173 ESSEX STREET MAP Nn 1 nT No PHOTO PROPERTY RECORD -CITY OF SALEM (WARD &PRECINCT) CARD NO. MEMORANDA
4i—aglI't ,
q I2 ;/'19yFai
RECORD OF OWNERSHIP DATE BOOK PAGE
d Qcv i etAI
035 0617 0173 ESSEX ST NUMBER
LALLY THOMAS J 6hly 1 Te~1a..f f— 1`l73 "-1�
Qt0-0-5 wzs Ply ih; 550/r,> - Ncc1s
30 ARTHUP AVE a-H9 ' ;w,nc1� iN /993 -
MARBLEHEAD MA 01945 7-3- �e v •o gi1�c2 '}1\ev, .
AC• 6013 ih,/€s d IS,0 �, b: toitv, dowM
S.F. VALUE 11200 zh s LLd i,,,as �e;nl
BLDG 16200 tvit rmviC N mot.
'/ VERIFI`CATION OF INSPECTION
C CO0E 3)-7 kg 8-3 ( ) -a `f 1
ASSESSMENT RECORD I
1975 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
APPEAL DATA
DWELLING
GARAGEAppeal
Granted
A ppea l
Denied
SWIM POOL Value Land
APARTMENTS
Change Building
CONDO
COMM OR IND
TOTAL VALUE BUILDINGS
TOTAL VALUE LAND
TOTAL VALUE LAND &BUILDINGS
I Size Area Class Age Remod. Cond. Repl. Value Dep. Phys. Value Dep. Sound Value
CONSTRUCTION Phys. v Func.
11 14 15 18 19 22 23 25 26 29 30 31 32 37 38 39 40 45 46 47 48 53
PHOTOGRAPH
PERMIT COMP. DATE Total
LAND VALUE COMPUTATIONS
Square Unit Unit Square Ft. Correr Infl Total Depr.% Value
3 Footage 6 7 10 11 Price 14 15 % 17 18 Price 23 24 25 26 32 33 34 35 41
RENTAL EXPENSE ITEMS Q PROPERTY INFORMATION
VACANCY , LAND COST
HEATING BLDG.COST - -
WATER SALE PRICE '
ELECTRICITY GROSS ANNUAL INCOME .
JANITOR LESS EXPENSES _ _ —
MANAGEMENT NET INCOME
LAND @ %= 42-52 LAND RECORD Total Value Land
BLDG. @ %= Sewer A No Street E High I
Water B Dirt Street F Low j Total Value Buildings
Gas C Paved G Level K
TOTAL FLAT EXPENSES TOTAL Elec. D No Sidewalk H Total Value Land and Buildings
4
I � � BUILDING RECORD WHIPPLE,MAGANE AND DARCY CONTROL No.
MEASURED BY F-�L3JDATE LISTED BY I? I GATE '
SEMI MOD KIT 75 80
MOD BATH �. f 1�, _, BLOCK LOT
7.-
EXEMPT BLOCK LO'T1 /7 CLASS SEMI MOD BATH „_ / ,SD COMPUTATIONS
1 U I I I ' :+� ' I GI !I 21 (C I J •/Ys'I iyyI TSTORE FRONT Fil/ 4.4,•7T' �.C�
6 7 11 12 16 17 20 FIRE PROOF CONST NO. AREA UNIT TOTAL
SERIAL NUMBER I DATE BUILT SHEET OF MILL CONST ��� `$ar /3/ ITEM OTY COST
I I I I I I I I I I l / J REINF CONC BEAMS&COLS ',4.-46# /•?SJ15
21 26 27 32 34 STEEL FRAME / _II y �) 1�47 a .y4.✓ /2 S'
EXTERIOR WALL VARIATIONS STEEL BEAMS&COLS _ (� j�0 ` _�
1� . /y.v
DESIGN STEEL TRUSSES `�/ 1
1. Common Brick V/F 5. Face Brick V/M STEEL OR BAR JOIST Gt �/J ++
RANCH 2. Face Brick V/F 6. Cut Stone V/M TIMBER BEAMS&COLS 1• S�a
k ADDITIONS OR DEDUCTIONS
SPLIT LEVEL or BY LEVEL 3. Cut Stone V/F 7. Perna Stone WOOD TRUSSES .'A �.�"5 3 l
COLONIAL 4. Common Brick V/M SPRINKLER SYS fV/
CAPE COD PASS ELEV
TYPE STORIES LINEAL FEET FREIGHT ELEV CIL 1e� 0.4sfCONDOCONVENTI NAL 35 u �/
O 35 36 37 38 40
MODERN FLOORS -5 ol0.. (1 :;;;: �t �, od 7� {,
I\
FINISHED ATTIC OR SECOND FLOOR �r
RAISED RANCH B 1 2 3 VVV or.
Cement ° /��jM 1
Wooer
SINGLE FAMILY t r 1L'�/'
FAM. FLAT Fin.Area 43 I I I 146 HardwoodPin - `, ,�� f
FAM. DUPLEX Fin.Attic% (A) V
47 I50 Single FI.
FAM. CONY. Unfinished%Story% 51 I I I 153 Asph.Tile .
COMM. zi
APARTMENTS DORMERS Wood Joist
TOTAL No.of Fam. (50) NUMBER I SIRE ' NUMBER SIZE Reinf.Conc.
INDUSTRIAL W II
FOUNDATION 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
CONCRETE BASEMENT AREA
CEMENT BLOCK Rec.Room%I • I ILI I loll I I SALE 27$ I I I I I I I I33 OVERALL DIMENSIONS BASEMENT
BRICK 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 DATE 36 I I I 139 STORIES (WIDTH' LENGTH AREA FULL-%
STONE No Concrete Floor 0 69 13 • ,-21I I I I I I I I I I I 1 • I I
CAP IMPROV $I I I I I I I I59 40 41' 42 4344 45 46 49 50 52 TOTAL
ROOFING Dry Wall 0 2 Plaster ❑ I ■ I W L_LJ I I I I I 1 • I I FACTOROTCONVERSION / S�
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 14
ASPHALT,ASBESTOS Air Cond. 0 4 Percent
I • I I 1 DATE 62I I I I 165 REPLACEMENT _
WOOD SHINGLES 5 6 7 I • I L J W I I I I I 1 U VALUE 2.3,} it DO
BATH ROOMS 27 28 I29 30 31 32 33 36 37 39
SLATE FIXTURES NO. FLOOR WAINS BOTH I • I L_iJ �J I I I I I 1 • I I PHYSICAL DEP. 70
TAR &GRAVEL zU U 1 2 3 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 52 VALUE l'0V.J Q
i
COMPOSITION 8 9 (10) PATIOS FUNCTIt—NAL OR
BUILT WIDTH IN PORCH Type Width Length Area , ECON,OBS. /S
0
SHED DORMER LF U U 1 2 3 TYPE STORIES LENGTH AREA i
PICTURE DORMER LF 11 12 (13) E O G (53) W W I I I I I 13 COEMRPORT 2 3 4 ENT
� �I I I I
7 8 1 9 I /r� ��
EXTERIOR WALL TYPE U U 1 2 3 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 2 I
A. FRAME WITH WOOD, 14 15 (16) U W I
ASBESTOS,STUCCO, r FIREPLACES WIDTH LENGTH AREA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SUMMARY OF APPRAISED VALUE
ALUM,SIDING (19) I 1 ON 1 U 2ON 1 U BUILT IN GARAGE I I I I I I I I I I BAY WINDOWS NO.I I I STORIES L1_1 PRINCIPAL BLDG.
18 19 20 21 22 24 25-26 27-28—
B. CONCRETE BLOCK BSMT (No.of Cars) 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 0 25 PORCHES MISCELLANEOUS ADDS OR DEDUCTS APPRAISAL $ //5P.�OU
ON TILE-STUCCO ON HEATING 26 ROOMS B 1 2 3 TYPE STORIES WIDTH LENGTH AREA CODE DOLLAR AMOUNT OTHER PRINCIPAL
BLOCK OR TILE (19) F. E O G (33) I—I I I I I L_LJ I I I I 43 I I I 145 46 I I I I I49 BLDGS.APPRAISAL $
0 0 NONE Living ACCESSORY BLDGS.
C. BRICK OR STONE34 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 APPRAISAL $
1 OFORCEDHOTAIR Dining E 0 G (50) I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 601 1 I 162 631 I I I 166
VENEER (19) 2 ❑STEAM 1 PIPE Bed 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 TOTAL BLDG. t ,`p0
SD.SOLID BRICK OR (19) 3 OFLOOR OR WALL Kitchen E 0 G (2) I_I I I-I i III ( I I I 12I I I 114 15I I I I I18 APPRAISAL $ f�s Ls
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 TOTAL LAND
Rec. Rm. Finish
4 ❑CeilingRadiantElec. ATTACHED GARAGE Physical Depr. 191 I 120 APPRAISAL �-
OTHER- Apts. Width Over $ a/
5 ❑Baseboard Electric 23 I I 124 251 I 126 271 I I 129 U30 Economic Obs. 211 I I22
Office TOTAL APPRAISED
5
6 ❑FloorRadiantElec. .
7 ❑Floor Radiant Hot Stores Other Accessory Bldgs 3 I__ __I I I I I 1 VALUE ",
Water / 7 1 �i7O
8 ❑Gravity-Pipeless 9 ❑ Steam 2 Pipe Total Land Value 42 I I I I I I I 148
'3 c-/2
• APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT
Address of Property 173 ESSEX STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• . Owner on January 1, 1974 THOMAS J. LALLY
• Year Land was Purchased 1973 Amount Paid $10 , 0 0 0
Year Land and Bldgs. Purchased 1973 Amount Paid .$6 0, 0 0 0
Approximate Age of House •
Original Cost, if Known
Approximate Age of Other Bldgs. 116 YEARS Original Cost, if Known
Give the approximate cost of any other improvements or alterations not included above:
Year Installed 1974 Cost $12, 0 0 0
Details of Improvements MADE BY ME CONSIST OF THE RENOVATION OF THE INTERIOR AT LALLY
• SHOE STORE AT 173 ESSEX STREET. ' •
Do the costs given above include the value of all labor and materials necessary to complete the construction? If not, please explain
YES.
Were the buildings constructed by a contractor or by the owner? DOES NOT APPLY.
The total Fire Insurance coverage on the buildings is S100, 000
•
Total rentals received per Month ..$.19.7 ......(n.e:k.._x:en.t)
'a ye present Mortgage on the property is $7 9 , 0 0 0
If you,were to sell the property at the present time, what would you expect the Sale Price to be? S 85 , 000 to S90 , 0.00
List any other factors that you wish to be considered. SEE SHEET ATTACHED HERETO.
Signed
Date ..
RECOM-
{NTV NO. MENDATIONS NC Cat REV INSP INS BY REV. ❑Y NC CM
ddd
I 1 �
FACTS WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN APPRAISING
REAL ESTATE AT 173 ESSEX STREET, SALEM,
THOMAS J. LALLY
The Salem Redevelopment Authority, a public body politic and corporate ,
"owns" the entire exterior of the building and as such "owner" has the
perpetual right:
1. To have access to the building whenever it considers access
necessary.
2 . To enforce against any owner of the basic building in any
court of competent jurisdiction, the obligation to maintain
and preserve the exterior structure, in whole or in part,
under the penalty in default thereof to have the Salem Redevelopment
Authority perform the work and charge him for it, said charge
to be a lien upon the property. Furthermore, the owner of the
building can make no structure change, alteration, addition or
improvement, except by written approval of the Salem Redevelopment
Authority, together with a possible hearing, upon notice.
3. To enforce restrictive convenants and agreements binding the
grantor, his agents, heirs, assigns and his successors in
title, which shall continue as a servitude running in land in
perpetuity.
4 . The brown stone facing of the facade was quarried and specially
carved in England and if replaceable, it is very expensive.
5. This appraisal is presumably being made as of 1973/1974 .
Irrespective of what it appears may be considered the actual
reproduction cost of this building, the business district of
the City of Salem at the present time constitutes a dismally
depressed area. A ride around the City in the vicinity of
•
Washington and Essex Streets discloses numerous store vacancies '
and business being conducted is at a very low volume. This is
one of the major features to be taken into consideration in
the appraisal of any building in the area.
6 . The present owner' s net income has diminished since moving
into this building. Furthermore, it is contended that the
volume of his business which does persist is almost entirely
due to the reputation and good will established by his family,
which has operated a shoe store under the name of Lally' s Shoe
Store for over fifty years in this very vicinity. His volume
is not due to the building itself.
7. The value of this building and of its location is indicated as
a business by the following facts: His store and the upper
floors of this building were for all intents and purposes
totally vacant prior to the purchase by Mr. Lally. Mr. Lally
did not buy this building because it was a good business
center, but because his former landlord tore down the building
where his store was formerly located.
8 . 173 Essex Street, Salem is connected by a fire wall to the
building which is owned by Bernard' s, Inc. It had been a
white elephant for Bernard' s, Inc. for many years. Of this
there is ample evidence.
9. The fact that the United States Government, acting through the
Salem Redevelopment Authority, was willing to compell the
acceptance of a "facade easement" constructed at government
expense, although interesting in its proximity to the Peabody
Museum, actually has detracted from the value of the building
- 2
119
as a business center for the reasons that:
a) The ownership of the facade easement ties down,
bothers and annoys the present owner and will
intimidate future prospective owners because of the
strong likelihood of restrictions , future liability
and financial entanglements.
b) Without this so-called historical embellishment, the
building would have been just as suitable and attractive
for business purposes.
c) The proximity of what appears to be the other half
of the subject building, with its ultra modern
facade, and lighting, entirely nullifies the "period
facade" which has been installed in subject building.
d) Bernard' s, Inc. had the same opportunity that Mr.
Lally has had to have the building "historically
facaded" during his ownership, but to escape this
entanglement, he was willing to sell to Mr. Lally.
e) Enforced maintenance is costly to the present owner
and will be considered a hazard by prospective
future owners.
- 3 -