Stephen J. Vertin MAI
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Illinois
Paul:
There are a lot of homes in Highland Park and Glencoe with Dryvit. Here is some verbiage out of a report in a recent court case I was involved in. For what it is worth the parties settled at my appraised value. I believe there is a market stigma attached in Highland Park. This is my comment from the appraisal. It may be helpful.
The subject has an Exterior Insulation and Finishing System (EIFS) called Dryvit. There has been a great deal of press on this material over the last 5 years. Most, whether warranted or not, has been negative. The material is basically known for not allowing moisture to escape the internal walls once it has entered causing water damage and eventual rotting. Most all problems stem from improper installation. In fact many experts agree if the material is installed properly it is an excellent insulation and heat retainer. In fact an article in the February 21, 2003 PRNewswire claims Dryvit easily recorded the highest R-Value (the industry rating for insulating properties) in testing (84 percent higher than the next best-performing cladding). However, it is hard for the public to dismiss pictures presented on World News where the material had caused massive internal damage in a number of +$1,000,000 homes in Atlanta, Georgia. The photographs of complete subdivisions stripped of cladding is what the public remembers, stated some area real estate brokers. According to a number of real estate brokers within the Highland Park market this material is perceived by the public as bad news. Brokers report some buyers do not even look at homes clad with EIFS. After reading a number of articles and the consultant reports concerning the subject, it is my opinion; much of the markets rejection is unfounded. However, it is there none the less. Further, it appears some portions of the subject were not installed properly. The cost estimated to repair these areas is $XXXX. Reportedly, this will bring the Dryvit into good condition and constitute proper installation. According to many of the brokers interviewed, they would estimate a market deduction for the material. Many stated the deduction would be the cost of removal and installation of another cladding such as stucco. Based on cost manuals this would be about $XXXXX. I can not deny there would be a market stigma. However, I do not believe it would be the cost of removal, especially given the provided reports and actual repair cost. It is my opinion, curable functional obsolescence exists due to market perceptions and that a well informed consumer would easily take a $XXXX deduction given the EIFS.
Steve Vertin
There are a lot of homes in Highland Park and Glencoe with Dryvit. Here is some verbiage out of a report in a recent court case I was involved in. For what it is worth the parties settled at my appraised value. I believe there is a market stigma attached in Highland Park. This is my comment from the appraisal. It may be helpful.
The subject has an Exterior Insulation and Finishing System (EIFS) called Dryvit. There has been a great deal of press on this material over the last 5 years. Most, whether warranted or not, has been negative. The material is basically known for not allowing moisture to escape the internal walls once it has entered causing water damage and eventual rotting. Most all problems stem from improper installation. In fact many experts agree if the material is installed properly it is an excellent insulation and heat retainer. In fact an article in the February 21, 2003 PRNewswire claims Dryvit easily recorded the highest R-Value (the industry rating for insulating properties) in testing (84 percent higher than the next best-performing cladding). However, it is hard for the public to dismiss pictures presented on World News where the material had caused massive internal damage in a number of +$1,000,000 homes in Atlanta, Georgia. The photographs of complete subdivisions stripped of cladding is what the public remembers, stated some area real estate brokers. According to a number of real estate brokers within the Highland Park market this material is perceived by the public as bad news. Brokers report some buyers do not even look at homes clad with EIFS. After reading a number of articles and the consultant reports concerning the subject, it is my opinion; much of the markets rejection is unfounded. However, it is there none the less. Further, it appears some portions of the subject were not installed properly. The cost estimated to repair these areas is $XXXX. Reportedly, this will bring the Dryvit into good condition and constitute proper installation. According to many of the brokers interviewed, they would estimate a market deduction for the material. Many stated the deduction would be the cost of removal and installation of another cladding such as stucco. Based on cost manuals this would be about $XXXXX. I can not deny there would be a market stigma. However, I do not believe it would be the cost of removal, especially given the provided reports and actual repair cost. It is my opinion, curable functional obsolescence exists due to market perceptions and that a well informed consumer would easily take a $XXXX deduction given the EIFS.
Steve Vertin
