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.
given everything else is identical (let's pretend they are in the same neighborhood).
1. a completely new development, built ground up, just the way you want, perfect, costs 360k
2. a 10 year old house, that you would gut the inside and then redesign and renovate to just the way you want, perfect, after all costs (all-in including all renovations) is 300k
New construction, contractor built for resale, seems so popular and people flock to them, but they all look similar and offer very cheap materials. Those shiny new houses are going to have many more problems earlier than custom builds. I honestly don't get the appeal.
Give me an old renovated house any day. I don't consider 10 years old though, let's go 50+ years.
Depends on the house and the builder. One thing well built new homes have going for them is that they are required to have more insulation than an older house. We bought a custom (not tract built) home that was well built in 1995. A remodeled older home can have a terrible remodel that is just putting lipstick on a pig. Sometimes the remodel masks issues with the house. There are many quickly thrown together newer homes, this is why as a Realtor I always recommended a Home Inspection of a new home....Builders are held to a higher standard than the typical owner of an older home & even though builders give a warranty, it is better to have the work done BEFORE you take possession of the home. There have been many times in my career that I have seen a longer Reply to Inspection with a NEWER home than an older home!!
Newer homes have such cheap finishes, and I dislike developments where all the houses look alike. I much prefer a home from the era when builders built in small numbers and neighborhoods had character.
If you shop around, you can find an older home that has been well cared for and nicely renovated.
Your looking at saving 15% doing it yourself, best case scenario. Does the saving include holding cost if you can't live in the house during construction or scope create with new plumbing problems found? In California, I'd take the second option. In others states, I'd do new.
given everything else is identical (let's pretend they are in the same neighborhood).
1. a completely new development, built ground up, just the way you want, perfect, costs 360k
2. a 10 year old house, that you would gut the inside and then redesign and renovate to just the way you want, perfect, after all costs (all-in including all renovations) is 300k
you save 60k by going old.
which would you pick?
10 yrs old is not old... I thought you were gonna ask about something actually old.
New homes are built to "todays" code. Which is likely much better than code from 10 years ago. And today's paints and materials have much less harmful chemicals. (Well, unless you buy from lumber liquidators) link
Personally, I'd take the new home.
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.
