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 am most concerned with the home owners insurance. We bought an 1984 small home. The insurance company said when it gets to 50 years old, the deductible will be about 3 times the cost. Of course if one has a lot of $, one may not care. But all we did is replace the a/c system and replace 2 double paned windows. This old house has about 3 in. of concrete before the drywall starts. The 2004 home we moved from had the drywall right down to the ground. So, it's better with that.
My insurance is less than $1000 a year for my small 98yo home. The deductible is not bad. I think it depends on the location. For example, my mom’s home is from around 2003, but once her roof was 15 years old, the insurance shot up. My mom wanted to shop around and was told she was lucky anyone would insure her at all.
Some of those 100 year old houses will still be standing 100 years from now. Not sure a house built in 1080 will be.
THIS -
Most people who buy older homes, do not do so because they "can't afford a new house". That is simply untrue. A 75-year-old house can be well maintained, with mechanicals all up to date, and the charm and history so many people desire.
A new house can be a piece of crap. A thirty-year-old house can be in shambles if it was rented out, went through a foreclosure or otherwise neglected.
A century home that has been maintained over the years usually does NOT require a $150-$200K overall.
The OP's friends are looking at handyman homes that are not typical.
In fact, 100-year-old homes that are well kept, and maintained in their ORIGINAL STYLE - not remuddled, will usually hold their value and are highly desirable in most markets.
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.
Yeah, our 96 y.o. house has had much less maintenance and repairs needed than almost all of our contemporaries with much newer houses over the years. All the major construction elements and components including original windows, doors, flooring plaster and other finishes are solid and beautiful. We replaced the functional (the visible, variegated barrel tiles on a quarter of the roof are original) low-slope built-up roof twice in 25 years, $3200 the first time and $6K the second just because we were putting on solar panels at the time (and rolled the roof replacement into the the total project cost 33% federal tax rebate) and put about $100K in remodeling kitchen, bathrooms, lower level suite and some systems which was a lot considering its $179K purchase price but not a lot to its $1.5M current value as a cottage on a compact lot. Our neighborhood’s value is related not only to its convenient proximity to downtown and the beach but also to a great extent its intact historic housing blocks.
Just by living in a beautiful, well constructed and designed historic house I am completely a house snob even though our house when we purchased it was exactly the average price for a home here that year. Not that I would never live in a new or more contemporary house, rather I would likely never buy or live in a tract/major builder’s house constructed in the last 40-50 years but would absolutely consider a custom newer house depending on its overall design and construction.
Basically an old house has already predicted its future by its very presence still being here and mostly easily discernible level of design and construction that, if deficient, has readily now shown itself to be so, and conversely if it is still beautiful, solid and livable it will likely continue to be so for decades.
In our area, some of the appeal of older housing is that they may have features that are no longer allowed in new construction. If we could build a rooftop deck, it would have incredible, panoramic ocean views. Our neighbors’ decks were grandfathered in, but we can’t add one.
Even little things… if you wanted something like a wood-burning fireplace, you would have to buy an older house, since WBFs are no longer allowed in new construction.
Okay, I can see the reasoning behind banning those fireplaces but I cannot understand why a rooftop deck is a problem. I can't see a safety problem or it creating a hardship for a neighbor. What is the reasoning behind that?
Okay, I can see the reasoning behind banning those fireplaces but I cannot understand why a rooftop deck is a problem. I can't see a safety problem or it creating a hardship for a neighbor. What is the reasoning behind that?
Some municipalities or HOAs prohibit decks (and windows, depending on design and height) to overlook directly over their neighbors if closer than a certain distance to the property line would be my guess. That and constructing a rooftop deck on an existing or new structure to code with maximum height regulations for a structure, egress, guardrail design as well as dead/live load and shear engineering requirements would be difficult at best in most circumstances. I’d be willing to bet most of the existing examples are considered non-conforming and are woefully inadequate even if charming.
Most people who buy older homes, do not do so because they "can't afford a new house". That is simply untrue. A 75-year-old house can be well maintained, with mechanicals all up to date, and the charm and history so many people desire.
A new house can be a piece of crap. A thirty-year-old house can be in shambles if it was rented out, went through a foreclosure or otherwise neglected.
A century home that has been maintained over the years usually does NOT require a $150-$200K overall.
The OP's friends are looking at handyman homes that are not typical.
In fact, 100-year-old homes that are well kept, and maintained in their ORIGINAL STYLE - not remuddled, will usually hold their value and are highly desirable in most markets.
Well my friends and family had to buy old homes, the newer ones are in the million dollar range, or it's new townhomes for 800K here. It's the only choice to buy a sfh that's 4 br, 1800 sf and in a safe area. It's a big price to pay to live in a expensive city.
I don't know, when I see 90+ year old homes, even if it's maintained in its original style, I would really want to rip out the kitchen, bathrooms and go all out on high end stuff. I can live with kitchens built in the 70's and younger, but anything older I just don't like the material. The houses that lasted 100 years, I'm sure it won't last another 100 unless serious money is dumped into it. Everything has a time limit. When I'm in their homes, I like how they modernized their places, it I just think of how long the house will last.
I once talked to a real estate agent and he listed a house, it was for 600K, built in 1880s, so 140 years old. It's worth 1.3 if fixed, but the house has massive foundation problems, wood rot, on top of other things, and just by estimates from contractors, it needs 600K+ to fix all the issues, and it's borderline teardown. The bad thing was it had nice kitchen and bathrooms, newer hardwood floors. all of that is going to waste if its torn down. It will take at least a year or permits and fixing to get it back to life.
Well my friends and family had to buy old homes, the newer ones are in the million dollar range, or it's new townhomes for 800K here. It's the only choice to buy a sfh that's 4 br, 1800 sf and in a safe area. It's a big price to pay to live in a expensive city.
I don't know, when I see 90+ year old homes, even if it's maintained in its original style, I would really want to rip out the kitchen, bathrooms and go all out on high end stuff. I can live with kitchens built in the 70's and younger, but anything older I just don't like the material. The houses that lasted 100 years, I'm sure it won't last another 100 unless serious money is dumped into it. Everything has a time limit. When I'm in their homes, I like how they modernized their places, it I just think of how long the house will last.
I once talked to a real estate agent and he listed a house, it was for 600K, built in 1880s, so 140 years old. It's worth 1.3 if fixed, but the house has massive foundation problems, wood rot, on top of other things, and just by estimates from contractors, it needs 600K+ to fix all the issues, and it's borderline teardown. The bad thing was it had nice kitchen and bathrooms, newer hardwood floors. all of that is going to waste if its torn down. It will take at least a year or permits and fixing to get it back to life.
Have you been to Europe? Much of their housing stock is over 100 years old and they aren’t ripping buildings out en masse to replace them with new construction. Furthermore, it’s not like a home built in 1990 isn’t going to need updates, or that there aren’t homes that age that don’t have the exact same problems as the 140yo home.
100 years old? That would be a 1920's house. That's younger than the first house I bought, which was built in 1915, but had had new wiring put in by the previous owners, and an updated kitchen.The 1920's were the era of Craftsman houses, with beautiful woodwork and built-in furniture/storage, and high ceilings, and lots of natural light, usually. The 1980's------ meh. And most don't need work on the foundation. The 1930's were a very good decade, too, and those houses usually don't need electrical updating or kitchen updating, depending.
OP, I think you need to study architectural eras. You're missing a lot of relevant info. Or maybe it's the area you live in, and the regional style. I guess we can't generalize nation-wide. The 20's & 30's are my favorite eras. And if the previous owner replaced the roof (they need replacing every 15 years, roughly), the new owners wouldn't have to, not for a good while. Most people wouldn't buy a house that needed a new roof right away; that's not considered a good buy, so I can't begin to guess why your friends would do that.
And FYI, some people prefer plaster to sheet rock, and larger windows to small, cell-like apertures in the bedrooms that became common in later eras. With newer homes, I find that a lot needs to be added in, to transform a sterile, boxy look into something that feels homey: wood trim around the doorways and windows, vintage lighting, and other touches that give a home character. The 90-100-year-old homes already have all of that.
My favorite eras are the 18th and 19th centuries, but alas, homes of that time period in the northeast are WAY beyond our price range (especially if they're fully updated with wiring and plumbing). Hubby and I currently live in an amazing stone and stucco house built in 1929.
I ADORE our plaster walls! Not perfectly straight, show all the history, just amazing. We had to partially open up our living room ceiling a few years ago because of a leak in the upstairs bathroom; rather than patch the area with drywall, which would stick out like a sore thumb, we had a plaster guy patch it. Surprisingly affordable and it still looks like the rest of the ceiling and walls.
My husband is an architect, and we both prefer older homes. We are retirement age now, and two years ago moved and purchased an early 50s home; not old to some of you but definitely old for Florida (nearly 70 y.o.)The house is in my preferred neighborhood, on a beautiful high corner lot, and well-built of quality materials. It was, however, in need of complete updating of systems due to its age. We have put about $100,000 into it, but worth every dime. We did get it at a fair price for its condition, and is not being overimproved for the neighborhood. We love it so much, it is up on a high raised foundation with no settling at all, floor level and windows all in square. Floors are red oak which we had refinished, and we kept the beautiful colored fixtures in bathrooms while updating the plumbing. We did have the entire kitchen gutted and replaced with everything new.
I am sure if one pays enough you can get a well crafted newer home, but honestly here in Florida most are "builder specials" knocked out quick and on the cheap - going up they almost look like cardboard! And of course "cookie cutter."
Well my friends and family had to buy old homes, the newer ones are in the million dollar range, or it's new townhomes for 800K here. It's the only choice to buy a sfh that's 4 br, 1800 sf and in a safe area. It's a big price to pay to live in a expensive city.
I don't know, when I see 90+ year old homes, even if it's maintained in its original style, I would really want to rip out the kitchen, bathrooms and go all out on high end stuff. I can live with kitchens built in the 70's and younger, but anything older I just don't like the material. The houses that lasted 100 years, I'm sure it won't last another 100 unless serious money is dumped into it. Everything has a time limit. When I'm in their homes, I like how they modernized their places, it I just think of how long the house will last.
I once talked to a real estate agent and he listed a house, it was for 600K, built in 1880s, so 140 years old. It's worth 1.3 if fixed, but the house has massive foundation problems, wood rot, on top of other things, and just by estimates from contractors, it needs 600K+ to fix all the issues, and it's borderline teardown. The bad thing was it had nice kitchen and bathrooms, newer hardwood floors. all of that is going to waste if its torn down. It will take at least a year or permits and fixing to get it back to life.
Don't buy a house with foundation problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterhere
Excellent point; some are probably counting "upgrades" and "updates" that shouldn't even be considered on an older house as part of the essential rehabbing they say must be done. You can save a lot of money by just learning to love its original charm... If you don't, you really shouldn't be buying an old house.
I agree. THere are certain things that must be addressed on century old homes if they're there. Things like wood rot, pipes that are deteriorated, etc.
Things like a bathroom that's functional but different than a modern one, live with the charm. I've lived with bathrooms that had minimal storage, easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezar
I am most concerned with the home owners insurance. We bought an 1984 small home. The insurance company said when it gets to 50 years old, the deductible will be about 3 times the cost. Of course if one has a lot of $, one may not care. But all we did is replace the a/c system and replace 2 double paned windows. This old house has about 3 in. of concrete before the drywall starts. The 2004 home we moved from had the drywall right down to the ground. So, it's better with that.
I think I'd shop insurers...Especially since a 1984 home isn't that different than a 2020 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.
And of course "cookie cutter."
