open market to offset the cost? Presumably nobody (the homeowner, the neighborhood, the city) wants a house that's falling apart to stay that way.
- aledalgrande 5y ago
  I think this is the same everywhere there is some history. In Italy if they find art during renovation, like a mosaic from a roman bathroom that was hidden beneath the floor, they have to stop work and call specialists. Then there are 1500s villas that are UNESCO assets that you can live in, but have to go through a lot of pricey work to maintain.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> I shudder to think how my fellow Americans would react to such laws. You don't have to imagine it, similar rules exist here in America too. They're called "historical districts" here; the only difference is usually it's done for the benefit of the rich owners to protect their generational wealth, rather than at the cost of poorer owners who cannot afford the high cost of historically accurate maintenance.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Sebb767 5y ago
I'm not too familiar with the situation in the US, but aren't there areas with HOAs that pose similarly strict laws on the exterior of your house? Like length of grass etc. Doesn't seem to be too different. Germany, for what it's worth, has a lot of the same laws protecting old buildings, where it is very hard to impossible to legally modify the front.
- dheera 5y ago
  HOAs are different, and not trying to protect any historical anything. They are literally a bunch of assholes that bunch together and patrol the streets to annoy people because they believe bullying others will keep their own property values high. It's sad the the law even allows this.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    There are certainly horror stories about HOAs. But sometimes, for example, there is shared property like a private road that has to be maintained and plowed. How do you handle that without some sort of group decision-making?
    - dheera 5y ago
      That's fine. They should not be able to have say over what happens on non-common property, including peoples' houses and yards, and financials around maintainence of that private road should be disclosed to all people who live on it.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > HOAs are different, and not trying to protect any historical anything. Sure, but they pose similarly strict laws on your buildings - that's what I was going at.

by xrd 5y ago

ghaff 5y ago

Older buildings in the US can absolutely come with a lot of restrictions especially related to changing exteriors. You're more likely to run into this in urban areas than rural though.

retrac 5y ago

Here in Ontario, Canada in a medium-sized city, the downtown core is littered with heritage properties. My friends own a home built around 1900 and they cannot alter the front in any significant way, and the interior woodwork of the front room is deemed heritage-signicant and has to be preserved as well. They got permission from the city to rebuild the front deck (a later addition anyway) as long as they literally just rebuilt it as-is. They knew that going in, and it is a beautiful majestic old building. I believe there are laws like that throughout Canada and the USA, though our town may be more aggressive than some places. It does sometimes lead to the kind of disrepair you speak of.

ethbr0 5y ago
If the government / city specifies the architectural style, it should provide helping funds? I know this happens in many places, but it's insane to mandate this, but expect 100% of funding to come from the property owner. Maintaining a consistent / historical style is a benefit to the community, and so the community should help pay for its own good.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Hahaha funny joke. There are many of these unfunded mandates all around. Usually there is a small fund but it runs out instantly.
- scheme271 5y ago
  I don't think they provide funds directly in the US, but often you can get tax breaks and incentives from federal and state governments. This often applies to annual taxes as well as money used to restore the property.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I've looked at the specifics of some of the tax breaks (roughly: no taxes on the increased value of the property for some number of years), but they mostly seem oriented towards speculators or commercial, rather than residental. The primary impediment to residential renovation is typically cash on hand to initiate the project. Which, if true, seems like something like providing a loan facility, borrowed against the future tax credit, maybe with the tax credit packaged for resale on the open market to offset the cost? Presumably nobody (the homeowner, the neighborhood, the city) wants a house that's falling apart to stay that way.
aledalgrande 5y ago
I think this is the same everywhere there is some history. In Italy if they find art during renovation, like a mosaic from a roman bathroom that was hidden beneath the floor, they have to stop work and call specialists. Then there are 1500s villas that are UNESCO assets that you can live in, but have to go through a lot of pricey work to maintain.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> I shudder to think how my fellow Americans would react to such laws. You don't have to imagine it, similar rules exist here in America too. They're called "historical districts" here; the only difference is usually it's done for the benefit of the rich owners to protect their generational wealth, rather than at the cost of poorer owners who cannot afford the high cost of historically accurate maintenance.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Sebb767 5y ago

I'm not too familiar with the situation in the US, but aren't there areas with HOAs that pose similarly strict laws on the exterior of your house? Like length of grass etc. Doesn't seem to be too different. Germany, for what it's worth, has a lot of the same laws protecting old buildings, where it is very hard to impossible to legally modify the front.

dheera 5y ago
HOAs are different, and not trying to protect any historical anything. They are literally a bunch of assholes that bunch together and patrol the streets to annoy people because they believe bullying others will keep their own property values high. It's sad the the law even allows this.
- ghaff 5y ago
  There are certainly horror stories about HOAs. But sometimes, for example, there is shared property like a private road that has to be maintained and plowed. How do you handle that without some sort of group decision-making?
  - dheera 5y ago
    That's fine. They should not be able to have say over what happens on non-common property, including peoples' houses and yards, and financials around maintainence of that private road should be disclosed to all people who live on it.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > HOAs are different, and not trying to protect any historical anything. Sure, but they pose similarly strict laws on your buildings - that's what I was going at.