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.
Using the brady house as an example, the custom and higher end homes from the 1970's tend to be pretty nice. It was the mass produced tract homes that were of worse quality than what was built earlier.
On the other hand, homes built before 1970 are mostly at the end of their useful life if they weren't maintained and updated. Junk tends to get torn down, so the older you go back the less of the junk from that era remains. 70's junk is starting to reach the tear down point if it's in an area where infill development is happening. One of the late 70's neighborhoods out where I grew up has been significantly torn down and replaced at this point.
Plenty of homes from the 20's and 30's around here as there are post WWII the farther out you go.
My first home was a tract built in 1922 and every home is still there... not a single tear down for the entire tract... a few have added up and that is about it.
The home I grew up in was built in 1964. We moved into it in 1975, it was 1500 square feet for $33,000 which equates to $22 per square foot. At the height of the 2007 bubble it sold for $255,000, which equates to $170 per square foot. That's a pretty large increase in inflation. Currently the home is valued at $185K and on the rise again.
We have several areas here in Charleston that average over $500 per square foot. If folks are willing to pay that for a home, then who am I to tell them not to? Demand in this area way exceeds supply although it's leveling off a little with some new construction helping ease inventory issues. I used to laugh at $500 a sq foot, until I remembered that there's homes in Manhattan going for over 10K per square foot!
A lot of people are downsizing though, there is a lot of demand for smaller homes. Many want older styles, fifties and sixties or earlier bungalows. What's old is new...the materials of that era were superior. To each his own but laminate isn't a deal breaker like shoddy construction is. I bought an eighties house, and it had the cheapest of everything. I am updating with newer laminate or something like it, it is not the same at all as the eighties lam. I can afford granite, I just don't like it. So when something as normal as laminate, or smaller home are called out, and so many are interested in small homes and cheaper living right how, I don't know.
Maybe I don't understand what type of seventies home we are talking about. I think of the Brady house which is kind of cool. If the values on those smaller older properties are currently low, it seems like a bargain to get in now but I dont' see it so much.
The Frank Lloyd Wright inspired seventies houses in my area are $$$$$$$$$$, as is anything old in a decent location, but 50s - 70s houses in general are doing well whether they have been updated or not.
Well, I see your point but actually what I said was that if someone WANTS a small home with laminate counter tops and small closets and bathrooms, then they surely can get them - in our area for VERY reasonable prices and far below the average price per square foot. I even posted examples. It's not my intention to say those homes are not viable, perfectly fine choices for people - they're just not what I want, for my own reasons. Just as some people do not want what I am looking for in a home. I even went so far as to say it's not some sort of moral issue - just a matter of preference, so i really don't know what else I can say to avoid "calling someone out."
The sort of home I'm talking about, built in the 1970s, is the small ranch style homes that were about 1600 square feet. The Brady bunch didn't live in a house like that.
In our area the cool mid century homes move very quickly (think Brady Bunch, split level, upper middle class home of that era). Small, 1970s ranch style homes that have not been updated don't fare as well.
Here in San Francisco a 1930's or 40's home is more typical of a cottage and could set you back 700 to 800k or more.
On the way home from work I stopped in at an open house... 2 bedroom 1924 home of 1000 square feet and a one car garage on a small city lot near the freeway... $369k
Plenty of homes from the 20's and 30's around here as there are post WWII the farther out you go.
My first home was a tract built in 1922 and every home is still there... not a single tear down for the entire tract... a few have added up and that is about it.
The quality must be maintained. San Francisco that largely is done.
You can have the greatest quality house, but not maintained a hundred years later its garbage.
Mine was maintained, and I've put a lot of work in it. It could easily be around another 100 years. The shell will be two hundred years old, its the guts that are ever changing. Well... It's not even the shell, its the inbetween layer, the bones. The shell (siding) I'll probably replace in 5 years.
The quality must be maintained. San Francisco that largely is done.
You can have the greatest quality house, but not maintained a hundred years later its garbage.
Mine was maintained, and I've put a lot of work in it. It could easily be around another 100 years. The shell will be two hundred years old, its the guts that are ever changing. Well... It's not even the shell, its the inbetween layer, the bones. The shell (siding) I'll probably replace in 5 years.
What level of maintenance do you mean? If it is not water damaged or something major, you are talking about making some cosmetic changes, which is what people buying these old houses like to do themselves. I see historic homes with Home Depot updates and don't like it. The hardwood floor in my parents 100 yr home is incredible, not maintained but it has been under carpet for many years. Little things need to be replaced but it is pretty authentic to the time period, not a lot changed, and it isn't falling apart.
Aside from keeping the roof water tight... there is very little to degrade.
My 1922 Mediterranean Bungalow is stucco so no wood siding... the windows are original from 1922 and every time I did exterior paint, I did keep up on the glazing.
Electrical, Plumbing, Heating is all circa 1922.
When I bought... my friends and neighbors were eager to help me gut to the bones and start over... instead... I lovingly cleaned the matchstick hardwood and painted one room at a time... the kitchen and bath are original right down to the 1922 stove, claw-foot tub and yellow tile with blue accent.
When it came to sell... my little original home that was period correct right down to the light switches and outlets sold for the highest price ever in my neighborhood of 140 similar homes.
Except for the refrigerator... nothing inside or outside would have been out of place in 1922.
Neighboring homes all suffered remodeling... many botched jobs.
Easy to tell if the work was done in the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's or 2000's
Just think of all the money in essence wasted on those jobs...
I think updating is Madison Ave at it's best in many cases...
Why else would some take beautiful hardwood cabinets or stone fireplaces and slap a coat of paint and think they improved anything?
In my city you can't even break ground for less than 50k. Also, who says the prices are high? If people are buying them they are getting what the market dictates. May be high for you but if others are willing to pay it its not high its market value
In my city you can't even break ground for less than 50k. Also, who says the prices are high? If people are buying them they are getting what the market dictates. May be high for you but if others are willing to pay it its not high its market value
The idea has been pounded into us that anyone who wants a home should be able to buy one. Now that the lending has tightened up, the prices are supposed to decline dramatically to accommodate those who cannot afford to buy at present market values. Maybe some people just cannot afford to buy a house right now. Enough people are buying to support the current market.
Watch Elizabeth Warrens video on youtube about the declining middle class. (regardless of her stance as a democrat and yours as a whatever, shes right on this topic). Its the duel earner effect. The moment both spouses started working, families were able to offer more on a house in a good area. This caused houses across the Country to increase in cost..i.e. "value." The increased cost of housing also raised the costs of everything else as well ironically.
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.
