patrick.net

A floor plan came with my home when I bought it, actually I got all the original blue prints. The floor plan was not even accurate, everyone goes by sq. ft., number of rooms, and photo's. It only takes about two or three internal photo's to see the floor plan in your mind anyways.

Tenouncetrout says

There's no dimensions? what good is it?

Scale is not important as long as I can get an idea of the house layout. Most people care about the layout but not so much the dimensions. It is to get a rough idea so that we can visualize the house without actually visiting it. Moreover the dimensions of each room is usually listed in the MLS so it can be used in conjunction to evaluate.

The more information, more transparency the better. I don't know why such a simple point is very hard to understand.

robertoaribas says

When you are out looking at homes, opening one more door takes all of 15 minutes... hardly worth getting your pantyhose bunched up about...

15 minutes x 10 houses is more than 2 hours and if none of the layouts fit my interest, I would have done better things during that time anyway. How is this whining? I don't get it.

StoutFiles says

It cost 0 dollars. It takes almost no time. It's incredibly useful to the buyer, and indirectly, the seller. Anyone could do it. And this is just for an awfully bad floor plan, a more detailed one would be even better, but the basic layout is most important since most sites have room dimensions. .

You don't always even need dimensions. I've lived in houses of different sizes and can generally figure out the relative sizes of rooms in a house given then number of bedrooms and the number of square feet. Sometimes you just want to know what the flow is and where certain rooms are in relation to others. If you are considering a purchase on a busy street in SF (as is not uncommon in certain parts of SF), those bedrooms better be at the back of the house, for example.

Lots of Bay Area housing is composed of shitty tract homes that have been modified and expanded over the years. Some people have done this better than others and have actually hired an architect who thought about creating a good house, and some people made a hotchpotch of random additions that aren't up to code and don't fit into the house well. We've all seen these properties and can tell the difference, and a floor plan can help you evaluate this without wasting time.

More information is always better, unless you're a used house salesman.

I think the OP revealed a lot in his post: he said if he had the info he could waste less time. The statement implies that if you fail to provide it he'll go get it himself. That's something that makes real estate different that most businesses. If you're bad at advertising your furniture you're going to go out of business. If you're bad at advertising an RE listing frustrated buyers are going to come see it for themselves.

Houses aren't moving, NOT because of lack of Marketing skills, or technique, I think we should all agree on that.

Easy, partners!

Most agents don't supply floorplans for their listings because they don't have them, and people don't ask for them. Simple as that.

Here's another tip: Women buy most houses. Men give the OK. Women pay attention to ambience, feel and specific amenities (size of closets, bedrooms and kitchen). They don't want to look at diagrams.

And what's so bad about "quaint," "cozy" and other euphemisms? agents have a duty to present their clients' homes in the best possible light. They're required by law to disclose everything that would affect the marketability of the home--but not on a web presentation or property flyer. On the other hand, an agent who lies about the home or the neighborhood is a fool. Buyers figure these things out pretty quickly, and will dump a deceptive agent in a hurry.

One more thing: The person who wrote that buyers and sellers do most of the legwork on a real estate transaction has never been an agent.

Our realtor used "Mouse on House."

http://www.mouseonhouse.com/Website/default.aspx

corntrollio says

PockyClipsNow says

then the lawsuits start right after the sale for fraud, mis representation, etc.

Not true. The key is adequate disclosure. If you say "floorplan is approximate for visualization purposes only, please measure the rooms yourself" you would adequately protect against lawsuits.

Disclaimers do not prevent lawsuits.

Why can't you just have your realtor call the listing agent and ask?

Shawn says

I think the OP revealed a lot in his post: he said if he had the info he could waste less time. The statement implies that if you fail to provide it he'll go get it himself.

Not quite. I only have so much free time, I have to pick and choose what to look at. I assume there are houses with little information that I'm missing out on because I can only assume the place won't be good enough. I'd say if you have a good floor plan, it would only benefit you to flaunt it.

Tenouncetrout says

Houses aren't moving, NOT because of lack of Marketing skills, or technique, I think we should all agree on that.

Sure. Just because more information won't fix the housing market doesn't mean it won't put a dent in it though.

DrMom says

Our realtor used "Mouse on House."

"Our Virtual Floor Plan Tours help sell Real Estate listings 66% days faster. Our customers found that, on average, they were selling their listings 66% days faster than the average of the rest of the realtors in our region."

That's a higher percentage than I would have imagined, but I believe it. They provide a floor plan, good pictures of every room, and are descriptive. Yes, information does help a sale.

gameisrigged says

Why can't you just have your realtor call the listing agent and ask?

Perhaps I don't want a buyer's agent? If that did work it'd just be another thing keeping realtors in the driver's seat.

robertoaribas says

I've decided i was completely wrong. I'm going to now immediately draw up some floor plans on my cad software, and RAISE all of my listing prices, and my rents, due to my marketing superiority, over all those other stupid non floorplan providing agents.

I don't get the sarcasm. I don't believe I ever said that a floor plan would warrant a higher home price, all I said that is that potential buyers will come to your house knowing what to expect, there's a better chance for a sale there.

Are you advocating a blind date over a date where you already know what they look like and their interests? Which date has a better chance of being successful?

gameisrigged says

Disclaimers do not prevent lawsuits.

Proper disclosure does. This is all about disclosure.

The lawsuit thing is a red herring. It's all about salesmanship.

When I advertise house for rent I always include floor plan. It works very well, especially for tenants out of state.

robertoaribas says

I've decided i was completely wrong. I'm going to now immediately draw up some floor plans on my cad software, and RAISE all of my listing prices, and my rents, due to my marketing superiority, over all those other stupid non floorplan providing agents.

Thanks Patrick denizens for making me even more wealthy! cheers!

Better yet, hire me to do it. I will only charge you a small fortune, which you will easily regain from your superior advertising product. After all, who in their right mind would buy a house without a floor plan provided on the listing site? For an additional charge, I can include the location of every electrical outlet, just to make sure your prospective buyers know where they will plug their lamps in.

StoutFiles says

Oh God, this house looks depressing! I mean, "quaint," "cozy", and "charming". No way I would come to look at this house, now. Some real estate agent you turned out to be!

I'm about to put up a FSBO sign in my yard. I have a nice big real estate company size sign, but wonder how to come up with a good sign. I was thinking on going to one of those sign specialists for tips, or maybe they can make me a real nice one.

@ tatupu70

I agree it is a shame that people can't be educated about architecture. I know you think I am being arrogant, but there are really standards for judging whether something is good or not. I find it annoying that in art, science, music, people feel their opinion is a valid as everyone else's. I refuse to accept that notion.

As an example there is a new geocentric model spreading across the country like a plague. This "new" mode of though holds the earth is stationary and the center of the universe. This notion that the earth does not move and everything else does is of course possible. You can even construct models that make this work. But the evidence they quote for this "new" model does not hold up as you would get the same results on a moving object (if you believe relativity). These people are idiots, plain and simple.

People who have intensively studied and understood a subject have a much
stronger framework to understand what is good and bad. Unfortunately we celebrate the few times these experts get things wrong, but ignore the vast majority of the time when things moved forward and changed in an orderly manner.

You might not personally like a great piece of architecture, but you should at least understand why it is considered great, and why the typical McMansion is truly ugly. While I myself must defer to the professionals who have studied and practiced architecture all their lives, I do take the time to try and understand their reasoning and insights.

Interestingly there was a book written about trying to get "common" people to design architecture called the Oregon Experiment. (http://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Experiment-Center-Environmental-Structure/dp/0195018249) It didn't work out well (even by the author's own admission), but it still worth a read if you have some spare time.

Oliverks

oliverks1 says

I find it annoying that in art, science, music, people feel their opinion is a valid as everyone else's. I refuse to accept that notion.

How dare they?

Hopefully you are being sarcastic. I can't quite tell.

Nomograph says

And please don't lump science in with art and music; the latter two are ENTIRELY subjective, and everyone's opinion is indeed just as valid as anyone else's.

Not unlike cooking a meal that would appeal to the majority, people can be trained to make music/art that will be found appealing to most people. This can be done because music/art are not entirely subjective.

There are "formulas" in sound and sight that are inherently more pleasing than others. Why do all pop songs sound similar? One of the first thing every artist learns is the Golden Ratio.

People however all have their own opinions about these things, and I would not say that one's opinion is more "valid" than someone else. That said education and experience often will refine someones taste making it more discriminating or "better" as oliverks1 would probably put it.

Some people can't stand an Islay scotch, who am I to tell them they are "wrong", but after tasting a variety of whiskeys they can gain an appreciation for it. Then after a while they may begin to enjoy what Lagavulin or Ardbeg Uigeadail has to offer.

@tatupu70

First of all thank you to leoj707 for providing the nice whiskey example.

I am not there to set them straight and dictate how they live. People should be free to chose what they want so long as it doesn't "harm" other people. Bizarrely that is not the case in many locations, where strict rules ensure that houses must conform to various cosmetic standard. So someone who wishes to deviate from the norm is penalized by the masses. Often those "deviant" houses are the more interesting houses.

I couldn't disagree more strongly about your statement regarding music or art. I would recommend taking some rigorous music theory classes.

Science is very shaped by experts. Our understanding and what is explored in science is limited by our own experiences. Science is often murky and requires judgement. As an example video that gives a nice example of this (and is a great introductory lecture) is:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-012-introduction-to-biology-fall-2004/video-lectures/lecture-6-genetics-1/

Oliver

Under standard Lebesgue measure (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure), almost all numbers are irrational. So the fact that Golden ratio is irrational is in fact rather unsurprising.

Oliver

oliverks1 says

I am not there to set them straight and dictate how they live. People should be free to chose what they want so long as it doesn't "harm" other people

oliverks1 says

I find it annoying that in art, science, music, people feel their opinion is a valid as everyone else's. I refuse to accept that notion.

So, it's OK for them to have an opinion as long as they understand it's not as valid as yours?

@Nomograph

Why would you say my invocation of the Lebesgue measure is invalid? I would argue that the Real numbers is a reasonable model for the "real" world. Number theory is usually more concerned with finite fields, Z, and the Gaussian integers. If you agree Reals are a reasonable basis for looking at the world, which measure would you prefer? If you think the Reals are not a good general purpose model for the real world, which field, ring, or group would you chose?

Oliver

@tatupu70

I think it is more nuanced than that. The problem arises when communities need to make decisions on how certain things will be done. For example, look at the teaching of evolution and alternate theories in schools.

What is the correct framework to decide that? If you take it by majority vote, many school districts would no longer teach it. This runs counter to the experts in biology and genetics. I would argue that the decision has been made that some peoples opinions are not as valid as other people.

So my position is sometimes my opinion is more valid than yours. Sometimes mine is significantly less valid than yours. My opinion is not all opinions are equal valid. This probably goes against the opinion of most people, but I am arguing that it should be a more wildly held opinion. I hope I manage to convince you of this.

I need to go do some work!

Oliver

99.9% of houses are architecturally insignificant. In fact, some famous architects choose to live in insignificant houses for one reason or another. Architectural significance is about the last thing most people look for.

Floor plans change with time, house size, and societal needs. In the 1950s and 1960s, the kitchen was a little room where the woman did her work. The man building the house didn't want to devote much space and money to it, so it was small and closed off. Now, it is a social room & a place where the family can spend time with mom who works during the day. Smaller houses may benefit from a closed off kitchen where the walls and cabinets add storage space. In bigger houses, the space is not so critical, and so they open it up for a nice airy light-filled and connected feeling.

When looking at newer apartment complexes, the manager always comes out and shows you a bunch of floor plans. The average person can look at this and see which plan fits their lifestyle the best. One reason that the new complex does this is that they know that their new floor plan fits contemporary expectations, and people will like them.

oliverks1 says

First of all thank you to leoj707 for providing the nice whiskey example.

As much as I like Islay malts, the best whiskey ever is "North of Scotland" bottled by Scott's.

Anyone who disagrees either:
1. Has not tried it
-or-
2. Is wrong

if it's not Scottish, it's craaaapp!

@Nomograph,

A sketch of the proof is as follows. It can be a little hard to write proofs with only text, so please let me know if something is unclear.

Let I = R - Q (or the Irrationals are the Reals take away the Rationals). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number.

The set Q is countably infinite (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number#Properties). The diagram shows an example mapping of the positive integers onto the positive rationals. So the rational must be the same size or smaller than the integers. As the integers are included in the rationals they must be the same size set. Z is countable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set). Hence Q is countable.

Let (a,b) be the set of real numbers x such that a

Let (a,b) be the set of real numbers x such that a

@Nomograph,

Sorry for all these posts but the less than sign was causing problems.

A sketch of the proof is as follows. It can be a little hard to write proofs with only text, so please let me know if something is unclear.

Let I = R - Q (or the Irrationals are the Reals take away the Rationals). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number.

The set Q is countably infinite (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number#Properties). The diagram shows an example mapping of the positive integers onto the positive rationals. So the rational must be the same size or smaller than the integers. As the integers are included in the rationals they must be the same size set. Z is countable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set). Hence Q is countable.

Let (a,b) be the set of real numbers x such that a less than x less than b.

Referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure

The Lebesgue measure of (a,b) = b-a by property 1.

We want to show the assertion that any countably infinite set has Lebesgue measure zero.

This can be seeing by constructing a covering over the countable set. Chose a positive number e. Let your countable numbers be called Q= {q1, q2, q3, ...}. Let your covering be

(q1-e/4,q1+e4) U (q2-e/8,q2+e/8) U (q3-e/16,q+e/16) ...

This covering has Lebesgue measure of no more than e (it might be less due to overlaps) by property 2 and a little work.

As Q is contained inside our covering the Lebesgue measure of Q must be less than e by property 5.

As our choice of e was any positive real, the measure of Q must be less than any positive real. However property 4 states all measures must be greater than or equal to zero. So the measure of Q is zero.

This shows that the measure of countably infinite sets are zero.

The actual "mass" of the rational numbers is nothing under Lebesgue measure. This is surprising as it says that the numbers we know and love really insignificant in comparison to all the Reals (there are other results that show this without using measures). For example the measure of (0,1) is 1. (0,1) contains an infinite number of rationals, but they take up no space.

Oliver

I don't see what all the belly aching about floor plans is over. First, to get a PROFESSIONALLY done floor plan made up costs money. I'm not talking about rough sketches, but the types of floor plans they hand oout at new developments and large apartment complexes. Those are all professionally made. And most peopel don't really care. They would rather see photos.

@leoj707

I'll take your word for it. I might even try a bottle, can you give me an estimate of how much it should cost?

What should I be looking for in it?

Oliver

I think I paid just under 200 for my last bottle. I got it at klwines.com. I have got it from bevmo before, but I think they don't have any more bottles.
http://www.klwines.com/detail.asp?sku=1018111

Smooth, light a little sweet and very complex it is an excelent scotch from nose to finish, and the finish is verrryyy long. Probably the longest finish I have ever experinced. You could probably find better tasting notes.

It is the only bottle I have tasted in the 200+ range that I thought was worth the price.

corntrollio says

gameisrigged says

Disclaimers do not prevent lawsuits.

Proper disclosure does. This is all about disclosure.

The lawsuit thing is a red herring. It's all about salesmanship.

You know nothing of the law. Pretty much the first thing you would learn in law school is that all the disclaimers in the world aren't going to protect you. Do you think the warning labels McDonald's has on their coffee cups now, "Warning! Coffee is hot", is going to ensure that they never get sued again? Best you can do is increase your odds of winning the case; you will not guarantee that you don't get sued. A warning label does not automatically bar lawsuits. The only sure fire way to prevent lawsuits is to refrain from engaging in any kind of behavior that you could be sued for.

Get real. You can't just shrug off liability by saying, "Uh, gee - we warned 'em".

YesYNot says

Anyone selling a house for $200K or up can spare an hour to create a floor plan.

Anyone buying a house for $200K or up can spare 10 minutes to go look at the house.

StoutFiles says

gameisrigged says

Why can't you just have your realtor call the listing agent and ask?

Perhaps I don't want a buyer's agent? If that did work it'd just be another thing keeping realtors in the driver's seat.

Then call the listing agent yourself. Did you break your finger?

@Nomograph

I attempted to provide a proof for you. You said, "I see nothing about Lebesgue measure that makes most numbers irrational." You came back with the sarcastic comment, "Congratulations, you've arrived at a trivial solution. At least it only took you three posts to do it." This was a proof you requested. A proof I spent time trying to formulate in a readable manner. Writing is not my strong point, so the effort involved was considerable.

I did apologize that my using the less than sign confused the website. I did not realize that was going to happen. It took two attempts for me to understand where the problem was. I apologize again, I did not mean to clutter the board with attempted posts.

At this stage I see no point in responding to you. I can only hope that time may teach you that passion infects both science and math, as it does art and music. One day you may also discover that art and music are not so subjective, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Good luck, and Viva le floor plan!

Oliver

oliverks1 says

@Nomograph

I attempted to provide a proof for you. You said, "I see nothing about Lebesgue measure that makes most numbers irrational." You came back with the sarcastic comment, "Congratulations, you've arrived at a trivial solution. At least it only took you three posts to do it." This was a proof you requested. A proof I spent time trying to formulate in a readable manner. Writing is not my strong point, so the effort involved was considerable.

I did apologize that my using the less than sign confused the website. I did not realize that was going to happen. It took two attempts for me to understand where the problem was. I apologize again, I did not mean to clutter the board with attempted posts.

At this stage I see no point in responding to you. I can only hope that time may teach you that passion infects both science and math, as it does art and music. One day you may also discover that art and music are not so subjective, but I am not going to hold my breath.

gameisrigged says

YesYNot says

Anyone selling a house for $200K or up can spare an hour to create a floor plan.

Anyone buying a house for $200K or up can spare 10 minutes to go look at the house.

I looked at about 5 houses before buying one. It took much longer than 10 minutes per house. Maybe if you happen to live next door and are a realtor, you can look at a house in 10 minutes. Seriously, how do you figure 10 minutes?

Plus, only 1 person sells a particular house. Multiple people look at it, so it is more efficient for the seller to spend the time. Plus the seller gets the benefit of a higher price. A typical listing on ebay for a $200 product has a more detailed and informative listing than the average real estate listing. For whatever reason, the realtors doing the listing either think there is some benefit to withholding information or they are terribly lazy.

You answered your own question. If they showed you the floor plan, you wouldn't be interested.

gameisrigged says

You know nothing of the law. Pretty much the first thing you would learn in law school is that all the disclaimers in the world aren't going to protect you. Do you think the warning labels McDonald's has on their coffee cups now, "Warning! Coffee is hot", is going to ensure that they never get sued again? Best you can do is increase your odds of winning the case; you will not guarantee that you don't get sued. A warning label does not automatically bar lawsuits. The only sure fire way to prevent lawsuits is to refrain from engaging in any kind of behavior that you could be sued for.

To the contrary, you are misunderstanding that the law is highly context-dependent and fact-dependent. You are also comparing a products liability/negligence case to a disclosure about real estate case, which is highly misguided. Trying to generalize from a coffee case to real estate is not a very good example.

The standards of negligence for product liability do not apply here. This is not about having a generic warning label for a product. This is about having a drawing that indicates the general location of rooms in the house, without necessarily being to scale. The characteristics of that type of drawing can easily be disclosed in the real estate context and is not at all comparable to a warning label. It is not misleading, it is not fraudulent, and it is not misrepresentative. All you're saying is that an inadequate warning label doesn't protect you from bad design, but that's a poor legal argument to apply in this case which involves legal disclosure. You can sell someone a crappy house as long as you disclose that it's crappy, but you can't do that with a dangerously designed product in the same manner without additional thought.

By the way, if you've been to law school, you'd know that that's not the first thing you'd learn in law school. At any good law school, you'd learn far more about theory and very little about practical things.