Newer home in outlying area or older home closer in?

[SaltyDawg]

I've worked with a number of contractors.

Generally, homes around here built before WWII are VERY solid, the tradeoff being space and infrastructure (electrical, plumbing). Great bones.

Homes from the 40's and 50's are architecturally suspect, but generally well-built.

It gets sketchier as you get into the 60's-80's - bad combo of poor floorplans with out-of-date infrastructure.

For all that people like 'new' homes (90's-now), you're buying spec homes generally, built on the cheap by the lowest bidder. The contractors I've worked with get the majority of their work repairing and re-configuring modern homes. Think about it - who needs a 20' ceiling in the entryway? What happens when the cheap drywall is faulty, which is often? Or when the on-the-cheap duct system leaks?

It's all a trade-off. Our house was built in the 20's and we've updated quite a bit, but the original lath & plaster, brickwork, and foundation are incredibly solid. No, it's not a 4000 square ft McMansion, but we have a great yard in a great location and a traditionally attractive house. With huge trees and great soil.

As always, buyer beware.

[orangeblossom]

There are pros and cons to both. I envy my friends with newer homes,b/c they just look cleaner to me. New walls,no cracks,newer electrical,etc,yet they have to live farther out of the city. My home was built in 1949. Its as solid as solid comes. You can't hear from one room to another b/c the walls (the ones downstairs at least have concrete between them). It was built with good quality materials ( except that popcorn ceiling we had removed)
But as much as I would love living in a new home in a culdesac neighborhood,I know it would be too far away from the places I like to frequent on a weekly basis. I wish sometimes we could put a MIL on the property so my hs could have an on site small office. Still not too clear on the zoning about that.