[CTbrooktrout]

I was really thinking more of a 50's or 60's style ranch/split level. Initially, this is more attractive to me as I figure the building techniques and materials would be a bit better than that used in 1900 or earlier. Please correct me if I'm wrong here though. I suspect today's home are built in a better manner than those in the 50's as well.

I realize these ranch/split level homes are a dime a dozen and hopefully this keeps the price lower and they're a bit less unique. I've also researched some pretty convincing remodels of say adding another level, additional rooms, and giving the architecture more of a timeless colonial style that fits in well for this area. I've some some run of the mill ranches turned into a 2-3 story nantucket style beach house. So I'm aware of what can be done. Of course anything can be done for a price. And that's what I'm going to have to be careful about. How much I'm going to pay for the lot/property/current structure and how much it will take to turn it into what I want will be factors I'll pay close attention to and will have to go over with some potential remodelers.

If I could get a home for 350-400K and put 300K into it... I would be happy at that level. I'd like the finished product to be close to 3,000 sq ft if possible, 4 bdrm, and hopefully a finished basement along with 2 car garage.

[Mike 75]

I'd say on average, houses built today are not as well built as those in the 60s or 70s. Too much corner cutting and cheap materials these days. Of course there will always be exceptions.

There's an old saying that you never want to buy the nicest house in the neighborhood. In other words, people not only buy the house, but the neighborhood too. Ranches and raised ranches tend to be built in developments with similar style homes, and they don't tend to be in the most desirable neighborhoods. So even if you put a million dollars into a ranch or raised ranch, you won't likely recoup your investment. If you're ok with that, great, but you should go into this with eyes open.

[mrgmrg]

$350-400k is going to be pretty low for a fixer-upper in the towns you've listed. Even in Stamford or Norwalk, most houses at that price point are not IMO ripe for renovation because they're in low-end neighborhoods--very few people are willing to pay $750k to live in a neighborhood of $300k houses. There looks to be a few in your price range in decent sections of Norwalk like Silvermine and Cranbury, so that's where I'd focus. Wilton, Weston, Easton, Fairfield--are all pretty much out of the question.

I mentioned historic houses because I think FFC buyers are generally more willing to pay a premium for a restored antique than a ranch or whatever--they have more cachet, frankly. Just something to keep in mind.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I'd say on average, houses built today are not as well built as those in the 60s or 70s. Too much corner cutting and cheap materials these days. Of course there will always be exceptions.

There's an old saying that you never want to buy the nicest house in the neighborhood. In other words, people not only buy the house, but the neighborhood too. Ranches and raised ranches tend to be built in developments with similar style homes, and they don't tend to be in the most desirable neighborhoods. So even if you put a million dollars into a ranch or raised ranch, you won't likely recoup your investment. If you're ok with that, great, but you should go into this with eyes open.

I do not agree. Most homes built in the late 60's and 70's used standard materials for the time but the quality of those materials were deteriorating because old growth wood was all used up. Today's materials are engineered for longer lasting. Also today you can get good finish materials from foreign countries whic were not available back then. Jay

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I do not agree. Most homes built in the late 60's and 70's used standard materials for the time but the quality of those materials were deteriorating because old growth wood was all used up. Today's materials are engineered for longer lasting. Also today you can get good finish materials from foreign countries whic were not available back then. Jay

I assume you are referring to Chinese dry wall or pex piping over the natural germicidal nature of copper? You also have many more illegals and or very low skill laborers doing much of the work in the past 15 years. My 60 year old house has had far fewer issues compared to my parents brand new lennar in a 55 plus community.

[Stylo]

My house is 2010 built and has all copper lines. Only the drains are plastic.

My parents' 70's house was not particularly built well. An old 80's condo I was in was the worst. My house feels much more solid. I think it really depends on the builder. A lot of pre-70's homes are really solid though.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I do not agree. Most homes built in the late 60's and 70's used standard materials for the time but the quality of those materials were deteriorating because old growth wood was all used up. Today's materials are engineered for longer lasting. Also today you can get good finish materials from foreign countries whic were not available back then. Jay

Sure you can get high end materials nowadays, but you're going to pay for it. I would much rather have a house built in the 60's or 70s than a spec house built in the last 10 years.

[CTbrooktrout]

I think the parts that should be in question and being compared would be framing, concrete/foundation, pipes, and electrical. Things like drywall, flooring, and other aesthetics would most likely be torn out in an older home, at least that's what I'm planning to do, and would be using modern materials.

Has anyone seen major structural issues come up after a home inspection failed to discover them?

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by CTbrooktrout

I think the parts that should be in question and being compared would be framing, concrete/foundation, pipes, and electrical. Things like drywall, flooring, and other aesthetics would most likely be torn out in an older home, at least that's what I'm planning to do, and would be using modern materials.

Has anyone seen major structural issues come up after a home inspection failed to discover them?

If you're going to do all that, why not just build?

I know this is not the era you are looking at, but I love much older homes - early 1800's through say 1940s or so. It is so frustrating to me to look at a house for sale and see "new windows! new siding! new baseboards!" Put in a granite and stainless kitchen and I want to barf. A few months ago I drove by a historic house that was for sale due to foreclosure (or maybe because the prior owners were in jail. Either way). Did the virtual tour on line and the house was essentially untouched EXCEPT for the pillage of the bathrooms and kitchen. Such a shame.

Windows can be reglazed, the big cast iron radiators work great (and are awesome for warming up gloves or your bath towel!). Siding breaks over the years and is most likely hiding a house that is in dire need of paint anyway. Because really, who paints a house to protect it and then puts siding over it. No, they need paint, they get quotes, panic and install siding so it "never has to be painted again". In the meantime, windowsills and architectural details are removed and covered.

With all the work you want to do, it can't be that much of a difference to build rather than tear out. I do know people who have done this to a variety of houses and it really is a lot of work. You're dealing with lead, maybe asbestos and those have a removal cost as well.

Just my .02

[dazzleman]

I did something similar. I bought a 1940 house in Fairfield in 2003 that was in sagging condition, and did a whole bunch of work on it.

The house was/is structurally sound, and I did no additions or major structural changes. But I did rip out a soffit over the entrance hall to create a 2-story entrance hall, and put a wide transom window on the second level, right across from the upstairs balcony that looks down on the entrance hall.

I gutted the kitchen and put a whole new one in. I changed the configuration so it was gutted right down to the rafters. All new plumbing and electrical was required, plus a new floor and of course new cabinets, counters and appliances. I also put in a much bigger bay window to replace the smaller windows I had previously.

I replaced 3 sets of sliding doors with French doors, and had corner cabinets installed in the dining room. There were two rooms that were added on in the '70s and they used plywood for the floors at the time. When I got rid of the wall-to-wall carpet, I had slate floors installed in those rooms.

I replaced the shower in the master bath with slate. I also replaced the sinks and vanities in all three bathrooms.

Later, I put on a new deck, added a patio in the back, put in all new windows, and had fieldstone put on the front of my den, which upgraded the whole look of the front of the house.

I had a very good contractor and have used him multiple times, every time I have another project.

The most important thing I would say is that once you start a job like this, there will be a million things that you never thought of that will pop us as the job goes along, and it will always cost more than you originally anticipated. Make sure that you start with a realistic cost estimate for the work.