Tipping point for negotiation

Renovations become expectations when the manufacturers' advertising becomes successful enough.

For example: Replacing old single pane windows with vinyl double panes is, in fact, idiotic, since the "improvements" offer no energy savings and won't last very long. But window salesmen have convinced several generations of homeowners of the fictitious benefits of modernizing. Now, agents gleefully point out new windows at open houses, as if buying from someone too stupid to know how to maintain a house properly is some kind of feature.

But the lead mitigation industry has outsmarted itself, by positioning not-very-skilled manual labor with minimal material costs as some kind of exotic nuclear cleanup performed by specialized technicians from Area 51. Great for short-term profits, but now de-leading costs far too much to become the norm. In this way, lead paint has become like UFFI or asbestos--a real hazard that it has simply become too expensive for most people to do anything about.

Homes with single pane windows do not sell slower than homes with double pane windows. There is nothing that would support this myth.
Insurance Companies don't require the removal of knob in tube wiring. Some Companies will not issue a new policy to a home with knob in tube wiring but, there are some that will . This wiring is simply wearing out due to its age and replacement is due to deterioration.
You will wait a long time until a deleaded single family house is the norm. It appears that the lead laws will be relaxed from the current standards in the future. As people have become educated to the lead paint issues , the number of lead paint poisonings have decreased dramatically..

Do you have any proof to support your claim that single pane windows are as good as modern replacement windows?

Here are a couple of sites that say otherwise.

http://www.efficientwindows.org/index.cfm

http://www.nfrc.org/

I look at a building envelope like clothing. When you look at how a skier dresses today, we have layers like base layers that wick away the sweat, etc. Now, a good wall for a home has a layer of sheetrock, then a plastic sheet (vapor barrier on the warm side of the wall) then insulation within the wood studs, and an outer air/wind barrier (tar paper or house wrap), then the shingles. These walls perform much, much, much better than old homes without insulation. It is science. We have an energy code. The way it works is you have an insulating property for every inch of a particular material (R-value) if you use 3/4" of a particular R value you use 75% of the R value and then you add it to all the other inches that make up the wall to get a composite overall R value for the wall. Next, you take what percentage of the exterior is that wall type and then you take the R value for the windows and their percentage of the exterior and then you get an R value for the building envelope. In the Mass Energy Code we have a building envelope "performance factors" Newer buildings blow away older buildings. When it comes to energy efficiency we're glad they don't "build them like they used to".

I think this "turning point" will be when a prospective buyer calls the oil company and finds out how much an older house is a gas guzzler and how much more an older home will pay. The increased home heating costs will make the difference more pronounced. Why would a young couple pay top dollar for a home that would shovel money out the window to heat? That would be what I'd offer for a "turning point".

The flip side, and something else to consider is that because some of the older homes with the less efficient building envelopes are closer to the city, the couple might save on TRANSPORTATION ENERGY COSTS. Some people living in Boston condos don't even have cars, so they can absorb a premium in heating I'd imagine. If the more modern homes are on or beyond the 128 Belt, they have to pay to commute in.

Marcus is right about old vs new windows. New are more efficient, but the efficiency is modest compared to the cost - the same effect can be achieved much cheaper but putting on storms.

I've modernized windows before for other reasons. But I actually improved the windows by putting in Pella Architect windows, not cheap vinyl junk.

Most of the energy savings in replacing old windows comes from filling the chain pockets on the side. Ironically, most cheap window installers don't do that, so basically no positive benefit is achieved.

In most things, quality of installation is the most important thing.

For those interested in various home energy myths, I'd refer you to an article on the subject in the latest issue of the Journal of Light Construction.

New Houses are much more energy efficient, but they've created a lot of other problems with ventilation - any new house built without a heat recovery ventilator will almost certainly have problems. And I've only seen it done on custom construction.

We are going to have a huge mold issue with new construction in this country. And people will be very surprised, and shocked, and ask "why did no one warn us"? Well, for anyone reading this, here's your warning. Google to find out more.

oh, I'd minorly disagree with Marcus on lead paint. I really don't think its a big deal. Most people in old houses worried about lead paint would be much better off replacing old plumbing with lead solder... but we never hear about that.

I see the salespeople are out in force, brochures in hand. Their favorite comparison is between brand-new replacement windows in a lab, and poorly maintained windows with no caulking, v-strips, or storm windows. Preferably in an old house with no attic insulation.

However, study after study shows that well-maintained old windows with storms perform about the same as new replacement windows from an insulation point of view. if you expect energy savings to pay back the cost of replacements, you're going to wait a long, long time. Like 20 or 30 years.

http://homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/97/970908.html
http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/48516bb50474751a27170a32100a0630/UserTemplate/82?s=48516bb50474751a27170a32100a0630&c=3879cef6a1f48f485cc830e77d88b992&p=1
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=remodeling.hm_improvement_windows

A quote from that last site, EnergyStar:
Replacing windows is rarely cost-effective based solely on energy-savings.

Lead is a big deal for those of us with kids. It's a pain to find rentals or houses without lead, but it has become very easy to test for. The next house I buy/build will be lead free. Any home inspector who doesn't bother to test for it isn't worth the $300 you pay them.

I think that when you are remodeling you want to be around the project as much as possible!
If you can do a lot of it yourself that helps on quality and money.
Usually the best job done is the one you do because you know how you want it done and you
want it done nicely because you’ll be seeing it everyday - the contracter wont!
Thanks for this blog it had a lot of great information!