Would appreciate any knowledgeable advice. Looking to buy a 3 bedder, no bigger than 90m2 footprint. Agents says they "think" walls could be asbestos. Has anyone had experience removing? And costs. Google estimates $3500 per 100m2, but with limited experience, I don't know what this means in reality .. i.e. how much "wall space" is there in a typical 3 bedder…
Thanks legends
Whilst true for some, but it does depend on the ground itself. Clay heavy ground tends to swell in the wet, so when it dries out, shrinks.
Some dwellings are built with better foundations than others, for instance some have brick walls underneath the floors more than piers. Others have deeply driven piles. Many are on ground that moves relatively little.
And there are bad slabs which if they crack and leave you in a world of pain once the house is constructed.
Site prep is vital to every house.
For what it is, asbestos is fine until you want to change it. And even then it's seldom the trouble the council and many others say it is. That said, don't breathe it in or move/cut without prep and protection, don't touch with bare hands, etc.
New builds are almost always nightmare machines. They are built with substandard materials by substandard people managed by actual criminals looking to extract every cent.
I would much rather buy an established home. So glad I found a double brick bunker from the early 90s to buy.
Any new build is a bit of hit and miss, and so is probably true that builders just wanna extract each possible dollar of us for construction.
But there is no denying in fact that Newer builds are best. They come with better insulation, better knowledge (as in you would easily know where is what connection, etc. a lot easier to find than older homes). If you construct yourself, you can customise it fully.
Bricks on inside are a nightmare for renovations. (and ofcourse Asbestos, Silcosis/engineered stone or engineed floor too)
As you say newer builds are prone to be damage to foundations, structure etc. So are older home too, typically even older homes have a set life too (espically for roof, eves, window seals, and so much more).
Newer builds are supposed to be compliant to newer Building standards/regulations too (which have only gotten stricter, worksmanship quality might have gone down, but regulations only gotten stricter).
But there is no denying in fact that Newer builds are best. They come with better insulation, better knowledge (as in you would easily know where is what connection, etc. a lot easier to find than older homes). If you construct yourself, you can customise it fully.
My place is from the mid 80s. Double brick- fantastic insulation, solid internal walls. The ancient bathroom fittings are original, and holding up nicely after decades of use. Very deliberately didn't look at any new builds at the time. Replaced the horrible 80s carpet and the kitchen has been modernised, but otherwise the place is untouched.
Going around looking at new builds in the area have only confirmed my initial decision to avoid anything from 2000 onwards- crappy cladding on the outside, cardboard walls on the inside.
One of the places I looked at was from 1880- was really tempted, but the roof did need a lot of work.
@rumblytangara: It also depends a lot on users and maintenance too.
All the ancient water fittings in my current residence (from 1960s) are trash not lying, (mostly due to the users in my residence who just dont understand how to be delicate with opening/closing taps). As a solution mixer taps (modern design is so much more resilient to all torture they put on them).
Similarly its got that stupid design where laundry sink taps are linked to the washing machine taps (aka got the same pipe coming to wall being used). Its so so terrible. To replace it will need to break tiles, wall etc to replace all that stupid plumbing work.
Also anything before 1980s pretty sure builders, developers were just not for forward thinking. (So they never put a neutral wire to all Light switches). Furthermore because they used brick everywhere running more wires and stuff is so difficult, as compared to drywall.
Timber eves are also failing slowly after years of rain, moisture abuse. (As a result lot of mould grows due to poor ventilation). Window frames rust too cause of poor ventilation too. (This is also probably lot of user error, as all people in my residence except me refuse to use their brain, while doing activities that make lot of water vapour/moisture)
Also bathroom, windows seals, vents not really designed for easy upgrading, cleaning.
These are just some of my concerns in current residence built in old times.
@USER DC: I'm sure there were plenty of bad builds in the 80s. The problems on older would be very apparent by now.
On anything really new, problems will remain hidden until after any warranty is expired. And these days the average build seems to be quite low- one of my family members is in the industry and he is very, very specific about which construction companies are trustworthy and the majority of them being much less so.
Agreed that mixed taps are a great development though- my older non-mixed are annoying to use. But they are still going strong after almost 40 years.
@rumblytangara: Thanks you any tips where should a person look for problems in new builds too ??
might help a lot of new owners
@USER DC: I'm not in the industry- a family member is, and he's worked with enough construction companies to be skeptical.
In Sydney at least, the market is so fast and auction-based that having an inspection done on every place you look at just isn't practical either. So if I was look around, there's just no way I'd personally consider anything built in the last ten years.
Also anything before 1980s pretty sure builders, developers were just not for forward thinking. (So they never put a neutral wire to all Light switches). Furthermore because they used brick everywhere running more wires and stuff is so difficult, as compared to drywall.
This is a problem I have now. It's brick everywhere, so running wired ethernet is impractically expensive. Still, I would prefer this problem to the tradeoff of having shitty drywall everywhere that can get smashed to bits by kids running around, or insulation problems. Drywall is not forward thinking, drywall is just a cost cutting measure. I'm in double brick external and single brick internal- we didn't turn on the AC a single time this summer. Having no ethernet and having to use wifi is well worth it for this. I could certainly do with more powerpoints though- in the 80s they didn't forsee that computers or TVs would be everywhere.
@rumblytangara: Where in Sydney are you (to have not turned on the ac). My folks house is full brick, has massively high ceilings is well shaded by trees and there were several consecutive days where it was hot and humid that required A/C to maintain comfort over this summer.
Also is it generally referred to as drywall here? Gyprock or plasterboard is what I hear being used. It looks a lot better/is a lot more versatile than bricks everywhere. Insulation and gyprock is an effective insulator is lightweight and easy to work with and looks good.
You're right about it not being viable to do pest and building on every place you have an interest in, and most of the vendor supplied ones (in the case of auctions) are barely worth the (digital) paper they're written on.
@CanadaAye: North shore. We're pretty lucky with shade and constant breeze direction + double glazing. We've had high humidity nights where we turned on dehumidifiers. I am regularly amazed at how poorly insulated Australian houses are, especially with single pane glass everywhere. Interestingly (going by your username) I was much more impressed with the level of insulation I saw in Canada.
'Drywall'- I have been overseas for a long, long time.
@rumblytangara: yup , call me old fashioned, i was having a look at the tiktok inspectors you tube channel , and i saw that they are building walls out of styrofoam now , wtf , why not just build them out of straw or id say mud would be better .
why not just build them out of straw or id say mud would be better .
I did visit someone in the UK who lived in a place that was probably >700 years old and had a thatched roof. Wasn't a single right angle in the house, but was solid AF. He did have to spend a big chunk every once in a while to have the roof rethatched.
Our new build has a bathroom that's out of square, the walk in robe is out of square (vertically) and the network cabling is stretched so tight over the rafters you can play it like a guitar; oh it's also stapled everywhere instead of in conduit so we can't just repull it, entire roof has to come off to replace it.
Early 90's is great, solid and with zero asbestos, thanks for making my point. OP should steer clear of the ancient asbestos house and go with what you have. Roughly 1/3 of all our houses were built in the last 34 years, I don't know why there's so much hate towards all these modern houses. They can't be that bad, otherwise they wouldn't change hands or will only change hands at a discount relative to the old houses which isn't true, the reverse is actually true.
My place is from the 1950s and has asbestos in the awnings and the garage roof is made out of the stuff. Just leave it alone and it is fine.
The 1990-2000s project homes are awful quality . I trust the houses built 1940-60s to be still livable in another 20 years than ones built in the 90s-2000s.
Ironically the 40s builds where economical and fast builds for the time
But that is only because the only homes built in the 40s and 60s that were long term liveable are the minority that were built well. The rest have been demolished or at least renovated so extensively that they are in effect complete rebuilds. When you buy an old house you are buying one that has very literally withstood the test of time - many of its companions flunked the test.
A typical house built then was an uninsulated asbestos fibro shack, often with an unskilled owner builder. For all the cowboys still in the building game standards are far better now than then.
I'm sure that there are lots of solid old houses around and you love your old house. However, the fact remains, there are many dodgy old houses that are nightmares to live in or simply too unpleasant/outdated to live in which is why they are being demolished left right and centre. So many people are interested in knock-down rebuilds and the market for new modern houses is crazy.
My experience going from a shifting house built in the 1960's vs a stable house built in the 2020's was absolutely life changing. I went from having constant maintenance stresses in an old, dated, renovated asbestos house to absolute bliss in an amazing looking house with almost zero maintenance issues. All our stress levels dropped and our entire family's quality of life has gone up substantially.
This is why I wouldn't recommend OP to go and buy an old asbestos house that he's clearly not happy with, he wants to demolish the walls and replace them but it doesn't just stop there. If the walls are asbestos, odds are there are many other things around the house that are asbestos as well.
My experience going from a shifting house built in the 1960's vs a stable house built in the 2020's was absolutely life changing.
Except that you are still within the new house honeymoon phase. What will thebhouse be like in 5, 10 or 15 years? What will the maintenance be like then? Or will you just move again and build new again?
@Euphemistic: I didn't build this house, I'm just an average Joe, I can't afford to build my own. I hope I don't need to move again as it's costly. However, I'm glad I have a honey moon phase because 2 years in, it's still great. 2 years into the old house from the 60's and everything was failing one by one. I'd take 5-10 blissful years in a new house any day over 5-10 stressful years in an old house.
Not all the new houses are ready to fall apart, with the new move that the building commissioner has making them criminal offences to ignore rectification work orders, I hope it only gets better from here onwards. Why so much hate towards modern houses built in the 1990s+? Have you guys all been burnt or are you just watching a current affair? New houses and new apartments are very different stories, yes, I would stay far far away from all the new apartments. The risk is too great.
@supersabroso: You misunderstand what he meant by honeymoon phase. It's going to take more than a couple years for any serious hidden problems to come to light.
Maybe you got a gem, maybe you got a lemon, there's no way to tell for the next decade. But enjoy it for now. If you're only planning on being there 5-10 years, then great.
My take is that if a house form the 50's is still standing just fine 70 years later, then it must be a good one that was built correctly. This isn't about layout and mod-cons and asbestos, those things can be taken care of for cents on the dollar. Its about proper construction.
Preferring a 2020/new build over something that has stood the test of time, is about the shittest take one could have.
There are houses in Fitzroy that were built in the 1850s. I suspect they will still be going strong when modern buildings have been torn down.
Every single one of them will have had very extensive renovations - including extensive structural work - done over their lifetime. That is the only reason they have not been torn down - it is certainly not because they were better built than a modern one in the first place.
Anyone who thinks they were better places to live in than a modern house has never had to live in one with more or less its original layout and facilities.
I’m calling BS on the “extensive structural work” to keep them standing. The only reason they will have any extensive work done is if they have been extended. These places sit on their walls and a lot of the foundations are bluestone. The reason you would have trouble living in one of them is because the original kitchens and bathrooms were often little more than sheds. You do the extension on the back and very rarely would you need to underpin them.
The reason they haven’t been torn down is because they are structurally sound and very desirable places to live. If they weren’t then great swathes of the houses would’ve been torn down in the 60s and 70s before heritage laws came in. We have the odd “broken tooth” around but the vast majority are Victorian houses that have been brought up to date internally.
The only reason we didn’t buy a two storey Victorian place is because we converted a 1920s red brick warehouse instead. Personally, I’m not interested in buying a house that was built any later than WW2. I want something that has, already, stood the test of time and has character. The Victorian places were built by craftspeople who cared about what they were building. I will reiterate that these places will still be going strong long after the modern buildings are torn down. Guarantee it.
@try2bhelpful: This is rare, but I actually agree with you on something.
I wouldn't touch a new build personally. I prefer houses from 70-80s. Any issues are generally obvious and it's a sweet spot for the age of the house. 90s and 00s were notorious for dodgy quick builds.
Can you get duds from that era? Of course. Like everything in life you need to do you due diligence like all good ozbargainers would.
@try2bhelpful: I'm going to chime in and support Derrida here.
I have worked on many old homes probably greater than 80-90 in my career so far. You are romanticising and comparing too many different eras of homes to do an accurate comparison.
Generally, most rubbishly built homes aren't standing or kept for renovation unless there is some sort of overlay which keeps them up. So the remaining ones are generally the better built or maintained from that era.
I would almost put it under the catch all term of "all" homes from the 1880-1900s around Fitzroy would have had structural remediation works, or need them.
Take the simple fact that they would almost all be built on timber subfloors at least till the 50s/60s, with timber stumps that would be rotting and need to be replaced / or have been replaced (ie major structural works)
In fact almost every single house I can think on that I've worked on in North Fitzroy / Fitzroy has had cracking because inadequate footings in an area with highly reactive clay.
The issue is more than ever, we "expect" higher end details in homes which are done on lower end homes. Gone are simple shower bases, now replaced with tiled showers think of difference in complexity and the room for error, the substrate, the waterproofing, the puddle flange. Same everwhere else, big windows, zero threshold sliding doors, square set windows/ceilings, there is less and less tolerance for shit workman ship.
Even looking at houses from the 70s and 80s, how many of them had flat roofs, with box gutters, of the ones that do, all them usually are woefully undersized, have poor fall.
@foolsgold: All houses will get a bit of cracking with movement but are these actually causing structural integrity issues? If you are talking about the timber stumps to keep the floors up then that is an easy fix with these houses because the weight of the house is on the walls not on the floor stumps. We had to do that in Glen Huntly and it can be done room by room.
So you are saying you have had to underpin the solid brick walls on the Victorian houses because they have serious structural issues? If so exactly how have you been doing that particularly with terrace houses? Also which sections of Fitzroy are on highly reactive clay. I know about clay because I used to live in Glen Huntly and you could see how most of the homes around there had significant cracks on the outside. You will see the odd house in Fitzroy with cracking but, generally, this isn't across a number of houses in a row. I would expect to see that if there were significant clay issues. I reiterate that these places have been standing for over 100 years already - getting on to 200 years. If they were structurally unsound then great swathes of them would've been torn down by now. Instead they are considered very desirable properties. No matter how pretty they are nobody would be buying them if they, universally, suffered from structural issues. Not saying there aren't any that need to be done, particularly the wooden ones, but I would still say they are better built than modern era homes.
However, what we are seeing with modern apartments is a lot of them are suffering from significant structural issues, particularly if they have balconies. What is the bet in 100 years you will still see most of the Victorian places still in place and still commanding good prices whilst most of the modern stuff has already gone? The thing that has me deeply concerned is how do we deal with the tall towers when they have reached their use by date. How do we tear down a 30+ story block that is built right next door to a similar sized building without affecting the other one? How do we deal with massive blocks with apartments with individual owners. I think these places are a minefield.
This is a very simplistic view of housing and not one I agree with. My house is over 50 years old and solid AF. Whoever built it must have been worried about the big bad wolf.
I live in a double brick house built in 1930 , when i brought it, the building inspectors words were "you will be dead and buried and the house will still be standing for the next 100 years" .
Solid yes , a bit impractical to do renos , also yes ( for example we could not put in a large glass sliding doors at the back to access the backyard due to structural issues not allowing it ), brick veneer and fibro houses give you much more flexibility with the floorplan .
Its like comparing old toyota cars from the 80's with the VW's of today. The newer cars are larger, flashier , more features and look and feel nicer, but there is much that can go wrong due to so much being crammed in it and planned obsolescence being built in.
Stick with double brick older ones, specially the renovated californian bungalows, and federation ones, I would take them over the newer builds any day of the week.
The subsidence issues will also have run its course, unless its clay or reactive soils.
This is a lot of words to say that you don't know anything about houses or house construction.
Incorrect, houses on slab can have problems on its own, slab can move around or crack/split, and you need to demolish the house to fix it.
You should change your name to superasbestos and profess your love for old builds and the spicy fibro.
Removing isn't your only cost. After removing you need to put the walls back too.
Probably what you are looking at is some walls that use fiber cement sheet instead of plasterboard. It would be odd to see the material as an internal wall outside of wet areas like laundries and bathrooms, but if so I'd be running away screaming because who wants to try to nail a picture hook to fiber cement sheet, regardless of whether it contains asbestos or not?
Note that not all fiber cement sheet contains asbestos, hence the 'think'. It's not hard to get it tested though https://www.asbestosassessments.com.au/order-kit/asbestos-te…
We had our laundry lined with fiber cement sheet and chose to have it stripped out and replaced since we wanted to renovate that room anyhow. Removal cost us a touch under $3k for the entire room by licensed asbestos remover, although at the end of the day the entire reno ended up leaving us with not much change from $15k to redo the entire laundry.
The key with putting a bid in on a property like that is to decide how much it would cost to rectify, then double that estimate, then discount whatever amount you think the place is worth to you by that much when you submit a bid. When in doubt round up your estimate to the next $10k.
Thanks for the thought out comment
also you'd probably want new insulation too given the old is probably collapsed
Agent saw ya coming :/
Estimate the tear down & replacement cost assuming its ALL asbestos. Take the estimated time to do the job. Double it. Add on the rent & incidentals for that timeframe. That is how much BELOW the estimated market value of the home you must get it for to make it worth doing.
Which you wont get.
Dont.
People shouldn't listen to agents, they're idiots.
Is the house a fibro house? In Perth, I dont know how common these are. Certainly in Adelaide they are now pretty rare.
Virtually all homes pre 1990s will have asbestos eaves. Thats a given. Big deal. They may have asbestos insulation either in the walls or ceiling - slightly more complicated but not unexpected or unworkable.
Obviously asbestos dumping in WA will vary but certainly in SA it's become more relaxed (no more hazmat PPE bs). We dug up asbestos sheets 2 weeks ago in infill on a 1950s job and simply wrapped it in plastic, tapped it and set it aside for the next designated trip to the main dump. That's it.
In SA, there's no dumping fee anymore so many builders are happy to do it themselves.
https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/business_and_industry/waste-levy
I would test the walls first if you cant tell by feel or look. Gyprock is super smooth. Fibro is thinner and feels like it has ripples in it (very slight)
Thanks for comment
Agents says they "think" walls could be asbestos.
Profile says Perth. Are you talking about a fibro house, or a brick house with a fibro sleepout?
If it is a fibro house (not many left in Perth), you don't remove panels without demolishing the whole house. If the latter, it happens when you do major renovations, and is a small part of the cost.
Thanks for comment. It's a brick veneer house in Perth. Sorry, don't know what fibro sleep out is. But the house is a 3 by 1. No extra add ons etc
With this one simple trick you can turn Asbestos into premium mulch
I am hoping this complete and utter failure in NSW might be a catalyst for change (this happened in wealthy people neighbourhoods) for the way asbestos is removed and disposed.
legal dumping costs look to range from $50 per 100kg, which must be the barrier (no idea how many sqm that would be of fibro). A reduction in costs will help avoid it being dumped in the general building waste.
Asbestos in Australia is treated with much more alarm than anywhere else.
While it is a dangerous material to work with, and it is sensible we have banned it, it exists in millions of pre-1990s houses and is not harmful as a fibro sheet.
I’ve lived in an old place with fibro without concern or ill effect, just be aware of safety precautions if you are renovating.
That said, if you are concerned about it, someone on the internet telling you not to be isn’t much use, so perhaps pass on this place.
Anywhere else? I have family members that teach in the UK and they've had schools closed down due to asbestos sheeting being found. I've seen similar sheeting in buildings here and all they do is stick a label saying "Asbestos. Do not drill." on it.
If it is friable asbestos, it can be dangerous, and would make sense to take careful measures. The same thing happens in Australia.
Bonded fibro doesn't allow fibres to be separated unless it is cut, sanded or broken up, or drilled as you say.
Given the freak out people have and inability to risk assess, I probably wouldn't buy a fibro house as you will exclude some fraction of buyers when time comes to resell. But if you get a good deal and it isn't a concern for you it isn't a safety risk compared to living near a busy street or a under a flight path - the odds of a negative event are very low.
I live under a flight path and bought a house with broken asbestos eaves linings and a smashed asbestos fence, I must like living life on the edge :)
We got the eaves linings rather expensively removed. They did a terrible job and left fibres around nail heads. I just ended up spraying them with soapy water and pinched them off with disposable cloths.
We're surrounded by asbestos fibres and breathe it in all the time wherever we are. The way to deal with it
when renovating is cautiously. How some deal with it like it's an Ebola infected blood sample is rather unnecessary.
@banana365: Agreed. In my life I have played in the off cuts of fibro sheeting as a young child - it makes a pleasing 'crack' sound when you smash it.
And cut out a window space when renovating when I was young, creating lots of dust and horrifying when I think back now.
As an older friend said, he used to cut asbestos sheet as a young man, with a handsaw, making a lot of dust. Later he got a power saw kicking up 10 times the dust.
Nobody has those levels of exposure today, and thankfully my and his exposure was on a few occasions, not daily like many workers and their families.
This doesn't make me ambivalent to asbestos risk - I carefully double bagged and safely disposed of the last fibro sheet I needed to handle. But millions of Aussies had extreme exposure over the years, with sadly thousands of casualties.
So I completely support strong regulation on handling and exposure - lets avoid any further generation having the risk - but I also understand the odds of a poor outcome are lower than being in a car accident.
And simple stuff like carefully handling the material like you did, virtually eliminates risk.
So I shake my head when an outdoor event gets cancelled when a handful of fragments of fibro get discovered in a garden bed.
I guess the thing that sends risk management thinking haywire is that there is no low dose limit.
If you look at things with similar risk profiles - eating processed meat like bacon, drinking alcohol, probably hitting a vape - has a direct dose response. Eat bacon everyday and you are more likely to get cancer. But occasionally, someone gets asbestosis from a really limited exposure, like in DIY renovation, or because you laundered a workers dusty clothes.
And because it is possible to cut the risk to zero, the temptation is to cancel the concert, even though by any measure the risk seems lower than walking past a fibro house.
@mskeggs: As a kid, we used to chuck broken fibro sheets into bonfires. They make a wonderfully loud bang as they explode from the heat stresses.
Why do you want to remove it?
If it’s bonded asbestos (fibro) then unless you go drilling, grinding or breaking it, it’s safe.
Even then if you are very careful, keep it wet or use shaving cream… slow drilling / manual tools are low risk for little stuff like mounting TVs, pictures etc
"If a home was built before 1990, it can contain asbestos both inside and outside. In fact, asbestos is still found in 1 in 3 Australian homes"
Asbestos safety - Residential Disclosure
From what I have read it could be everywhere in houses made before '87. There is some material that suggests the government allowed builders to use stock they had into the 90s before the complete ban in 2003.
This site has the 60 most common products used with asbestos.. although some sites suggest there is over 3000 products once you start including glues and such
https://asbestosawareness.com.au/asbestos-products-database/
If its in good condition and you arent planning on removing it, itll be fine. Its not dangerous unless you drill, cut or break it.
You dont need to remove asbestos just because its there, only if it needs removing for other reasons.
No doubt the building inspection a, if its got asbestos and b, a rough idea on costs. .
Do you need to remove it?
No. But just a bit cautious over it. We probably would extend at some stage.
Extending a home is an expensive endeavor - asbestos removal for the relevant area will be only a small part of the overall cost. And if you're not removing it then it's kind of a non-issue. Just be aware if you're doing anything that involves drilling/cutting into your walls that you should take a few extra small precautions.
My grandfather worked for James Hardie in rydlmere he dies last year aged 93 never had any issues asbestos related
Glad to hear he was a lucky one.
working for a company that used asbestos is not itself a danger.
Danger is when one was exposed to abestos fibers, (so like cutting boards and stuff etc).
So some who's just selling like sealed dry walls (with asbestos in it has not much risk vs someone who is on site cutting that dry wall to fit in construction site.
I would leave it. If you have it removed, there is probably more chance of disturbing it and spreading it around. While it’s being ripped out, the fibres are going to go everywhere - into the house as dust, into the garden etc. better to leave it where it is unless you’re renovating.
I think there is truth in this, but also once it is done, it is finished, with no chance for future exposure because somebody carelessly drills a hole or something.
Removing sheet asbestos can be done with virtually no dust (probably the biggest risk is if you disturb the dust inside the wall from past drill holes). I'm not sure if the removers routinely vacuum the area after, but I would certainly like them to do so to capture that sort of stray exposure.
As a Canberran (a city which had Mr Fluffy blowing loose insulation into the roof) it's not uncommon to see and entire house wrapped in scaff and plastic while they remove this crap. So yeah, the pros do a very good job.
Saw that when we visited Canberra. Very scary stuff.
Could be unpopular opinion but I don't see the huge deal with Asbestos for the average homeowner.
How often are you punching holes in the walls or cutting holes in walls? Hardly ever if never, then you'll hardly every or every have to worry about it.
Even if you drill a hole, it's no big deal. drill the hole. wipe area down with damp cloths and discard. If you do it every day then not so good, but for one off, it's no concern.
The biggest issue with Asbestos is the bathroom walls and renovation. You can DIY removal or get a pro in to remove the Asbestos sheeting and replace with cement sheet.
I totally agree with you - most people want to remove it because "it's bad" when it's the very act of removing it that makes it bad. Leave it alone and bonded - it's fine.
Glad to see I'm not the only one with some common sense.
Asbestos itself is a good product as a building material. Just like engineered stone, it's not the product that is dangerous, it's during the manufacturing/cutting that is dangerous to workers.
That is great until you have to remove it to build something else. Then you are likely to get broken bits and you have to dispose of it. Add in the fact it is, singularly, unattractive. I think alternatives to Asbestos are better.
@try2bhelpful: I have no doubt today that alternatives to Asbestos are better.
But having Asbestos in your house shouldn't be a deal breaker. If you're going to renovate, Asbestos is going to be a small % of your renovation costs.
Asbestos is unattractive as it's alternative- fibre cement, hence, why we paint it or tile over it.
@JimB: Hmmm, maybe but the stuff could be deteriorating and crumbling around you. Me, I would prefer to not have to deal with it. It is like the flammable cladding. Just rip it out and then it isn’t my issue
@try2bhelpful: No, if you don’t disturb it, there is no risk.
If there was a risk of it deteriorating, then the Government would legislate to remove it like Mr Fluffy insulation
@JimB: I think they are a different level. Me, I'd much rather never have to deal with the issue. One less thing to worry about if I'm going to renovate.
@try2bhelpful: So you want to remove a servicable wall cladding and then replace it with new only to remove and dispose the new cladding when you renovate?
If you're planning on renovating, leave it in place until the reno or you're just throwing money away.
agree and wondering if OP wants to be talked out of buying. The cost is so small in the scheme of it all.
Mate,
1) There are services online where you can remove a piece of suspect material and have it professionally tested. Everyone will tell you "you can tell by the way…" but no one will touch it unless you have professional testing.
2) If the build date is >1986, you should be good. If it's <1986, you may still be okay.
3) Usually they used that stuff when it was likely to get wet - laundry, toilet, eaves.
Not sure why you would want to remove it, and I've no idea of the cost - but do you really think there's value in buying a place and having to do that to it?
@Ozbargainasaurus , I recently did renovation of my ancient house. It was originally 110 sqm floor area with 3m high walls. Asbestos removal alone for external walls was $17,500. My external wall area was roughly 170sqm. This data is from Nov-2023.
Depending on how old your house is, internal walls and ceilings could have asbestos too that that could be very expensive. I had to spend another 35k to remove and plaster all internal walls and ceilings. In my case internal asbestos was covered with a layer of plywood and then gyprock on top. So we could not figure out until we started renovation.
Best option is to go for knockdown and rebuild if the house you are looking for is >50 year old.
From when I did mine(2022), we were told whatever is touching the asbestos has to be removed as well.
I had around 350m2 removed, but we were also F'd around big time and had company come back 4 times to fix their F up as well. Cost around $15k-20K as we also did testing 3 times after each time the company left.
I wish we never removed anything but at same time glad we did since there is so much new wall/roofing.
It doesn't cost that much in the scheme of buying a house.
Loads of businesses do this quickly and professionally (ok fine I'm not sure they always dump the material professionally…).
If the real question is whether you want to live in a house that had asbestos.. I've had no problem with it in the past and would again.
That's up to you not ozb.
As said a number of times in this post. It's not just the removal, its the replacement too. Easy enough to calculate how much is to be removed with a floor plan and known ceiling hgt. If you're sort of handy, you could carefully do it yourself, mask up, wet it down, remove it, store and wrap in the correct plastic 200um+ (I recall). Once you've removed it all, call an asbestos removal firm to pick it up. If you've got time, get it lab tested 1st to confirm. Definitely factor the overall cost into the purchase cost. Good Luck.
Are you removing it because you're renovating or removing it because you think its unsafe to live in a house with it?
My house is full of asbestos and I have absolutely zero issues, its only problematic when you start breaking it and the fibres become airborne. But a painted asbestos wall just sitting there won't cause you any harm.
supersabroso on 23/03/2024 - 23:01 Comment score below threshold.