Submitted by Mojo_art t3_11dspg2 in mildlyinteresting
Comments
ratolloko t1_jaakz1b wrote
And to make it harder for people to dump rubbish.
sneaky_pharaoh420 t1_jaaldj6 wrote
Live shot of our democracy in the US
No_Difference_1962 t1_jaalpp1 wrote
They do that on purpose. If you leave one wall standing then it’s not considered a “new build” but rather a renovation. I believe it’s done as there are are different rules/regulations based on new build vs renovation.
artie_pdx t1_jaamceh wrote
This is the correct answer.
speckyradge t1_jaan0i1 wrote
Yup. Likely avoids a bunch of troublesome code requirements. I used to see this in Chicago (where it has to be two walls) so that the new build didn't need to conform to either the setbacks for fire code, meaning the new house could be much closer to its neighbors than would otherwise be allowed.
CrispiestCrispyCrisp t1_jaan5cw wrote
I’d have kept a side wall rather than the front. It reminds me a little of the Truman show looking at it 😂
gokellybeez t1_jaanjlk wrote
I need a laughing emoji for this
ThatLooksFunky t1_jaapefo wrote
Sadly it was a house but never a home.
VonDoom86 t1_jaapy4u wrote
Some historic areas require the facade to remain the same but don’t care what you do behind the scenes. See this in Washington DC on row houses from time to time
swibirun t1_jaashpt wrote
Someone out there sees this and thinks, "That's me when I smile and tell people I'm doing okay."
Hang in there. I've been there, too.
No_Difference_1962 t1_jaasubt wrote
Once they have other walls built, they will knock down the one original wall.
ichbineinschweinhund t1_jaat985 wrote
What city is this?
[deleted] t1_jaatanu wrote
[deleted]
CrispiestCrispyCrisp t1_jaatqty wrote
TIL. I made an assumption that you had to keep the original wall. Interesting.
jg_bigboypants t1_jaaubpw wrote
I dunno. I kind of like it. It's in good shape too!
jg_bigboypants t1_jaaun23 wrote
Sad thing is... Other than the carpet, this place wasn't that bad! Sold for < $250K not even a year ago.
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/1212-Union-Ave-21211/home/10861358
MaritimesRefugee t1_jaauy29 wrote
Potemkin Village
johndepp22 t1_jaavlhl wrote
“spacious living room”
flannelmaster9 t1_jaavqwq wrote
I believe this to be fact as well
Gonzostewie t1_jaayhxt wrote
Do you live in Rock Ridge? Is there a Sheriff Bart in your town?
BLDLED t1_jaayi3f wrote
Our last house was a 1913… remodeled like this in 2006, including adding a 2nd story.
JKSHulenburg t1_jabbhe2 wrote
My dad had to do this for his garage. If he tore it down to foundations, he'd have to move it 30 feet from the house per code. By leaving 2 walls up at a time, it was a "repair" and it could stay in place.
If I remember correctly, the garage predated the house by 20 years and was built during the depression out of scrap wood. As such, it was falling over. It violated modern codes because it was just 4 feet from the house meaning any fire in the garage could easily jump to the house.
JKSHulenburg t1_jabboxp wrote
They bought it for the land. But look at the house next to it. There must be a zoning ordinance for a setback on the lot and they left the wall to circumvent permitting for a new building and not have to follow the zoning and save 10'
jg_bigboypants t1_jabcctm wrote
That house next to it was just build two years ago. Yeah. They might have had to keep the facade to keep the property line. My mom died and I inherited her place and it's the same kind of situation. The pool deck and lanai are too close to the property line for today's standards. I can't redo it without shrinking it if I wanted to be to code.
Also... this place in MD also came with two additional lots for the money! How about that?!!?
Global-Beach-7415 t1_jabdds7 wrote
Your neighborhood could double as a movie set.
leolugosi t1_jabsjne wrote
Smart not to pay permits for a new house
Siryl7001 t1_jabw766 wrote
They're waiting for someone to ring the doorbell and make the whole thing fall over like in the cartoons.
tatpig t1_jac2wnb wrote
the couple who bought my childhood home did the same.left the brick foyer to qualify for a reno permit, but built an ugly Mcmansion around it.
InMediaVirtus t1_jacfdvq wrote
In my country, in old cities downtowns, when someone wants to build a new building where there is an old one, very often is required to keep the facade, for historical reasons.
Aberdolf-Linkler t1_jad3fm7 wrote
Those setback requirements are super important! Imagine all the quality time a family will spend in that crappy 10 foot front yard next to the street!
I really do wonder why those setback requirements are still in place. They seem completely pointless.
JKSHulenburg t1_jad4i0e wrote
There's a number of reasons to have setback requirements. Keeping the character of a neighborhood, providing space for easements for utilities, fire considerations (spacing buildings) ect
Aberdolf-Linkler t1_jad6hla wrote
Yes those are some of the reasons given but they don't really stand up to any scrutiny. For example this building predates the standard so they aren't really keeping any character, just enforcing a new one. Not to mention that's entirely a subjective quality that's being determined by a small group of officials.
Utilities some how manage on significantly smaller easements just fine all over the US and the world. And fire fighting has come a long way in the past 2000 years. There's a ton of detail on this one that's a bit beyond a reddit comment but this is really unnecessary today. At worst you can mandate firebreaks in lue of offset but for some reason municipalities across the US just use this blanket ban instead, despite virtually every single one having at least one district that manages to get by without these mandates.
braille-fire t1_jaakqzp wrote
Gotta look good for the Google street view