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.
New = Bad is a heuristic. I think the point is that it is much more complicated than that (I say this as someone who deliberately avoided new construction). Obviously you can get a custom home built by a fantastic builder who does pristine work today if you wanted to do so and paid accordingly.
That said, I think its pretty indisputable that the "prototypical" new home is a tract build stamped out on a lot that is too small using the cheapest materials possible to make it "look" nice but not hold up as well over time. Its the classic "McMansion" designation, but the same principles hold for smaller new homes. By no means are they all like that, but I do still feel its become increasingly common even in my lifetime. Its also true of most everything these days - as a society we are trending in the direction of "disposable" purchases. Stinks for those of us who don't like it, but not much to be done other than spend our money elsewhere.
That said, I think its important to acknowledge that: A) We're talking averages and not absolutes; and B) There is likely SOME bias involved since the 100 year old houses you see by definition did not fall apart after 40 years...its possible there were hundreds more that did, you just can't tell because they fell apart
All that said - I think they were simply referencing components and the need for updating. Its not like even the shoddiest of construction will spontaneously implode after X years. Barring enormous structural defects, its almost always fixable. Its just a question of how much maintenance to expect and whether the upkeep is worth it to you.
A family member purchased a 100+ year old home in the Fan district of Richmond, Va a couple of years ago. While visiting the new (old) home there seemed to be many many of these old homes all side by side block after block. Also adjacent to the Fan district was the Monument District that was adjacent to the Museum district .... point is there are hundreds of still standing 100 year old homes, not one here and one there but house after house. Most of these are absolutely beautiful and well maintained. Not all but most priced at $500,000 and up.
Sure many things have been done to these homes over the years (you no longer need a working fireplace in every room), but the structural integrity of these old houses is amazing. I would imagine it's a combination of the raw materials that were used back then (everything was the real deal) and also the craftsmanship that went into each and every house that accounts for their longevity. These were not track homes by any means
A family member purchased a 100+ year old home in the Fan district of Richmond, Va a couple of years ago. While visiting the new (old) home there seemed to be many many of these old homes all side by side block after block. Also adjacent to the Fan district was the Monument District that was adjacent to the Museum district .... point is there are hundreds of still standing 100 year old homes, not one here and one there but house after house. Most of these are absolutely beautiful and well maintained. Not all but most priced at $500,000 and up.
Sure many things have been done to these homes over the years (you no longer need a working fireplace in every room), but the structural integrity of these old houses is amazing. I would imagine it's a combination of the raw materials that were used back then (everything was the real deal) and also the craftsmanship that went into each and every house that accounts for their longevity. These were not track homes by any means
You are right. The quality of new construction is manure compared to older homes.
I would find a good builder that makes sure plenty of nails are used in the floor so they don't creek, it's not built on low ground, brick is used all around, and ceiling is visible from the couch.
A lot of houses that are 100 years old have little to do with the construction materials they used back then; it's called their homeowners actually did a little thing called maintenance. Good construction materials aren't really any worse today than they were back the. But when you build a bunch of houses using the cheapest materials and techniques possible, then houses WILL fall apart in a relatively short time period, and unfortunately, a lot of neighborhoods are built this way. I personally though would prefer new construction anyday, as the liability of something going wrong in a house vastly increases with age, no matter what. At least if the house is new you're pretty much guaranteed very minimal problems for the near future (even if it's only for a year or two), and you get an actual modern-looking house.
I would find a good builder that makes sure plenty of nails are used in the floor so they don't creek, it's not built on low ground, brick is used all around, and ceiling is visible from the couch.
A builder using nails in a floor is a bad builder. Glue and screw is the only way to go.
You are right. The quality of new construction is manure compared to older homes.
What's amazing is how much more solid an old house feels, as well. I'm so used to my thick, solid, plaster walls that when I'm in a newer home with thin, drywalled walls, they seem so flimsy. And sometimes the hardwood floors look fake, even if they're not (maybe it's because they're typically stained rather than simply polyurethaned)--not to mention the interior trim that is made of resin! There's something to be said, I think, for that old-world construction quality.
What's amazing is how much more solid an old house feels, as well. I'm so used to my thick, solid, plaster walls that when I'm in a newer home with thin, drywalled walls, they seem so flimsy. And sometimes the hardwood floors look fake, even if they're not (maybe it's because they're typically stained rather than simply polyurethaned)--not to mention the interior trim that is made of resin! There's something to be said, I think, for that old-world construction quality.
Drywall is a WAY BETTER building material though. Even people that restore old homes would never fathom of plastering walls. It's a complete and utter nightmare dealing with a plaster-walled house.
For those who are talking about newer homes being crap, I really wish that you could take a walk through our house, and that you could have been here for the build process. I would put it up against ANYTHING. It's solid, efficient and built with amazing finishes. And it cost less than pretty much any of the homes that I've seen advertised in all of these trendy new subdivisions. Simply put, there are some amazing builders out there in our community that really care about the craftsmanship.
We moved out of a house in North Raleigh that was built in the 70s, and this house is leaps and bounds better in every single way.
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.
