Is it a poor decision to buy a house near tear-down age? (for sale, value)

[Southern_Transplant]

I am looking for a home in a very popular area in Northern Virginia--Mclean. I am curious which is the wiser financial decision: a home that is 25-30 years old but on a .5 acre lot OR a newer home (<10 years) on a .25 acre or smaller lot in a slightly less marketable area of Mclean. I assume that the older houses will be torn down in the next 10-15 years. I don't know what that means for us if we are the owners. Do we profit because the location will be extremely marketable or do we make a tiny profit because the value of the house declined due to age and the value is the land but a developer will offer much less than he/she stands to make?

Any thoughts? What determines when a subdivision reaches the tear-down stage?

[surfingatwork]

Why would the house need to be torn down? It's only 30 years old. Gosh my house is 60 years old. It's got great bones and personally I think it's built better than some of these new homes that are going up all over the place.

To answer your question I would purchase the older home in the more desirable area with more land.

[WendyK]

You would only need to tear down a house if it's structurally unsafe to live in. I have seen plenty of homes that are 80+ years old and they're in fine shape! Look at some of the places in New England that have been around for hundreds of years.
Around here, I say that a house from the '70's is considered "newer" when it's in a neighborhood of turn-of-the-century homes!!

[gardener34]

Depends on the area, but around here, ANY house is prime for a teardown no matter the age if the neighborhood is not. People around here were paying $900K for a teardown house that was already a 3000SF home that was only 20 years old... in order to build a 6000SF home in it's place.

Can't answer OPs question though since I am not in that locale. The question is VERY local specific in regards to the teardown phenomenon.

[RoaminRed]

Gotta echo previous sentiments here...why the heck would it be a tear-down? My house is 101 this year and I'm in the midst of a massive renovation. No way is it anywhere near being a tear-down yet, and it's not even an expensive house. It's going to outlast me.

[virgo]

Hi! I live in Reston, VA, and drive through Vienna, VA, every week.

Just to clarify, are you talking about "tear down" as in what is happening a lot in Vienna, VA? Houses that are like 1200 sq. feet, ranches, built in the 60s (or around that time), but they cost close to one million dollars if not more (I haven't priced a McLean or Vienna house in eons) because of their close-in location to major office complexes and the almighty Washington, DC (being silly)? Many of the for sale signs that I see advertise land for sale even though there is a full standing house on the property. Are you referring to a similar situation in McLean?

If you explain a little more about the neighborhoods, it might help folks as they think through their suggestions. Trying to help.

[lchoro]

The real question that the original poster seems to be hinting at is ... should he buy the .5 acre house in the hope that it'll appreciate as a potential tear-down target as opposed to buying one that's already been redone and fully reflected in the asking price?

If you drive through the Yorktown HS neighborhood on the border of McLean and N Arlington, you'll find a lot of tear-downs on lots no bigger than .2-.25 acres. They dwarf the neighbors in both height and price (>1 million as opposed to the prevailing price of 550-700K). Because they tend to be squeezed into lots that are too small, they tend to look like townhouses.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Southern_Transplant

I am looking for a home in a very popular area in Northern Virginia--Mclean. I am curious which is the wiser financial decision: a home that is 25-30 years old but on a .5 acre lot OR a newer home (<10 years) on a .25 acre or smaller lot in a slightly less marketable area of Mclean. I assume that the older houses will be torn down in the next 10-15 years. I don't know what that means for us if we are the owners. Do we profit because the location will be extremely marketable or do we make a tiny profit because the value of the house declined due to age and the value is the land but a developer will offer much less than he/she stands to make?

Any thoughts? What determines when a subdivision reaches the tear-down stage?

25-30 years is no where close to tear down. A lot of regions homes are still standing thats over 100 years old.

Its better to find the house with the layout, and in your price range that suits your needs. Comparing the two examples you gave is like comparing apples and oranges, especially since we dont know where you reside.

[Southern_Transplant]

Thank you for your comments thus far. Clearly, I need to provide more information. My question is specific to McLean, VA. For those out of the area, it's close to DC and is very desirable for its easy/short commute to DC and excellent schools. One of the subdivisions I am considering is comprised of 300+ homes built in the 1970s and early 1980s and are on .5 acre lots. The other type of home I am looking at is generally a home built in the late 1990s or later and is in an area with a mixture of older (1950s and 1960s) homes. The second type of home generally has a lot size of .25 acres and replaced an older home that was torn down because a developer saw a profitable opportunity. I don't think structural soundness plays into the decision much at all.

Virgo describes the situation very well. One difference is that the tear-down homes tend to be larger (2500 sq feet or larger) and with outdated interiors.

I posted the question because we plan to stay in the house for the next 20+ years, until retirement. I'm concerned that the house may decline in value despite location because many of the homes in the subdivision with .5 acre lots do NOT been updated kitchen, baths etc which is not typical for McLean as far as I know. If so, I may be subject to whatever a developer would pay. If that's the case, then I thought I would be better off to buy a much newer home.

[jfre81]

Why must we insist on tearing down anything built before 1980?

Is it the influence of the builders who are cutting corners throwing up the fifth-rate crap they do nowadays?