Your links don't work, which is often the case these days with real estate sites. I don't know why, but unless you are working your way through their system, it doesn't work.

These might work:
http://www.pittsburghmoves.com/property/PropertyResults.aspx?SearchID=16972855

http://www.pittsburghmoves.com/property/PropertyResults.aspx?SearchID=16972867

http://www.pittsburghmoves.com/property/PropertyResults.aspx?SearchID=16972934

No guarantees, though!

Edited to add: The second link wasn't working. I edited it; let's hope it does now.

This post was edited by vjrnts on Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 14:16

OK, now, down to the houses.

The first one creeps me out, I don't know why. I would probably feel different in person. It looks like there is a LOT of work to be done on it, though. A lot.

I like the second one a lot. You're right, it's overstuffed (although it fits the Victorian aesthetic), but it has warmth and charm. As much as the first one was creepy, this one is inviting and open. Think twice about the wallpaper; some of that looks like William Morris-style designs to my eye, and those are very period-appropriate. Perhaps with less bric-a-brac you'll like the wallpaper better.

The third looks, to me, as though someone tried to kind of suburbify the inside. It's a very nice house, but it's kind of bland, in that I don't see a whole lot of the old-house charm. However, it IS a nice house.

What do you want in a house? These are three totally different beasts. The first is a 1890 Victorian with 7 bed and 4 baths. It's currently a duplex and is 2800 sq Ft for 135K ($48/sqft). The second is an 1900 single family Victorian, 4 bed/2.5ba, 2500sqft for $149K ($60sq/ft). The third is an 1937 Tudor 3 bed/1.5ba, 2000 sqft ($90/sqft).

I think the first would be a neat project, but we would probably pass on it b/c of the limited upside potential means little hope of getting your money back out. I would have liked the third before they took down the wallpaper and negotiated a lower price.

For what it's worth, the price per sqft differential between the Victorians and the Tudor are about the same here in WNY.

What is important is this:

Are they structurally sound?
Do they have "good bones" ... a floor plan and traffic flow that is usavble wiuthout major remodelling?

Ugly can be fixed.

The decor on house #2 is very restrained for Victorian as witness this re-creation. (Give me my dark glasses please.)

I would say that IF house #1 is structurally in good shape, it has the most potential in making it your own. If you are concerned about resale...don't get this one as you will NOT recoup your costs.

House #2 is nice, and period appropriate or not, I agree that the wall paper is hideous (why I don't like Victorian style) and the countertop is atrocious. If you don't plan on staying long, this looks like some cosmetic changes and your in business.

House #3...is a fairly nice updated old house with 0 charm. Basically you are left with nothing but an Old house.

If there were no basic structural calamities waiting to happen, and all were in safe or upwardly transitioning areas, I don't think I'd be afraid to tear into any of them. I love them each for their own attributes. I do think that some of the points other respondents made were worth considering. Yes, #1 appears to need the most work, and therefore the largest outlay, but the caveat to that, is we haven't been in/inspected any of them and one huge but necessary repair on ANY house can be as large a drain on the purse as a bunch of smaller renovations. You know in your heart how much work you are willing to put into each of them, what your budget is. The whole thing in a nutshell is to be realistic and prepared. You sound like you are not a stranger to the work and have more than a clue. They're all special in their own right.

Interesting thread. I think our answers are going to depend to some extent on what our particular markets are in our neck of the woods. For me #1 is typical of the housing around here that's been turned into rental housing and exploited and neglected for the last 50-60 years - either it looks kind of like that (if you're lucky) OR.... exploited and neglected, AND!!! its been horribly, hopelessly remuddled with everything remotely valuable or architecturally interesting removed and walls, floors, entire floor plans so cut up and remuddled in such a hideously cheap, cheesy, amateur way that there is literally NOTHING LEFT worth saving.

So, I actually LIKE #1 just because there's enough of the original left to imagine what it might be like with it simply cleaned and lovingly repaired and restored - the angles in the upper rooms, trim, wood floors, etc. are all intact and pretty much how it was built, except just sadly abused and neglected , and I'm always a sucker for a brick house with its solid feel. What I'd be afraid of is a lot of WOOD ROT (common with neglected houses) and paying too much for it so that you can't realistically get done what you need to get done. Around here (and I think typically in most places) rental real estate estate is partly valued on what rents have been received so the cost is often ridiculously inflated over what you would expect for the condition.

I think I would need more info about it - are the windows repairable, all the mechanicals functional, electrical etc.? If its just the obvious cosmetic and the kitch/bath ....hmmm.... I might be interested! Especially if LOCATION was desireable, view, pleasant neighborhood? If it was a house I really seriously liked and condition was the only hestitation - I could see hiring an old house specialist for an hour to go through the house (prior to making an offer) and come up with a realistic budget - should be able to present you with a range of options ranging from DIY to hiring a craftsperson. And then make an offer based on that and without worrying if they're going to be offended by it being a low number. (My first fixer upper I overpaid - not doing that again!)

Re #2 - I dunno, imagining it empty of all the furnishings - is the condition really much better than #1? Sure it's painted and looks on the surface more cared for, but is the paint hiding wood rot, is condition of roof, heating, electrical, plumbing etc. good?

#3 - not bad for what it is - I like the black and white and cream bathroom. Could move in without having to worry about doing much to the house. Maybe it boils down to how do you want to spend your time!

Other posters are giving you good practical questions to consider, so I'll just give you my opinon, lol! I like #1 and #3. The first has so much woodwork and character, if you know what you're doing and have the funds to accomplish it, you'd end with a gorgeous place. But I like #3 best; the pointy roof thing appeals to me and I like the interior proportions. Outside grounds look in good shape also.

I envy you your choices! good luck!