What's burning?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

FLL, I am surprised to hear you call a single, custom built home that looks like it was lovingly built into a heavily treed lot without devastating the character of the shore line by the pejorative term of "McMansion". I would think this would be the exact opposite. IMO.

1) You can't build a concrete foundation across the roots of existing trees. (The trees will eventually fail in some manner.)

2) It's "heavily-treed" today, but over time, trees are gradually trimmed and later cut down. Subsequent owners can have conflicting ideas of the value of their trees.

3) A property that ends up "treeless" is the inevitable consequence of concrete versus Mother Nature.

4) It's also a very tall structure, which helps to feed oxygen to a house-fire.

5) It lies 800' from the actual shoreline and is still valued at $1,000,000.

6) To add a multiplier to one's dollar-investment, I regretfully understand the logic of "making-a-property-expensive".

It could have been designed to be far less intrusive to avoid the pejorative of McMansion.

IMHO.

Originally Posted by jrc

My bet is that they will have to knock the whole place down...My guess is the only salvageable part is the foundation and maybe those stone supports in the front.

1) Structure height increases the intensity and damage of fire: Extreme heat in a fire damages even steel, stone, brick, mortar, stucco and concrete blocks.

2) I agree this could very well be "totaled". (Although a reconstruction near me was built on a foundation that was already sliding towards the lake—and was stuccoed into a "sorta-upright" position.)

3) Those stone supports in front fairly shout "McMansion" (and the conflict of Adirondack.)

I hope they consider not replacing them.