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.
We are expecting kid #2 in July and are house hunting right now. While it’s not a requirement to move before baby, it is a preference.
The area we are looking in has great schools, abundance of dining & retail, low crime, and reasonable 30 min commutes to our jobs. The only issue is that my wife prefers new construction, and the limited new construction here is about $100k higher than our budget. The bulk of the housing stock in the area was built in the 90’s and 00’s.
She prefers new because she likes things like upstairs media room, huge closets, and mud rooms (all common in new houses these days). She also likes the finishes we’ve seen in new construction developments.
I also like new construction, but I’m open to a 10-15 year old house, especially if it will save us money and still get us in this desirable area (I prefer location over newness). My wife still wants something updated or new, because with a new baby around, she says we won’t have any time to renovate anything. Also, she says she hears nightmare stories from co-workers about dealing with repairs in an older home (neither of us have any handyman skills, so we would have to outsource everything).
Does anyone have any insight on this topic? Thanks.
Garbage Builder grade appliances, trim, finish hinges, etc will likely have broken and/or been upgraded.
Structural problems will likely have manifested and been addressed.
Any toxic materials will likely have been discovered and replaced.
Not quite a cost cutting as most newer homes. (maybe still has 1/2" drywall and thicker/stronger plywood, etc.
Some of the trees may have grown back to a size where they are actually trees.
Advantages of newer:
Statute of limitations has probably not expired.
No one else's filth. No smoke. You get to choose all of your replacement appliances, finishes etc.
May have newly developed technology/materials.
Should have LED lightbulbs.
It really depends more on the quality of the build. A fifteen year old house with good build quality will be far superior to a rush built new house and vice versa. You are not likely to find quality in a subdivisin house regardless of new or 10 - 15 years old, so you are mostly buying junk. However if the older house has had a lot of the junk replaced already, it can save you the time tolerable and cost. If it has not had the junk and problems replaced, then it is likely to be due. A newer house is going to begin failing quickly, but you might have 5 years before you need to start replacing/repairing, maybe even 10. That is better than an older house that all the problems are currently manifesting; but not better than an older house where the problems have mostly been addressed. Of course the price difference matters too. You pay a premium for new. Both because the builders need to maximize their profit and because people will pay more for new, so they charge more.
Perhaps a bigger issue you should consider is the age of the residents. If you buy older, are you moving into a neighborhood where all of the kids are in high school or older while yours are little? Will they have friends their age around? Will you?
I'm always a little surprised that buyers so often seem to prefer new construction. I've always preferred a house that has been standing for a while, outgassing from new materials is over, and there aren't any little surprises like recalls on the windows, cracks in the foundation from settling, etc.
It's just me, I know. I would hate to be the first person to put a dent or nick or stain on a brand new house. I like a house that's been lived in and loved before I got there and I feel like I can relax.
I'm another one who just can't understand the buyers who insist on new, but I like my property to have a little interest and that is something that "new" just doesn't offer.
Beyond that, budget should ALWAYS dictate what you're going to buy. If something is $100k beyond your budget, and you're not looking at properties where $100k is less than 10% (meaning million plus $$), it's simply out of your budget. I mean, what's more important here... working yourselves to death just to make the payments monthly or having free time/money to spend with/on your kids? Over a house? This should be a no-brainer decision.
When people talk about "nightmare" issues with older homes, they're Generally referring to homes pre 1970 or so *OR* something that's self inflicted (oh, we'll just knock out this wall and open up the floor plan ourselves, this weekend, it'll only take 2 days tops). As for no DIY skills, do you think that people are just born with those? Mike Holmes just popped out of his mom and instantly knew everything? No, we all learn. These are skills that are GOOD to have when a sink starts to leak on a Sunday night and you're faced with a $500 service call from a plumber vs just shutting off the water yourself?
As for her wants, that plays back into what's more important ~ something that neither of you grew up with (upstairs media rooms, walk-in closets, blah, blah, blah) and Somehow, by the grace of God, managed to survive.... or putting yourself into a financial bind that Could lead to a short sale, foreclosure, and moving again (be aware, the economy is forecast to get worse over the next few years as we've been in a recession since 2013 that's only getting worse).
If you were looking at homes on the same price level it'd be a different story. The "older" (lol at something only 10~15 years old being labeled "older" ~ sorry, perspective as I'm in a 1930's built house) homes in that case probably wouldn't have the latest trends but Would be of a higher build quality. Same deal if you took $30k to go buy a car... new and you're getting an upscale econo-box, used and you can be in a mid-level luxury (or exotic if you go old enough, I once bought a Turbo Porsche for $6k). But that's not the point here.
Buy the best you can Afford, get the LOCATION right, the structure can be changed. My folks did a full renovation 6 years after buying the house where I grew up because the Location was right but the house wasn't working.... then lived there for another 30 years. Live in a house and understand what you Really need, really Want and give yourself time to vet some contractors... it's not that hard.
I learned the hard way - better to spend less on a house and more on road trips, camping, white water rafting, etc. A smaller house forces your family togethr more and makes you closer anyway.
If you were looking at homes on the same price level it'd be a different story. The "older" (lol at something only 10~15 years old being labeled "older" ~ sorry, perspective as I'm in a 1930's built house) homes in that case probably wouldn't have the latest trends . . . ..
LOL at a house less than 150 years old being called older . . .
Many will have the latest trends in many ways because they will be updated. Notwithstanding the original configuration, our house has been fully modernized with indoor toilets, closets, electricity and even an attached kitchen! WE even have CAT 5 cable to every single room (which was out of date by the time I finished installing it since everything is wireless now).
The problem with trendy is it is only modern and trendy for a couple of years. Then it is "dated" and your wife will be anxious to move to a newer new construction home (especially since your current one will have begun to fail.)
I have owned 5 houses: 15 years old, new, new, 60 years, new (5.6 years in, now).
I think the ideal house is 5 years old:
1. Modern design - open concept, large closets, etc.
2. The foundation has settled. Sometimes new ones move a lot and sometimes only a little, but they all move.
3. The leak in the master bath shower has been found and fixed. Not that I have personal experience with such an occurrence.
4. Some (maybe a lot of) landscaping has been done. The trees have 5 years of growth. It has been regraded where the water was coming into the house.
4. The water problems in the basement have been fixed.
Given 2 identical houses: one brand new and one 15 years old, I would choose the older one.
Replacing light bulbs is cheap.
Replacing the worn out garbage disposal is cheap.
If you are a homeowner (without unlimited money), then you need to acquire handyman skills.
We are expecting kid #2 in July and are house hunting right now. While it’s not a requirement to move before baby, it is a preference.
The area we are looking in has great schools, abundance of dining & retail, low crime, and reasonable 30 min commutes to our jobs. The only issue is that my wife prefers new construction, and the limited new construction here is about $100k higher than our budget. The bulk of the housing stock in the area was built in the 90’s and 00’s.
She prefers new because she likes things like upstairs media room, huge closets, and mud rooms (all common in new houses these days). She also likes the finishes we’ve seen in new construction developments.
I also like new construction, but I’m open to a 10-15 year old house, especially if it will save us money and still get us in this desirable area (I prefer location over newness). My wife still wants something updated or new, because with a new baby around, she says we won’t have any time to renovate anything. Also, she says she hears nightmare stories from co-workers about dealing with repairs in an older home (neither of us have any handyman skills, so we would have to outsource everything).
Does anyone have any insight on this topic? Thanks.
10-15 yrs old is not an old home.
New constructions minuses: Every time a house changes owners, improvements are made (usually), for which the owner does not recover 100%. You won't get any of those improvements with new construction. I looked at a couple, and they didn't come with landscaping, grass, gutters, and other things. If the builder does those things, you'll pay a pretty penny for them.
Also, it can take 10 to 20 years for foundation problems to appear. You never know with new construction if the house is sound, until you've lived there a while.
Also, you don't know just what a neighborhood will end up being like, the feel of it, the look of it, who lives there. Or even if the subdivision will be completed. I've seen isolated houses in "new" subdivisions that were never completed.
Also, it's more likely there will be vacant land near new construction. Vacant land is always a concern. You don't know for sure what will be built there until it's built. You can't go by zoning, since zoning changes.
Existing homes: You get more bang for the buck. Prior owners have made any builder corrections and added improvements (gutters, lawn, maybe landscaping). Of course, you may not like those improvements.
Also, the subdivision is likely to be complete, so you know what you'd be moving into.
Also, existing homes are usually in better locations. New construction is usually by necessity built further out from the hub of things.
You know how sometimes houses are advertised as "one-owner" homes? I dislike one-owner homes, for the reasons mentioned above. They make initial improvements, and though they may maintain the homes, tthey don't usually update it or upgrade it, as time passes, like a NEW owner will usually do. So one-owner homes are often fixer uppers, even if they're in good working order. They need updated colors, counters, backspashes, maybe appliances, etc.
New construction is very enticing. I love the look of them. But quality of build, locations, the lack of finishing touches, and the lack of getting bang for the buck, all made me concentrate on existing homes.
Budget is your most important thing to consider, but personally I find new construction to be overrated. This is not to knock those who are in love with it, but having owned both a newly constructed tract home and our current home that is almost 28 years old, I prefer the "older" house - namely because it's custom and used a lot of quality materials. The studs are as good and clean as they were back in 1989, unlike our previous house where I'm sure you'd find a beer bottle in the insulation. While I agree that a poorly built house is a poorly built house, regardless of age, I disagree that homes built in subdivisions inherently have quality issues.
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.
