Balancing Capital <p>and Enjoyment
Personal Investment
Monday January 1, 1996
Generations of paint and mould have been peeled from the blackened inner walls of Rod and Lisa Hughes' two bedroom brick terrace house in North Fitzroy, Melbourne over the past few years.
Purchasing the property in 1991 for $143,000, the couple estimate they have spent approximately $65,000 renovating and extending the property. The median house price for the September quarter 1995 in North Fitzroy is now $180,000, which has steadily risen from $156,500 in the same quarter of 1992.
Both Fitzroy and North Fitzroy are considered strong growth areas of Melbourne. Close proximity to the city, together with the increasingly popular shopping centres, nightspots and restaurants located along Fitzroys' Smith and Brunswick streets, are part of the attraction to both tenants and owner-occupiers.
However, a recent report from Herron Todd White (HTW) Valuers states that to Melbourne's inner urban north, beyond the established and already popular areas of Clifton Hill, Carlton and North Fitzroy, the suburbs thought to have the strongest growth potential are Brunswick and Northcote.
Location was definitely one of the Hughes' main reasons for selecting the area and property five years ago; North Fitzroy is only four kilometres from Melbourne's central business district.
The dilapidated state and layout of the property meant they were not at all concerned about renting the property for one year until they collected some extra money and renovation ideas.
In 1992, the couple moved in and have since conducted the renovations in two stages. Sloppy electrical wiring, layers of rotted paint and rough plastering meant the Hughes, as do many renovators, spent much of their spare time working on the property.
Planning to live in the house for another five years, they have balanced their reluctance to over-capitalise while renovating with a desire to create an enjoyable living environment for themselves.
"We consciously spent more money in some areas, but also purchased cheaper, value for money items, such as a second hand clawfoot bath," says Lisa, 27.
The initial work on the front half of the house included rewiring ($2500), plastering of cornices and ceiling roses ($1000), restumping ($2500), replacing some and polishing all floorboards ($1000).
After experimenting with a heat gun to remove the paint layers, they finally took some of the bedroom doors to a local antique dealer where, for $30 each, the doors were dipped in acid to remove all traces of paint.
The long entrance hall now provides direct access to the rear of the property, where the family room, kitchen and small garden are located.
A small skylight has also been installed in the hall. Previously, access to the kitchen was diagonally across the lounge with the bathroom opening directly onto the kitchen.
The extended part of the property includes the family room and new kitchen. Particularly unique is the cathedral ceiling across these rooms. Modifying some ideas from an architect, who assessed the property in 1993, the couple believe the ceiling provides an extra feeling of spaciousness and light, as well as a unique character.
The second stage of the renovations involved an extension to the back of the property, which now incorporates the kitchen, living room, bathroom and dining room. The costs involved footing and brickwork ($7000), windows ($3500), roofing ($2400), timber and carpentry ($14,500), plastering in the kitchen and living room ($1500), plastering in the bathroom and dining room, which includes cornices and roses ($2000).
Other costs included the electrical ($2300), plumbing ($6000), installation of baltic pine floors in the kitchen and living areas ($3000), floor polishing ($3000), bathroom tiling ($1000), kitchen tiling ($400), installing the dining room fireplace ($1200), bathroom fittings ($2000), kitchen appliances ($2600), hallway skylight ($400), ducted heating ($2400) and kitchen cabinets ($5600).
One of the hardest parts was designing the top beam in the cathedral ceiling, as there was no support, without disrupting the open area of the family room, says Rod, 28.
"We were able to save money by allowing the builder to do most of the work in one hit, rather than attempting to spread the costs over a number of years and contractors," he says. The couple also did some of the work themselves. For example, they saved $1200 by calling in some friends to help demolish the back of the house.
© 1996 Personal Investment