I overheard someone say something interesting today regarding COL (New York: new house, buying)

[Shaolin Shadowboxing]

that i never truly thought about

the gist of what he said was that not only are you paying outrageous prices for homes and the subsequent taxes, 9/10 times you're getting an OLD home

and not old as in 20 years, old as in some approaching 100 years

so now you're paying out the nose for a house and its taxes AND you're on the hook for every little thing that can and does go wrong in a 60, 70, 100 year old house

it's absurd and disheartening

[Keeros318]

Yeah, that's obviously something to think about when purchasing a home.

[KensingtonPark]

We paid up for a new house (and the difficulties that entails) to avoid just those disadvantages. You also have to throw in that it is extremely difficult to renovate up a 100 year old house to be as efficient as a new house, so you're also paying considerably more for heat and air conditioning, as well as repair and upkeep. So while many of the old houses that we saw were charming, unique, beautiful and full of character, we just weren't ready to deal with it. We really only know this secondhand, however, as we've purchased four houses in our lifetime, and they were all new construction.

[neil1973]

Originally Posted by thefastlife

that i never truly thought about

the gist of what he said was that not only are you paying outrageous prices for homes and the subsequent taxes, 9/10 times you're getting an OLD home

and not old as in 20 years, old as in some approaching 100 years

so now you're paying out the nose for a house and its taxes AND you're on the hook for every little thing that can and does go wrong in a 60, 70, 100 year old house

it's absurd and disheartening

You're right. They should pass a law in which all houses > 20 years old are torn down to build new houses so that people can avoid these problems. Maybe then Westchester can look like a subdivision outside of Dallas or Atlanta.

[SageCats]

Originally Posted by neil1973

You're right. They should pass a law in which all houses > 20 years old are torn down to build new houses so that people can avoid these problems. Maybe then Westchester can look like a subdivision outside of Dallas or Atlanta.

That is NOT what the OP meant The OP makes a very valid point that many people don't think about when purchasing a home. Older homes will tend to have issues that need to be addressed that you wouldn't necessarily find in a newer construction. While newer construction homes might have cheaper materials and shoddier craftsmanship and old homes might need more repairs and maintenance, there are pros and cons to both. Just something to keep in mind.

[Ex New Yorker]

There's nothing like some of those beautiful old Victorian homes that new homes can't even come close to.

[KensingtonPark]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

There's nothing like some of those beautiful old Victorian homes that new homes can't even come close to.

Agree there. I loved a lot of the older homes that I saw in my house hunting. We just never could convince ourselves that we had the mental energy to keep up an older home. Ironically, a newer home costs more up front, so I'm not particularly convinced that an older home is more money, it's just a question of how you want to pay (i.e., sunk cost v cash flow).

[ponytrekker]

I tend to think the opposite. If it stood for 60 years all the glitches are out of it.

[neil1973]

Originally Posted by SageCats

That is NOT what the OP meant The OP makes a very valid point that many people don't think about when purchasing a home. Older homes will tend to have issues that need to be addressed that you wouldn't necessarily find in a newer construction. While newer construction homes might have cheaper materials and shoddier craftsmanship and old homes might need more repairs and maintenance, there are pros and cons to both. Just something to keep in mind.

OP was a troll post.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by KensingtonPark

Agree there. I loved a lot of the older homes that I saw in my house hunting. We just never could convince ourselves that we had the mental energy to keep up an older home. Ironically, a newer home costs more up front, so I'm not particularly convinced that an older home is more money, it's just a question of how you want to pay (i.e., sunk cost v cash flow).

I think that if one were to buy a completely restored older home especially an old Victorian home it would probably cost more than buying new. But look at what you would have. It would probably cost a fortune to duplicate one of those older homes especially when taking into consideration the materials they used back then and the craftsmanship that was involved with all of that intricate woodworking. It seems like today we live in a throw away society. What was once steel is now plastic. What was once solid wood is now particle board with a wooden veneer. You can't just sand it down and refinish it. Sure, you can get all these things in a modern home and pay a lot more for it, but back then that was all that they used. Somebody's always looking to make the same thing cheaper for more profit. It's getting to be like we're living in an artificial world. Another advantage to an older home is that if it is livable you can always fix it up over time doing a lot of the work yourself. God knows my parents bought their first home, an older home built in the 1890's and were able to do most of the work themselves. Albeit over the course of ten years. But we were all able to live in it while it was being done.

We love going to antique stores and notice the same thing with furniture and toys that were manufactured back then as compared to now. Back then it seems that things could be fixed or refinished instead of having to buy new every couple of years. It's sad to think of all the things we used to manufacture from radio's to toaster's now it's all made in China or Indonesia.

I don't know but I believe that people back then took more pride in what they produced. Especially during the Depression era (1929-1941) where people who had a job just didn't take it for granted as many do now. I own and have restored antique cars from the 1930's and it seems to me that they were made to last longer than those of today. Anyone with mechanical aptitude could pretty much maintain their own vehicles and perform most of their repairs. I have yet to hear of any recalls of vehicles made back then either. I have a late model truck and along with it the service manuals which are the size of five Manhattan size phone books. Compared to the one service manual of one of my antique cars which is 8 1/2" by 11" and a quarter of an inch thick. I guess that's progress?