Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keep in mind that even in old houses there are variations on quality. Many older houses actually have Fir trim--less expensive, can be stained to look ok but certainly not as nice as oak or cherry. Also, it was supply and demand. Most of the woodwork in an older house isn't "custom", it was run of the mill back then. If you go into other houses in the same neighborhoods, they will have pretty much the same woodwork, nice, but the same and that was the least expensive material at the time. They didn't have the options for less expensive materials that we do today. Brick houses are a good example, go places in the south or even around Chicago and you see a LOT of brick houses. Brick was cheep in those areas 50-100 years ago so at that time, those were not considered "nice" houses, just your run of the mill house. In other parts of the country brick is really expensive so if you have an all brick house in MN that is 100 years old, that was a NICE house back then.
I had a friend that moved from the Seattle area to MN. She would NOT look at ANY house that did not have cedar shakes on the roof because out in that area, the "nice" houses had cedar shakes. Nice houses here do have them as well, but there are PLENTY of REALLY nice houses that do not because you don't NEED them here like you do out there.
The American Dream. The American Dream has become the American nightmare. Yes I witnessed a whole lot of corruption during that wonderful housing boom in the early 2000s. The Building Inspectors were so busy they could not possibly walk every new home. They did what we call drive by inspections. They would sit in their car in front of the house and write up a quick green sticker and run up to the door and stick it on there. Do you have any idea what poor workmanship is covered up by the drywall?
The Builders no longer put quality materials in the homes because the Home Buyers don't want it. The building industry has been flooded with cheap junk materials made in China in recent years. This adds greatly to the "junk" factor that the general public is getting a feel for. If a Builder put all quality materials into a home then that $200,000 home you just bought would cost $275,000. Which do you want? There is a goal to build, sell and buy at the lowest price.
There is good and bad with old and new homes. All outweigh eachother so I say there is no difference. It's just a matter of what you like. I been in brand new very very expensive homes where you can put a tennis ball on the floor and it won't stop rolling. I have been in very old homes that withstood time better then fine wine.
Also keep in mind when you feel like you are choosing your Builder, it makes no difference. They are all the same. They ALL use Joe Electrician, John Roofer, Mark Framers, Rob Plumbers. See where I'm going? All the tract Builders use the same large sub contracting companies. The main difference may be with the warranty and with that Pulte is number one. The Builders name that is on the company door DID NOT BUILD YOUR HOME. The sub contractors did. I don't believe in one Builder being better then another. The man or company who takes credit for building your home in reality never even left their desk and never been to your home.
Personally I don't have a preference for new or old. Location is more important. Just give me a lake front home and I'll be a happy camper forever more.
100% agreed.....that is why we do very little new construction water wells.
The home contractors also want a 10% cash pay back.
This can be avoided the hiring your own site improvement contractors.
A lot of people has talked about the beautiful wood trims from old houses. I've seen that in houses built in the 20's, but most houses built in the 50's have no wood trims/molding/etc. in the living space. The most ugly houses I've noticed are built in the 70s/80s/early 90's - everything about them is cheap looking.
So somewhere between the late 20's and early 50's, there's a shift from showing off craftsmanship to just build a box and sell it. Then it got worse and worse.
I own and maintain several 1922 Craftsman Homes in the Bay Area as well as more modern apartments...
The apartments from the 1960's are definitely very inexpensive construction...
The 90 year old homes continue to impress me with how well they were built...
Several have the original baths and kitchens... doubt any of today's bath hardware will last 90 years... even the ancient chrome is still in excellent shape.
One home was bought from the original owner... they had an album showing the construction and one picture shows a horse drawn wagon on the street!
She told me that was the "Junky Bill".... he would come a haul away discards...
The Builder had an excellent reputation and his designs have aged very well... same basic floor plan in one or two bedroom... the front varied by walk-up porch style, windows, bays... etc.
The timber is solid, the stucco is so tough a blow from a framing hammer will bounce off...
Even the original hi leg stove is fully functional and passed the utility inspection...
In many ways... things were built to last.
The original 30 amp electric service is still in tact without incident... on 20 amp outlet circuit and one 15 amp light circuit... which works well because gas is used for cooking, water and space heating and clothes dryer.
Brick houses are a good example, go places in the south or even around Chicago and you see a LOT of brick houses. Brick was cheep in those areas 50-100 years ago so at that time, those were not considered "nice" houses, just your run of the mill house. In other parts of the country brick is really expensive so if you have an all brick house in MN that is 100 years old, that was a NICE house back then.
I agree with most everything you've said, I just want to point out the real reason for many Chicago buildings in brick. After the Great Chicago fire, the codes were strengthened to only allow brick to be used, even in residential construction. Obviously that's since changed, but for many many years it was the law.
It raised costs at the time but I'll bet in the long term Chicago will benefit from homes less prone to decay/fire/poor upkeep. I've heard they also still run electrical in conduit for residential work, some call it a trades giveaway but if someone ever needs to rewire... they're in a much better spot.
I work in the trade.
May old homes are built with hardwood framing, if not hardwood at least old growth wood. Most new homes are built with hem-fir, a hemlock fir hybrid wood designed to grow fast. Him-fir rots quicker as well. Old homes had creosote treated plates, now days creosote is illegal so the plates are pressure treated. In recent years homes built with Chinese drywall that has been found to be dangerous and recalled.
Most new homes are better engineered. Shear walls have evolved into a expensive but superior product. In the past it was a diagonal 1 x 6 in the framing. In the 20th century it evolved into a sheet of plywood. Now in the 21th century it is a massive amount of steel in the concrete with truss hold downs in a 2 x 6 wall with plywood.
Windows of the past were single pane. Some were single hung some were double hung. I have repaired hundreds of old wood case windows that still have a lot of life left.
There are many great windows made today in wood, vinyl and metal clad. These new windows seem to hold up and are built to be repaired quickly.
You are on the West Coast. East of the Mississippi lumber is mostly Carolina pine (forced grown) which is even worse.
New homes are better engineered i some ways, worse in others. A lot of the engineering is cost engineering. IN the old days they did nto know exactly how strong something needed to be, so they just made it really really strong. Today they cut it close. Often too close. Much of the design of new houses is to allow them to be built by crews trained to do repetitive tasks. Many to most so called "carpenters" are now nothing more than nail gun operators. Fit is not so critical, just get it close and nail it up. Hurry hurry hurry. If you miscut there is not time to go back and re-cut, just make it fit.
People have been all over the quality of lumber, the same is true of many other products. Drywall that you can push your thumb through, cheap plumbing and electrical fixtures, cheap doors, switchplates, moldings, flooring . . . . Althoguh much of the technology is better now, the mid and low end stuff is really chintszy. The designers are trying to make a house that will last 30 years before it decays to the point of not being worth repair. Sometimes they miss.
So what is better with modern technology?
Drainage technology. Many olrder homes have no subdrain. This causes problems and usually needs to be installed at some point.
Concrete, We have far better material technology, except that most of the time they mess up and weakend concrete by trying to save money (too thin, no reinforcement of any kind, too much water added for pumping, too many additives to increase working time). Because materials were nto as good, they tended to do overkill, now materials are beter and the tend to do underkill. I do a lot of construciton defect litigation (more defense of contractors or subcontractors than hommeowner side, but I have been on both sides). Most cases involve concrete proboems or alleged concrete problems (many times the claims are pure BS).
Plumbing. PEX piping is wonderful and should be problem free for the life of the house, espeically if they do straight runs from each fixture to a manifold. Even copper plumbing (now outdated) is far better than Galvanized. Plastic sewer lines last better but they can be very noisey even if insulated. Custom homes often have plastic horozontal runs and cast iron vertical drops. It is the vertical drops where plastic has noice problems and horozontal runs where cast iron tends to rot out. Thus the combination is the best bet, but most new homes have all plastic.
Electrical. Wiring is improved as are outlets. However there is rarely a problem with old wiring unless it was done wrong. New wiring is frequently done wrong too. It is the terminations where some older homes have the biggest risks. Switches are not much different qualiity wise. Sometimes the older switches are more heavy duty and last longer. It is rare to have a problem with a switch unless you have a house from the 1970s. New switches are usually either defective when you buy them, or fine. THe exception is the electonrically controlled switches. Those tend ot burn out over time. Light fixtures have more safety features, but are poorly made and not very pretty in most cases.
Carpentry. Sadly, Carpentry has mostly gone downhill. Some of the reasons are due to inavailability of lumber (Balloon Framing for example), some due to lack of craftmanship and production line techniques. We ould go back to craftsmanship, but everyone would have to downsize to afford a house. Nowdays we go for big and cheap.
Walls. Drywall gets thinner and weaker every few years. I once watched a guy walk right throught he wall in a new house without slowing. (Try that with plaster). No contest here. Plaster is a superior product, just more expensive to install and repair. You need picture rail for pictures, but I do nto like poking my drywall full of holes to hang things either. I woudl want picture rail either way.
Floors. You cannot beat true hardwood. Some of the better engineered floors come close, but still not as good. Real wood does require more maintanance though. Stone and tile is not really much different. Poured floors, and epoxy terrazzo is only available as new. Vinyl is no where near as durable or hgh quality as Linoleum was. Asbestos was a great thing for floors. Too bad it killed the people who manufactured it. I will nto discuss carpeting. Carpeting is disgusting. I would not have it in my house.
Siding. Wood siding is great if you maintain it. If you do not take care of your house, you are better off with the new ugly aluminum or plastics. Succo is a horrible material. I woudl not want a stucco house. Brick is not changed much althoguh bricks are harder which allows harder mortar which means less re-pointing. Stone is not used much anymore. Just fake stone which looks fake and is not structural. Surprisingly concrete tilt up has never caught on for homes. I am not sure why. They can do really neat things with concrete tilt up now days.
Windows. Older windows are more work. With single pane glass, storm windows are a good idea. The new invisible storm windows are really neat. New windows have better technology but they are cheaply made and not repariable. Wooden windows are easy to rebuild or repair. Vinyl, you just replace them. New windows often look awful, especially on older homes. One of the biggest problems aesthetically is that windows are set flush to the wall of the house. There is nothing to break up the mass of a single plane. However some companies sitll make very nice new windows (some models from Marvin come to mind).
Design. This is where new houses really fall flat. Modern design is cheap and lacking in architectural effort. Design elements are just cut out of catalogues. Exteriors are often covered with cheap fake elements from multiple styles and periods. The elements serve no purpose, they are just thrown in to be "reminiscent" or "reprentative" of certina architectural styles from the past. There are of course exceptions, but the general rule is Kitsch. Then of couse there is the whole Open floor plan vs. individual rooms debate. There are two threads on this topic.
Details. Older homes win here. New homes are made ot be cheap to make and easy to clean. Flat surfaces and few details are the rule. WHen they do throw in somemoldings or paneled doors they are usually little chepao copies of real details. Often in expensive homes details are overdone, incorrectly mixed, and made of plastic and again not quality. The result is often kitschy looking rooms. I have seen several houses with picture rail that cannot hold a pound of wieght, chair rail that cracks if you lean a chair against it, tiny 1" or 3" crown or base molding. There are some high end plastics that are pretty decent, but most of it is lame, itf they even bother at all.
Earthquake technology. Much improved in modern homes. No more sliding off the foundation. Shear wall adds stability, but sometimes makes the walls too stiff. If the foundation connection does not fail, Balloon framing allows a house to flex with the movement. Thus, while modern houses are usually more earthquake resistant, that is not always the case. It depends on the nature and severity of the quake. However older houses seem to hold up better in hurricanes, tornadoes and high winds. (Except new homes with steel studs).
Fire resistance. New homes win here. Older homes need to be upgraded for fire resistance to keep fire frim travelling through walls with no firestop (usually by adding fire resistant insulation). However solid doors and plaster slow fire down better than most modern products. Older homes also usually have less toxic plastics to burn. Old or new, you chance of survival depends on getting out in the first few minutes. Smoke detectors are important (even though they do nto work at times).
AS a construction lawyer, you would be surprised at some of the things that I have seen. Yes, new homes really do sometimes just fall down. More often they develop expensive problems. Usually the problems are caused by corner cutting to save money, poor materials, or covering up mistakes. THere is a pronounced lack of craftmanship in newer homes. However people complain beacuse they get what they bought. They want to buy a Pinto, but expect a Cadillac. If you want a giant feature loaded home with 20' high windows in one room and all kinds of bling inside, but insist that it still be affordable to the average joe or jane, you have to comprimise somewhere. The compromise is in quality. They make up some of the compromise with technology, but not all of it. Most people will have problems with a new house. Usually within the first ten years. MAny of the probelms recurr after they are repaired. Old houses need repairs, but if you fix them right, you will not have recurring problems in your lifetime.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 02-03-2012 at 11:25 AM..
^^^
I think many west coast homes were also built differently than homes in other parts of the country as well. We had abundant old growth redwood that is stiff, strong and termites don't like it. There was the craftsman movement that thrived out here with many modest houses having all the style, detail and hardy construction of larger, more expensive houses. I'm under many old houses here as i assess potential renovations or additions that i design and generally the bones are very sturdy.
Also, the lack of insulation or double-paned windows really means nothing to me where I live. I shake my head at the thought of completely ruining my beautiful old house with original, perfectly functioning wood widows by replacing them with crap vinyl "efficient" ones. I would devalue my house by 100s of thousands of dollars if I did.
My perception (which may be wrong?) is that most older homes are quieter - - you can't hear what someone is doing in the next room as easily as you can in most newer homes. I'm not sure why this would be (if it is true), or why I have this perception, but there it is. Peace and quiet are extremely important to me.
I am living in a 1972 house and it seems very solid and sound for what it is. Too bad that huge bathrooms weren't quite yet in vogue when it was built. Also, it was built with aluminum wiring, but that does not worry me because it has mostly been replaced by now (and it has not caused a problem in the 40 years since my house was built). It has a lot of molding and architectural details which for me enrich the experience of living here.
I think one of the things glanced over, but mentioned is region. Not only region but the level of activity in the local building market during the time the house was built. The greater the activity, the faster they were throwing up houses, I would imagine the lower the quality whereas a house built during a slow period is more likely to be of higher quality, at least in terms of overall construction.
Of course, there is probably great variability even then as well, but it seems it would make sense to me. It seems everyone says some of the worst houses are the early-mid 2000's that were thrown up in the big boom years. They'll then also site the crappier post-WW2 housing boom construction as well.
Anything to this, or am I just making assumptions?
I've heard almost everyone says old houses were built better and new houses may look good but go downhill real quick.
Depends. If your taking about a new Tract development you get the cheapest labor and substandard building materials. The often the walls have no plywood, install insulation and put the siding right over it. Ever see one of those houses after a good wind storm, often some the siding gets dislodged, after all your lucky is 1 nail in 5 actually hits a stud and gets a good grip on the house frame. In a development they are in a rush to get the house built, so after pouring a foundation they build on it within weeks, typically it takes months for a new foundation to properly settle. This is why you often get settling cracks in the house after you movie in.
If your talking about a custom house, things are far different, usually the building it taking there time and building it right. They usually are far in superior to the tract developments in quality. Personally I rather take a custom house build properly that has cheap cabinets, linoleum floor and Formica counter tops than a tract house with there tile, granite counter tops and high end cabinets. Pretty as it is, the structure it’s built will be a lot harder (and more expensive) to fix in the future when problems develop than it will cost to update the custom houses features later.
While 1920’s houses are built solid, they often lack the design for modern features, such as duct work for central air conditioning. If I has a choice, I pick something from the 1960’s, house were still build pretty study then and are designed for more of the modern standards of today. At the very least they are easier to add later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
Even the cheapest major tract home builder is not so stupid as to use roofing that won't last. It is not worth the harm to their reputation to have places less than 20 years old with visible worn out roof.
Your assuming the builder is going to be in business in 20 years. Often developments are built by companies that form to build a development, like XYY homes. When the tract is completed. they disband the company and Form a new XYZ homes for the next development. This way they are protected from lawsuits for problems arising from houses build under XYY. As for roofing that will not last, a development called Tavistock in Tuckerton, NJ was building houses that used pressed wood for the roofs. If it got wet the roof collapsed under the weight of the shingles. The builder got sued and had to correct the problem. Don't underestimate building companies quest to cut corners to save a buck.
Last edited by TechGromit; 02-03-2012 at 12:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, it was built with aluminum wiring, but that does not worry me because it has mostly been replaced by now (and it has not caused a problem in the 40 years since my house was built). It has a lot of molding and architectural details which for me enrich the experience of living here.
