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 houses aren't inherently better. Many come with their own maintenance issues. The life span of new construction materials tend to be shorter than old construction.
And not all old properties are equal. Many were extremely well built. Others were decidedly not well built. Some old houses are money pits. Some old houses are inexpensive to maintain. Some new houses are money pits. Some new houses are inexpensive to maintain.
I have a 1930s house that is extremely solidly built. Plaster walls, masonry construction that would withstand a nuclear impact, hardwood floors everywhere, no warping of walls or floors, original windows that are still solid, original slate roof still in great shape. I have had to update the kitchen and replace some of the electricity and plumbing as well as replace the original 1930s furnace (which lasted 80 years!) and add central air. I could have bought a brand new house with all the bells and whistles, but I appreciate the solidness of the older property and the great location and established neighborhood feel.
But I have also seen plenty of older houses from the same era that were cramped, warped, and needed a full gut remodel. So making widespread statements about old versus new is always misleading. It's the house in question you need to study carefully, whether old or new.
I have friends that live in really expensive areas and they bought homes that's 100 years old. One spent 150K +, another spent 200K on renovations. They couldn't afford newer houses but just spent years living in them and updating things as time passes. A 100 year old house costs 800K.
The biggest thing is that after spending that much, there are still updating to do. They redid kitchens, bathrooms, flooring, siding, etc. But one friend only fished out the knob and tube wiring for new wires, but the house still doesn't have insulation, and only has plaster walls, but at least he changed all the windows.
My question is, to really do it right, such as updating a 100 year old house, by changing roof, shingles, take out Knob and tube wiring, new drywall with insulation, bathroom, kitchen, flooring, etc, wouldn't it be better off just buying a new or at least a house built after 1980 to not have asbestos and lead paint? At least it will last much longer and it won't have major issues in a few years. Where's the point where it's not worth it to buy old, there's a certain point where age will catch up and the foundation will be costly to fix, and a teardown is cheaper. I really feel that if someone spent that much Into renovations and after 10 years the house cost a ton to fix, if it's a teardown, then so much money is wasted on cosmetic stuff.
To the bold: This is the exact reason, IMO, to buy an old house. New houses do not last "much longer" and issues tend to arise much faster than you would imagine.
To the bold: This is the exact reason, IMO, to buy an old house. New houses do not last "much longer" and issues tend to arise much faster than you would imagine.
Right- and you absolutely know what you are getting when you buy an older home. How often do we read of lawsuits because there is some issue with a home in terms of water intrusion, structural integrity, extreme termite invasion, etc. My parents bought a new home when I was a baby that developed extreme termite issues almost immediately despite regular termite/pest control.
I think another thing is that the average home size has more than doubled in 100 years, but some people still want smaller homes. They are downsizing, single (or a couple), etc and do not want to have to pay for the upkeep of a large home. Day to day expenses for large homes are more- you have much higher taxes, utility bills, and when you do need to redo various aspects of the home, it is going to be that much more expensive. They just don’t build small new homes, particularly in desirable areas- all the tear downs are usually huge. If you want a modest home in a good location close to a city center, you’re going to be getting something old.
When I first moved to VT, I was the frontman and looking for a house w/out my husband. (he was still in LA working to retirement). I looked around and came upon a beautiful old yellow farmhouse somewhere and stopped to take a look. Other people were there looking, too. The price was 'totally cheap' compared to what I'd come from, but I guess the owner/seller took pity on the clearly stupid flatlander who had no idea what she might be getting into when she flat out said it would cost more than the price of the house to upgrade it the way that would be required.
I bailed out of there real quick!
I bought a 150-year-old house cheap because it needed stuff done to it, and I haven't done a thing to it; a few cosmetic touches to make it my own. I plan to sell it, hopefully within the year, as is (or "handyman special") without doing a thing to it in preparation. If the next buyers want to sink $800k into it, they can.
Just remember old homes are Money Pits. If you are OK with that.
I discovered that anything I planned on doing would expand 2 or 3 times the amount of time I originally thought because of discovering "might as wells".
Also, there are a lot of surprises: Now why in Hell is this purple wire here and what does it do? Why did they think cutting the floor joist was a good idea? Why was moving a bearing wall the solution to fitting in a china cabinet?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,460,349 times
Reputation: 6670
Obviously a lot depends on the 'location' and bang-for-the-buck in adding value with any 'renovations'. And also why an 'ancient' or even smaller home in a historic and upscale neighborhood, is often gonna be worth more than a newer, or even larger one in a 'less-swell' area.
My 1940 money pit is in a great location loaded with chararacter and interest, and I'm able to walk to historical fun places, museums and restaurants. After a lot of work, I'm starting to like the house after disliking it intensely when I bought it. (It was way cheap.)
When house shopping, I saw newer houses costing much more, with wall to wall carpet, builder grade cabinets and modular drop-in bathroom units instead of tile. I don't want to pay for that, and would rather tear out old, dated stuff.
People also don't consider that new houses are on track to becoming used, older houses. Decay starts immediately. At least an old house being fixed up is moving in the other direction.
All houses are money pits, to some extent. At least you as the owner have control of the repairs, and I truly believe house maintenance is ultimately cheaper than owning a high rise condo with its attendant special assessments.
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.
