My wife and I are currently having an argument about how to best deal with our in-ground pool from hell.
We’re looking to get out of our house in the next 1-4 years. One problem we’ll have to deal with before putting it on the market is a large (16 feet x 32 feet) in-ground pool in the backyard that we don’t use. It has been stagnating for the last 3 years. She wants to keep the pool around and simply clean it up at the last moment before selling because she thinks the pool is an asset and she “wouldn’t buy a house that had a pool removed.” Presumably because there would still be pipes in the ground and some concrete and supposedly it could turn into a sinkhole.
I want to simply pay someone to come out and tear out the entire thing. It would cost about $5,000 and probably cost us a bit less than what we’d have to pour into the pool to get it sparkling again. Plus, we get to use the backyard again, instead of having a man-made pond smack in the middle of it.
What say you, Dopers? Is a removed pool and big red flag for potential purchasers? Does it matter how much stuff is buried under the dirt?
Well, I might rather buy a house with the pool removed than no pool at all, simply because I wouldn’t want to pay extra for a pool that, like you, I won’t use.
I’ve never heard of a pool being removed. You just fill it in and landscape.
Properly landscaped, there is no reason to even mention there used to be a pool there. I don’t see any problem with this. Properly filled in, there is no danger of a sinkhole.
What is your target market? If a family with older children is going to be buying your house you should leave the pool in, as it will be a key selling point: it will allow them to vet the daughter’s boyfriends more easily.
If the pool is in relatively good shape, I would fix it up before the sale. It could net you more money in the long run. But if it costs more to fix it up than to remove it. I would remove it.
I would rather buy a house that had the pool removed than do all the work fixing it or removing it myself later.
The rule of thumb is that homes without pools are worth more than homes with pools. This does vary across the country and is not always true. It’s likely you would raise the value of your home more than $5,000 it would cost to remove the pool. The best thing to do it to ask a friendly real estate agent in your area for an opinion. Most would be happy to help as this gives them a connection for a sale down the road.
Also, getting a pool running which has been neglected for several years can easily cost $5,000 and may cost $20,000.
Finally, an unmaintained pool is a safety hazard. More than a few children each year drown in pools. I would fill in a pool I was not using. The cost and risk of leaving it are too great.
A house in my neighborhood used to have a pool. They had it removed and it has sold a couple of times since then, without a problem or incident. You can’t tell there was anything there. The OP doesn’t say where he lives, but in Ohio, I would prefer not to have the maintenance of a pool I could use maybe four months a year if I get lucky.
I would talk to a couple local real estate agents and see what they recommend. I really think it depends on your location and your neighborhood. If you are in an area where pools are valued, or if removing yours would make yours the only house in the neighborhood without one, I wouldn’t rip it out, I’d fix it up. OTOH, if you live some place where pools are not valued, it probably would be easier to get rid of it.
As a gross over-generalization, I think many people used to see a pool as some very fancy accessory that meant you were cosmopolitan and wealthy. Today, I think people are much more aware of the down-sides to pools these days, in terms of danger-to-kids issues and in terms of cost of maintenance.
I’d see what the word on the street is in your location before I made any decisions.
A pool is one of those things that really depends on the buyer. Folks who want a pool will pay extra for it so they don’t have to go about doing it themselves, folks who don’t will see it as an added expense. If there aren’t a lot of houses with pools in your neighborhood it might be something that distinguishes the house and will draw the particular few.
My mother just filled in her pool about 2 weeks ago. This is the house where I grew up, so I have fond memories of the pool, but she had been complaining for years that, even though she is not filling the pool every summer (not worth it with no one to swim in it), she still had to clean the cover every year, remove leaves and other debris, etc. She is extremely relieved to be rid of it. It was built in 1969 or 1970, so it had seen better days. There was a concrete deck and chain link fencing, and a pump house that had to be removed as well, so I think it cost her about $8 grand. In the shape that it had been in, I doubt if it would have added any value to the house. If fact it probably would have diminished it.
Some friends of ours here in the Bay Area just bought a house last year with a filled-in pool in the backyard. And it is, literally, a filled-in pool – just imagine grass where the water was, with the concrete deck surrounding it, and bolt holes where the ladder and diving board used to be. It obviously did not dissuade them from the otherwise very nice house, although it does look a bit weird.
This is a good point that I hadn’t thought of. We have an inexpensive four bedroom house, so our target buyers are definitely families, possibly ones that need some free entertainment. So the pool could be a plus for them.
New England. Pool season is pretty much June/July/August. Plus, a million leaves get in the damn thing. It’s aggravating.
Per Google Maps, there are a few pools in the neighborhood, but most houses don’t have one. Above-ground pools seem more popular (God, I wish we had that instead.)
araminty, I’d love to see a pool filled in like that. I hope they punched some drainage holes in the bottom, or I could see it becoming a bit swampy.
As per the suggestions of several of you, I think I will contact a local realtor and see what they say. Thank you!
I hate to be cynical, but I think cleaning the pool and leaving it empty would be an asset.
Let the market decide if it’s worth fixing or worth removing.
I’m not sure why that would make you cynical, just cautious.
But anyway, I don’t believe emptying the pool is an option, unfortunately. I’ve been told that since it’s not a concrete pool (it’s vinyl pool liner with some concrete footings underneath) that the sides will eventually cave in without the pressure of the water pushing out. Plus, we get a couple of feet of rainwater each year which I’d have to pump out constantly. Maybe I can start a small alligator farm and charge admission…
I had a similar dilemma with a 30 year old pool, a bad filter system, and lots of big trees which resulted a black swamp. Surprisingly I shopped around and had a service completely drain it, remove a ton of debris, acid wash the plaster, refill and load the pool with chemicals for $800. I then bit the bullet for service twice a month, but I don’t cry when I look outside now.
Also there will be some sucker like me who thinks a pool adds value to the house and is darned neat. HA!
Have you included in the tearing our cost the top soil to refill it?
Can you tear out the vinyl and stuff yourself cheaper - then colllect debris from a building side to fill most of the hole in and just get topsoil for the last 2 feet or so to reduce the cost?
If you don’t like it pull it out given that you have an indefinite time frame for staying in the house
I’d leave it and mention in the listing a ‘$5000 credit’ for the buyer to do with as they please. Our Real Estate Agent had a great rationale for this:
The person can ‘take the money’ and do nothing
The person can ensure which ever direction is done to their specifications. If the person fixing the problem is the Seller, there’s a chance of them doing it the cheapest, poorest, way. This way the onus is on the buyer to decide.