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.
I would prefer an 1890 - 1930 house, but those were too expensive in San Diego. A house built earlier, would worry me about the condition of the grafted on plumbing and electrical.
I went with a 1941 house because that was the oldest house I could afford. When I see older houses whose owners have butchered them, I die a thousand deaths.
The oldest building I stayed in (only for a week) was built in the 1300's- that was in the Netherlands. My current residence was built in 2005. I'm renting- the owner offered to sell it to me last month for a really good price. I thought about it for 30 whole seconds, looked him in the eye and said "No, Thank You!" It's one of those houses slapped together along with 20 others that look exactly like it when the subdivision was put in. Really shoddy construction. The previous house I lived in was built in 1948. That house had good bones- you could tell whoever built in really cared about what they were doing. I wouldn't go any older than the late 1940's unless the home were modernized- new electrical, plumbing, etc.
I was in a bidding war for a 1923 Sears & Roebuck Catalogue home. It was all original condition and absolutely gorgeous. You walked in the front door and hanging on the wall was the original advertisement for the home in the Sears catalogue. $2275 for the materials, more if you wanted upgrades.
My preferred date range is mid-1800s to around 1930. After that I can see the difference in construction (in New England).
I have no objections to houses in the 1600s - mid-1800s, it's just that I like and use my basement and often houses of those eras have low dirt basements which need to be excavated and poured with concrete to be useful as anything other than a big litterbox. That said, I lived in an early 1900s house with a dirt basement, so it really depends.
My current house is 1926. Solid as a rock. Really hasn't needed anything other than normal maintenance that any other house would - roof etc.
Insurance really isn't more expensive. I have mine set for exact replacement which includes plaster, but many people would rebuild with sheetrock if they had to. Can't see where that added more than $50 to my policy if anything.
Can't stand when I see an ad for an old house with "New replacement windows! New baseboards!!". Give me those toasty cast iron radiators!
We currently live in a home built in 1946. There's nothing special about it, but it is solid. There's a lot of similar homes in our neighborhood, all built 1946 to early 1950s.
I would love an even older home, something from the 1920s-1930s, but those are far more expensive in Denver than the post-WWII homes.
I was in a bidding war for a 1923 Sears & Roebuck Catalogue home. It was all original condition and absolutely gorgeous. You walked in the front door and hanging on the wall was the original advertisement for the home in the Sears catalogue. $2275 for the materials, more if you wanted upgrades.
I lost out on the bidding. Happy I did- a year later I spoke to the couple that got the house and they nicknamed it "The Money Pit."
Maybe they told you what they did, and "money pit" really applies. But some people might call an all original 1920s house a "money pit" because they feel as though they have to replace all the windows, gut and remodel the kitchen and bathrooms, take out the cast iron radiators and replace with baseboard heat, etc.
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.