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.
My BIL always said he preferred buying a home at least 5 years old because all the problems had been fixed. I thought that was a good idea but then he retired and built a McMansion in a country club HOA. Haven't heard specifics but on one visit they were on the phone to electrician (2 years after) because of some issue about weird wiring causing problems. There may have been more issues but not disclosed to us.
One thing I learned is that earliest (oldest) homes were usually built on best sites, highest, driest, safest. Problem is that if the home was built well it's still standing with tiny rooms, low ceilings, outdated amenities (too few bathrooms). Which then requires massive updating and renovation and who wants to go through that. Better to tear down and start new....and who wants to go through that lol. Catch-22.
We are looking to move closer to family soon but we have a great home where we are, 1200 miles away. Great neighborhood, close to highly-rated hospital and we like our doctors and dentists after taking 10 years to find great ones. Finding a new home there is a huge headache and building new seems likely, ditto huge headache. First world problems I know.
We've been through "building a home" 30 years ago. Very good builder but had to stay on top and be on site as much as possible. No shortcuts taken because of that. Exhausting and time consuming, took a year. Would NEVER buy a tract home builders product.
We've never had stucco except on concrete block to dress it up. Friends builders had stucco on masonite failure on their very expensive home and the whole subdivision filed lawsuit that took many years to settle.
We took out a wall in the kitchen and put 3/4 bath in the laundry room, did most of it ourselves, easy. So three bedroom two bath with an open kitchen, partial finished basement to add useable space, and no Tear Down of a lovely old house necessary.
I love how when people bring up older houses it's the top-of-the-line houses but then they are compared to the cookie-cutter new houses. There were a lot of "developer" houses as far back as 100 years ago and a lot of them weren't that great
Another issue is survivorship bias. The better-built older homes are still around. The shoddily-built ones are not. We're thus led to assume that older = better.
By similar reasoning, the truly great books from say the 18th century are now rightfully regarded as classics, and are taught in college as exemplars of great literature. But that doesn't mean that everything written in the 18th century was brilliant. Perhaps some excellent novels have been lost to time, but it is reasonable to surmise, that the better ones did survive, while the dross and drivel didn't.
In places where real-estate is more valuable, the better older houses would get refurbished and preserved, with the inferior ones torn down. In less affluent places, there's insufficient business-case to either renovate or to rebuild. So, we end up with decaying housing-stock, which of course further depresses prices, and so on, in a feedback loop.
Another issue is survivorship bias. The better-built older homes are still around. The shoddily-built ones are not. We're thus led to assume that older = better.
By similar reasoning, the truly great books from say the 18th century are now rightfully regarded as classics, and are taught in college as exemplars of great literature. But that doesn't mean that everything written in the 18th century was brilliant. Perhaps some excellent novels have been lost to time, but it is reasonable to surmise, that the better ones did survive, while the dross and drivel didn't.
In places where real-estate is more valuable, the better older houses would get refurbished and preserved, with the inferior ones torn down. In less affluent places, there's insufficient business-case to either renovate or to rebuild. So, we end up with decaying housing-stock, which of course further depresses prices, and so on, in a feedback loop.
In my area there is quite a mix of very old to brand new. The only house I recall being razed was a total loss in a house fire and there was one that had to be rebuilt because of a structural issue. Most houses are maintained and updated because they are of some value due to location and there isn't much land left to build on.
There is something to be said for those home renovators who tidy up neighborhoods of old houses in need of rescue. Amazing how bad some of them look but they are sound so they can be saved.
Older houses were often built by amateurs, who lacked knowledge in structural or civil engineering. The newer house might have shoddy cladding over the framing, but at least presumably the foundation is correctly poured. Imagine a house built in the early 20th century, where the basement walls are caving-in, because the builder did not understand about hydrostatic pressure. Soil absorbs water, water accumulates without prior drainage, and eventually that undermines the foundation. How does one go about fixing that?
And if the McMansion costs $400K, a $60K fix, even if costly, is a small fraction of market value. Now think about the same $60K fix in a house whose market value is only $90K, assuming that the house is in good condition. Now assume that the house is already fully paid off. What should the owners do? Should they repair it, sell as-is, or just donate the house to the County, taking the charity tax-deduction (while it still exists)?
That's a no-brainer. Answer: FIX IT. Unless you can buy another house at least as good (as it would be if you fixed it) for less than the cost of repairs.
Why did you even need to ask that? Yup. I'll fix my 90k paid for house for 60k rather than buy another house. In my case, of course, it would have had to be an act of god or drunk driving to damage my house that much to start with (since *I* do the maintenance).
Well an act of drunk driver would probably be paid for by the insurance. Not all acts of god are covered, though. So one of those.
Anyway.
The so-called "amateurs" you are complaining about had many times the practical knowledge of your average construction worker today. Get real. You seriously think a guy building houses in 1911 who has been wielding a hammer FOR REAL, not for play, since he was 5 or 6, is LESS competent than an 18 year old kid right out of high school who's entirety of construction knowledge revolves around the bird house he built in 9th grade shop class? BTW - one of my neighbors is a "professional" construction worker. Guess who went over and showed him where everything was in his house (like the whole house shut off), and what he needed to do to add a bathroom? (He did not realize the house was built on a slab nor what that meant for trying to add plumbing. That stuff doesn't need a hammer. If there are no nails involved, its not his "specialty")
I built my own house in the 90s. I was talking about this with a guy in a Home Despot, who worked construction. As I described some of the care I was taking to do it right, he laughed, and kept interjecting statements about how "when we build we just ..." (ellipses indicating any of several horror stories that EXACTLY illustrated why I was building my own house).
Such as: I paid to have the gambrel roof put up, which involved a couple of dormers, which the guys I hired installed a window in and DID NOT FLASH AT ALL. I had to pull the window and do it over myself. Also, the roof was not put up properly. There was a ripple in at least one section where they'd cut the rafters wrong. In short, the ONE THING I hired done looked like *I* had done it - if you assumed that I didn't know anything at all about construction, you know, what with being a dumb woman and all.
When I mentioned how I was insulating (6" of wall insulation, ok 5.5) the "pro" laughed and said they didn't even bother to insulate the corners at all, let alone with 6" (ok 5.5) of insulation. He was of the opinion that insulating that "much" was overkill anyway because (he thought) it "doesn't get that cold here". (state where snow in winter is not uncommonly measured in feet)
Yes, it does. It also gets that HOT. He also talked about not insulating lots of other spots because it "takes too much time". This was over 25 years ago so I forget everything he said, but he was talking about not insulating around electrical outlets on outside walls, skipping some of the spaces around windows and doors, stuffing insulation in some places where an inspector would notice its lack using a stick (which of course compresses the insulation and makes it a lot less useful).
All I could think was how glad I was that this guy was not working on MY house. I'll take my amateur built house (still standing just fine 25+ years later) over the "professionally" built one we put up in the 80s, let alone the one my son had built last year. I did warn him. I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.
Speaking of insulation - my level billing in my 60 yo ranch house right now is $78. The house isn't insulated. But the heater is centrally located - there's not a heating duct run longer than 25' or 30'. The house is roughly square (minimizes outside wall exposure given the square footage). You can walk all the way around the house INSIDE the house - air flow is good. I cool the entire house (a bit over 1400 sft, I forget the exact figure) with a WINDOW AIR CONDITIONER mounted in a window directly in front of the back hallway, with a fan in front of it to blow it down the hallway, and ceiling fans going in the rooms that had them, and it cooled the entire house down to 70F to 72F for the ENTIRE TWO MONTHS that it was over 100F during the daytime here. (Cooler temps were achievable at night but it never got over 70F to 72F during the day even when eggs were frying in the shell outside). I live in the High Sierra Desert region and even with almost no cloud cover, even with NO AC at all, this house rarely gets much over 88F. It is always 10 to 15F cooler when its hot out than whatever "out" is at the moment. With a Southern exposure, floor length windows along about 20' of that southern exposure, no insulation, and no more cooling power available than what you can drag out of a window AC unit and a $20 fan.
Same city, slightly warmer in winter, slightly cooler in summer, area - they put the heater out in the garage all the way at one corner of the house. AC Compressor was on the OTHER side of the house. Some rooms were ALWAYS significantly warmer/cooler than others. The AC/heat was constantly kicking on. Yeah, right, its not "properly balanced" - but its a lot easier to "properly balance" a system that's not already way OUT of balance from the get-go. BTW, that house was slightly smaller, fully insulated (by "pro" builders), and cost about 3 times as much (over $200 per month) on the level billing year round. It is currently estimated (dollar value) at almost double what my house lists at.
Millenials I know are MUCH more impressed with the "new" house (because of LOOKS).
I am much much MUCH more impressed with the "old" house (because of FUNCTION and EXPENSE, or rather minimization of the latter).
My house is older, bigger, more "boring" looking, cheaper, lower property taxes, lower operating expenses, bigger yard, BIGGER SIDE YARD (further from neighbors). It's just better all the way 'round.
I'm in the process of moving to my son's city (AT LONG LAST!!!) and all 3 of my top picks were built prior to 1940. TWO of them in the 19-teens. Despite the fact that there is a nearly new house 2 blocks from where he lives. It costs about 40% more for less space, a smaller yard, and much inferior construction. I'm struggling, because proximity to grandkids would be great ... but I just don't think that house is worth the extra money when the ONLY thing it has that other houses I prefer don't have is ... crappy cheap chintzy construction. LOL!
I acknowledge that it helps that the vast majority of 100+ year old houses where he lives have already been upgraded for plumbing, electric, and insulation. But none of these cracker box ticky-tacky houses like my son is in now are even going to be here in 100 years to be properly upgraded. If you don't got the bones, you won't go the distance.
Last edited by Pyewackette; 11-20-2018 at 10:00 PM..
... The only house I recall being razed was a total loss in a house fire and there was one that had to be rebuilt because of a structural issue. Most houses are maintained and updated because they are of some value due to location and there isn't much land left to build on.
Things that are intrinsically valuable, are worth maintenance and repair. A $500 beater-car may not even be worth a regular oil-change. One drives it with abandon, until it finally self-destructs with a bang (or a whimper), and then seeks to recoup $150 from the scrap-metal yard… possibly draining the fuel tank and grabbing the seat-covers. In some parts of the country, real estate very much resembles the beater-car. Assiduous maintenance isn’t worth the trouble.
But maintenance aside, we’re talking about latent, hidden and devastating flaws, which don’t reveal themselves during inspection, and may remain hidden during decades of ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette
That's a no-brainer. Answer: FIX IT. Unless you can buy another house at least as good (as it would be if you fixed it) for less than the cost of repairs.
Why did you even need to ask that? Yup. I'll fix my 90k paid for house for 60k rather than buy another house.
Unfortunately it is, very much, a “brainer”. In this hypothetical, your $90K house is worth $50K if sold as-is, but would cost $60K, to be restored to a condition where its market-price becomes the full $90K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette
The so-called "amateurs" you are complaining about had many times the practical knowledge of your average construction worker today. Get real. You seriously think a guy building houses in 1911 who has been wielding a hammer FOR REAL, not for play, since he was 5 or 6, is LESS competent than an 18 year old kid right out of high school who's entirety of construction knowledge revolves around the bird house he built in 9th grade shop class?
The issue isn't the competence or craftsmanship of the individual workmen, and indeed, those of 100 years ago may well have been superior to their modern counterparts. The issue is that 100 years ago, there was no zoning, no code-compliance, no inspections, no architects involved, no civil engineers, no licensed contractors, no geotech soil-analysis, and no knowledge of the water table. Assuredly, all of this knowledge an infrastructure existed in principle. It was there, in NYC and Chicago and Philadelphia and so forth. But it wasn't applied to farmhouses in unincorporated vast fields in the Heartland.
4000 years ago, Imhotep may have known exactly what he was doing, building pyramids at Giza, without having an architect's license or a civil-engineer's stamp, or having to placate the county inspectors. But what about some random peasant building his own hut? Said hut has not failed to survive to the present; it likely didn't even outlive the peasant, whose own life expectancy was famously short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette
BTW - one of my neighbors is a "professional" construction worker. Guess who went over and showed him where everything was in his house (like the whole house shut off), and what he needed to do to add a bathroom?
I'll be the first to agree, on the rather sordid and unsavory hiding of "professionals" behind their various licenses. One does not need an official piece of paper to perform quality workmanship. But you see, having these various checks and multiple sets-of-eyes looking things over, is what protects us from shoddy and incompetent workmanship. Even if, as in the case of the OP, bad construction was NOT caught despite modern oversight, at least the owner had recourse to sue. If you buy a 100-year-old house of totally unknown provenance, and 20 years after your purchase, you found that the foundation is unsound, and the whole house needs to be jacked up, moved aside, the old foundation demolished, a new one poured, and the house reinstalled - well, who are you doing to sue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette
If you don't got the bones, you won't go the distance.
No argument from me there! But by like reasoning, if the "bones" are absolutely idiotically done in the first place, no amount of remediation (short of total reconstruction) will offer long-term surety.
We can buy a Kia or a Hyundai with a 10-year, 100 K mile warranty and if they don't fix that blown transmission at 96,000 miles we can sue Hyundai and get back the cost of repairs.
But if a 4-500 K home has problems after a couple years the builder gets away with murder?
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
We can buy a Kia or a Hyundai with a 10-year, 100 K mile warranty and if they don't fix that blown transmission at 96,000 miles we can sue Hyundai and get back the cost of repairs.
But if a 4-500 K home has problems after a couple years the builder gets away with murder?
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
Try reading the article again. I believe the warranty was a year or two, but there are many circumstances where the buyer can sue the builder within a much longer period of time (10-12 years) if there are certain defects. I remember reading about it but don't remember the details but if there are construction defects it's not like the builder is scott-free after a year or two like you're suggesting. Still, many homeowners waited too long because they didn't even know their homes are damaged.
To be fair to mgforshort, 10-12 years is very short for the lifetime expectation of a home.
The story is egregious. Toll Bros are very deep pockets, listed on the NYSE and they are hiding behind a fleet of attorneys, the letter of the law and arbitration clauses. They have their hand out for the cash on the front end all smiles and family talk but are gone when it comes to backing their product up. As the general contractor of record, even when they hire the job out, the buck stops at their desk. Stories like this really tick me off.
We are serial remodelers and skew toward older homes liking their character and history. We have yet to be burned by shoddy design or original workmanship in those older homes. Some we have gutted to the studs as the homes were not well maintained over the years and were worn out, one replacing the siding as well. There of course are wiring, plumbing, insulation and HVAC upgrades that are needed especially as we are "systems" geeks. We consider it a labor of love to restore a relic to a gem and buying in up and coming neighborhoods/areas keeps the initial costs down.
We are amateurs but we have a hobby of walking construction sites and the OMG! factor that we see, even in "luxury" construction would keep us up at night should we buy a newer home. We'd never know what was in those walls. We've seen so many granite countered, gold-plated turds over the years, sopping wet lumber from rain being wall-boarded in, no foundation sealant, framing that just ended (not cantilevered) without structural support at the end, sheathed weight bearing walls not connected together in the center, sheathing ending at the same spot all around the perimeter the bottom pieced, partially enclosed deck designs with nowhere for the water to go baking big problems into the cake.
One of the more egregious examples happened to be next door to us 10 years ago. A developer bought 3 essentially unbuildable lots that were old stream bed and proceeded to fill them. When he started shoving dirt onto our lot we told him to remove it (it was our rain control area) and we kept a very keen eye out for shenanigans which happened a plenty over the course of construction like burying 30-40 large cut trees in a big hole the backyards and grading it over (creating a future sinkhole) and burying trunks of large standing trees with feet of soil killing them slowly.
The developer built to the maximum lot/building ratio allowed by zoning and the units had nowhere for water and snow to go. Like previously mentioned, the places (6 townhouses) were luxury turds. One ended up with several feet of standing water in a crawlspace and mold growth on the under framing, another burned substantially due to faulty wiring. Then came the revolving door of unhappy neighbors who maybe lasted 18 months in those places. We sold our home as it became unpleasant to be next door to all that. Those buildings were a blight on the old neighborhood and starting with us and ending with everyone else in the area that developer's name was MUD. But he was not an anomaly.
The Toll Brother's story is just one of many (large and small, another horrific example would be the CT crumbling concrete disaster, privatizing profits and socializing losses.) and until there is meaningful reform (and in case you ask I have no idea what that might look like other than possibly an insurance bond/policy for the partial life of the building on a sliding scale assuming regular maintenance and no structural modifications) it will continue on. Maybe due care would be taken if insurers dropped companies/builders that just slapped some expensive nonsense together and hoped for the best whistling all the way to the bank.
Older houses were often built by amateurs, who lacked knowledge in structural or civil engineering. The newer house might have shoddy cladding over the framing, but at least presumably the foundation is correctly poured. Imagine a house built in the early 20th century, where the basement walls are caving-in, because the builder did not understand about hydrostatic pressure. Soil absorbs water, water accumulates without prior drainage, and eventually that undermines the foundation. How does one go about fixing that?
And if the McMansion costs $400K, a $60K fix, even if costly, is a small fraction of market value. Now think about the same $60K fix in a house whose market value is only $90K, assuming that the house is in good condition. Now assume that the house is already fully paid off. What should the owners do? Should they repair it, sell as-is, or just donate the house to the County, taking the charity tax-deduction (while it still exists)?
Oh horse****. Older houses were most certainly not built by amateurs. There are plenty of old houses that are as solid as can be.
So your complaint is a house built in the early 20th century is not gonna withstand the test of time. Because you’re pulling statistics out of your..... butt?
The scenario you’re stating could happen to a house that was built last year if the waterproofing wasn’t done right. You do whatever is best for you in such extreme case of house issue. Most people would call insurance companies or rebuild. The land is worth something. You do what is the most sound financial move. I mean jeez man what if a meteor crashed and burned your house ?
My wife’s mom bought a house built in the early 40s. So 60 or so years of wear and time. Yet it still stands and it’s solid. So is the foundation. And the walls and the framing roof 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.
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.
