Older homes vs newer construction

[nrogers1122]

We have owned both a new construction home and a house built in the 1950's (which we currently live in). There are definitely pros and cons to each. With new construction, you tend to get safer neighborhoods, better schools, but are usually farther away from the metro. New construction homes sometimes have a good warranty, and you won't have to worry about your heater giving up due to old age in the middle of winter. However, you do sometimes run into construction defects that aren't covered by warranty that you won't have with a home that has stood the test of time. The house we live in now has been updated a little, but still has quite a bit more to be done. However, we do benefit from a 10 minute drive into Minneapolis, a mature tree-lined neighborhood, and a lower mortgage payment.

[outofarkansas]

Regardless of the age of the house, I suggest hiring specialists to do the inspection, don't rely on an inspector. Get a roofer to come in and inspect the roof. Get an HVAC guy to look at the furnace and A/C. Get a tile guy/plumber to inspect the bathrooms. Home inspectors are often useless and know that if they report too much the realtor won't hire them again. We have been ripped off twice by lax home inspectors on both of the homes we have purchased. I'm sure there are good ones out there, but probably not many. The issue you want to consider is the resale value of your home. Newer construction often means less-well-constructed. Codes for builders actually used to be more strict in the past, and the housing boom resulted in a lot of quick and sloppy construction. You can find good, older homes in the Twin Cities that are both well made and updated in important aspects, particularly if they have been upgraded for energy efficiency.