Making cedar shakes mandatory is bad idea

E-mail this article Print this article

Q: I am on the architectural committee of our homeowners association. Our neighborhood of 100 homes is approximately 13 years old, and we are considering what roofing materials should be allowed when the homes need to be reroofed. Currently we all have cedar shakes. What materials would reduce the overall resale value of our homes and which roofing materials would maintain that value? The main concern is what would happen to the overall neighborhood home values if we started to allow roofing materials other than cedar shakes.

A: The ultimate judge of value is what people desire when shopping for houses. All factors being equal, I would go out of my way to choose anything but cedar. This is true across the board in all price ranges.

Knowledgeable homebuyers think likewise. It's gotten to the point that a shake roof is more of a liability than an asset.

Strong words yes, but give the cedar producers credit for trying to repair their tattered image. Within the past few years, they have trotted out limited amounts of higher-quality products, and are now producing fire and rot-treated shakes. Of course these new products come at premium prices and do not in any way make up for the past 15 years of, um, well, garbage that's been produced.

In its favor, cedar is the only roof material that is completely natural, and so easily decomposable. While it may be convenient to bash cedar from an environmental standpoint, eventually it will grow back. Oil, ore and cement do not. And very few energy resources are necessary producing cedar shakes.

You are faced with this conundrum in your association because your roofs are undoubtedly getting ratty at 13 years, full of "ski jumps," ridge caps falling off, shakes splitting, pieces missing — many won't make it another five years. These roofs, if at all typical, are looking this way after maybe two cleanings, a treating and some limited repair — at a cost of several hundred dollars each.

Had your homes been equipped with any other pitched-roof material short of tarpaper, you would not be facing this issue. When these houses sell, almost without exception, there will be thousands of dollars in concessions to the buyer to replace or repair a deteriorated shake roof. Rhetorically, I ask you, what kind of value is your shake roof now holding?

"These are not your father's cedar shakes," says Jim Stacey, real-estate consultant and author of "Seattle Homes: Real Estate Around the Sound." Stacey goes on to conclude that decades ago, higher-quality wood and different methods of application meant cedar shakes lasted 30 years or more. "Now," says Stacey, "we sometimes see them fail in less than 10 years, meaning you put on a more expensive roof more often."

Innumerable homeowner associations to this day enforce covenants prohibiting anything other than a cedar roof, going so far as to sue homeowners who dare put a less expensive, yet superior, roof on their home. The idea that a cedar-shake roof is better is just plain wrong. The idea that a composition roof hurts value is similarly wrong and outdated.

The perception of the high-end homebuyer is that cedar looks great, or that it has certain architectural qualities that cannot be duplicated. Further, some still believe an expensive home without a cedar roof is not built well.

But take a look at all the dimensional compositions on the market. They have great shadow lines, multitudes of colors and are very attractive. Twenty years ago, they weren't. Now go take a look at new homes over $600,000. Very few will have cedar roofs. You will see tile, steel and dimensional composition (25-year and up).

Look at the classic, very expensive homes in older parts of Seattle. More than half are capped with basic black three-tab composition. They seem to be holding their value just fine, thank you very much.

If I were on your architectural committee, I would present a referendum allowing differing types of roofing, with controls on color (if uniformity is desired).

Adding clauses spelling out a specific thickness of composition roofing would eliminate materials with lesser shadow lines, if desired by the committee.

Darrell Hay answers readers' questions. Call 206-464-8514 to record your question, or e-mail dhay@seattletimes.com. Sorry, no personal replies. More columns and a message board at www.seattletimes.com/columnists.