New Houses Verses Old Houses

[miche]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

Generally I think older houses give value for money which the new houses dont. There is also alot more space with an older house.

What are other peoples thoughts? Im in no rush to buy at the moment btw.

Edited October 17, 2005 by miche

[right_freds_dead]

for me space is everything. new builds tend to be more boxy with small gardens.

i prefer established areas. privet hedges and rambling gardens.

grnated there might be some damp and lack of outside tap, but space is always refreshing.

[The Masked Tulip]

There was a very long thread on here about 12 months ago which went into a lot of pros and cons.

The bottom lines appeared to be that if you can find a local builder who builds quality new homes then new homes are worthwhile. However, a lot of the new homes build by national builders are apparently not so good.

The discussion seemed to decide on finding a good old house and buying it at a price that you can afford to modernise it. However, even some older houses were considered rubbish as, at various times, they were once new and some decades were good, others bad for house building.

[frugalista]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

Generally I think older houses give value for money which the new houses dont. There is also alot more space with an older house.

What are other peoples thoughts? Im in no rush to buy at the moment btw.

New houses and old houses both vary a lot. There is poor quality in both new and old housing (although very poor quality, very old housing has probably already been demolished). There are good quality new and old houses. There are a lot of builders out there, some build quality houses, some use cheap shoddy materials. 'Twas ever so. Some houses are old enough that the good new materials / techniques had not been invented or were not used at the time the old house was built. You just have to evaluate each house on its own merits.

Sometimes old houses have more space, but sometimes new houses use the same space better. For example Victorian family houses which have been converted into flats often result in flats with a rather inefficient layout. Often old houses predate electrical wiring and central heating and the subsequent installation of these facilities may not be as good as a new house installation.

Obviously some people believe that old houses have more character, and therefore they can demand a higher price tag, this is a separate question unrelated to what you asked.

frugalista

[Bedsprings]

Funnily enough I was pondering this today. We used to live in a pretty 1930s house - tile hung, very solid, oak front door etc, and the proper leaded light windows. We'd been there for 17 years, and had got it pretty much as we wanted it. We STR and are now living in a pretty well-built 3 year-old house, which is unusual in that it has a few large rooms. It is fantastically well-insulated - as we've only just moved in, I don't know how cool it will be in the summer - the old house was bliss on a hot summer's day, yet warm with the heating on. It probably cost far more to run. My feeling is that we will rarely put on the heating at the new place and will probably never use the wood-burning stove. You are right about the walls - we don't seem to have any load-bearing walls at all, though sound insulation seems good. I would possibly be happy to stay here if it were for sale if only it had a little more room, and a bigger garden - the reasons we sold our old house. Our rented house is special I think - it's much nicer than any other new build I've seen as they generally seem to skimp on space and cram in the numbers of rooms. It's also got some character.

Howvere I think that for long term bet, I'd reflect that in 20 years time the newbie will be looking rather old-fashioned, so is likely to be worth less than an old house which costs the same or even less. If you think how tired-looking 20 or 30 year old houses look - sometimes even 10 year old ones, because they are out of fashion*, I think a better long term bet is a well-designed older place. We're happy to sit in our nice warm rented house and wait for the right older place to come along. Shame wecan't hang any pictures

* I believe that the Victorians didn't like Georgian houses as they were too plain, and fashions move so much more quickly these days.

[Mushroom]

After 2 nearly new and 1 old that we gutted and rebuilt my view is build your own new.

[surveyor]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

Generally I think older houses give value for money which the new houses dont. There is also alot more space with an older house.

What are other peoples thoughts? Im in no rush to buy at the moment btw.

You are completely right. New houses are appallingly shoddy, if warmer. I would never buy anything post early 1970's. NHBC is a joke. Stick to your guns.

[Brian Potter]

I work in construction. I always said I would never buy a new house - until I did three years ago. I have regretted it ever since. Build quality is laughable, customer after sales service non existant and they arn't VFM.

I bought one because I thought it would be less hassel but it isnt.

[Mushroom]

You are completely right. New houses are appallingly shoddy, if warmer. I would never buy anything post early 1970's. NHBC is a joke. Stick to your guns.

I've seen some rubbish 60s stuff.

Good local family builder into the 70s maybe.

[200p]

A friend of mine who works for a new builds in accounts, and he tells me the walls of luxury flats are made from some sort of cardboard/insulating foam which he could poke a hole through with a screw driver if he tried hard enough.

[The Masked Tulip]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=17256

I've mentioned in the past a small 'executive' estate built not far away from my home, in the Killay part of Swansea West, over the past couple of years.

I've mentioned how many of them still remain empty, if not the majority, and how many of them are up for sale or to let. Many of them look as if no one has ever lived in them and one or two, last time I looked, still had plastic sheeting on the garage doors. Some of them are built just a foot or two away from the pavement with either little or no garden between the house and the pavement. IMPO they look as if they have crammed as many onto the land as is possible. Personally, for the money I have seen them advertised at I would expect a lot more.

These sell from about 230K to 450K but, tonight, I was told about a couple who had bought one last year for just under 500K. It turns out, so I am told, that a few months after moving in the bathroom, on the ground floor, began to have the tiles fall off the wall and some came up from the floor. Shortly afterwards the pipes in the kitchen, on the floor above the bathroom, gave way and the house got flooded complete with ceilings coming down.

I understand, so I am told, the owners are now concerned about how strong the house is actually built and whether it can support having the kitchen, as it was built, on the second floor. Also, I understand that the house is built in some bizarre 'open plan' style which, again so I am told, the owners were originally convinced was a good idea but now, after months of living in it, they are tyring to figure how to hang doors on the 'arches' that lead into each room from the main room on each floor.

It makes you wonder.

As these houses are built opposite a fairly steep hill, at the bottom of which I have often seen the road flooded in heavy rain, I am waiting for the first heavy rain of winter which, um, actually is probably today. I think I will take a drive up there later on and see what is what!

[winkie]

I would always if possible live in an older property, say early 1900's.

-Rooms and gardens tend to be larger.

-Better quality materials.

-Internal walls built of brick not plasterboard.

-Joists twice as thick, and spaced closer together, therefore ceilings don't creak when someone walking upstairs.

-If it has lasted 100 years and has been well maintained you can't go far wrong.

[200p]

A home built some time ago was for people to live in. Homes built today are for max profit in the quickest time. Hence the poor quality.

Additionally, It is probably designed only meant to last a certain time just until the warranty expires. This means you have to get the people in again to repair it - sort of "customer loyality" scheme hehe. Older houses werent designed with this mentality, hence they can stand 100 years without any problems.

Note - Avoid flat roofs! - they only are designed to last 20 years!

[look to the past]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

Generally I think older houses give value for money which the new houses dont. There is also alot more space with an older house.

What are other peoples thoughts? Im in no rush to buy at the moment btw.

Don’t buy a new one – they use (or some builders) plywood joists instead of real wood – the strength is better but after that 10 year guarantee I think you will be through the floor – I have also seen them use ply wood to make the chimney above the roof – cheap cheap cheap.

But don’t get a house older that 1930 ( very ish) as they don’t have cavity walls – unless you can afford the extra heating.

[Mushroom]

A home built some time ago was for people to live in. Homes built today are for max profit in the quickest time. Hence the poor quality.

Additionally, It is probably designed only meant to last a certain time just until the warranty expires. This means you have to get the people in again to repair it - sort of "customer loyality" scheme hehe. Older houses werent designed with this mentality, hence they can stand 100 years without any problems.

Note - Avoid flat roofs! - they only are designed to last 20 years!

Lots of absolute rubbish 100 year old terrace properties in this country.

Jerry builders not just a modern thing.

[IPOD]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

http://www.cabe.org.uk/news/press/showPRelease.asp?id=669

Most new homes are ‘mediocre’ claims audit from CABE

11 October 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1324193,00.html

http://www.themovechannel.com/sitefeatures...ts/105-14-1.asp

Vanessa Ambler, director of Inspector Home was not surprised by the results: "Inspector Home has been working hard with a few developers to improve quality standards and we are starting to see some fantastic results coming through" says Vanessa. "However we are also aware of a number of developers whose standards are slipping dramatically – not just in quality but also customer care. I dare anyone who says that the quality of new homes is improving to come & work in our Head Office for a day and speak to our customers – that would open up their eyes."

Edited October 17, 2005 by IPOD

[200p]

The worst material is CHIPBOARD. Bits of wood squished together - the worst excuse for a building material.

The worst material ever ---- give it some moisture and it melts, splits, cracks, AWFUL.....

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

Generally I think older houses give value for money which the new houses dont. There is also alot more space with an older house.

What are other peoples thoughts? Im in no rush to buy at the moment btw.

Old of course. I want big rooms and high cealings... but thats because I am a giant.

My Aunt bought a new build last year off plan. This year they moved in (after an additional delay of 3 months) only to discover, to date, over 12 faults... serious ones too. They are going to have to take legal action.

[Too expensive to trade up]

http://www.themovechannel.com/sitefeatures...ts/105-14-1.asp

Vanessa Ambler, director of Inspector Home was not surprised by the results: "Inspector Home has been working hard with a few developers to improve quality standards and we are starting to see some fantastic results coming through" says Vanessa. ...

I actually used this company when I found the faults in my flat were not being fixed. They were superb and kicked the building company's ar*e.

Personally I wouldn't touch new build again. Faulty boilers, inadequate insulation (sound and heat) and no legal redress if it all goes wrong. In fact you have more legal rights if you buy a toaster from Argos.

I'd go for a old house that's being loveingly updated by the owner (and not a Sara Beeny wannabee)

Edited October 17, 2005 by Too expensive to trade up

[The Masked Tulip]

(and not a Sara Beeny wannabee)

Aren't they all at the moment though - women I mean?

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

I've seen some rubbish 60s stuff.

Good local family builder into the 70s maybe.

Yes among LA housing IMO, I would say rubbish became the norm from 1980 onwards.

I bought an old railway cottage in 98, built in 1862 comprising of double masonary cavity walls, lathe and plaster ceilings still in good condition with no signs of repair, original roof tiles with hanging apex tiles.

A civil engineer I commissioned to do a report was amazed and impressed with the build quality.

Bought for 45k, spent 15k on upgrading the sewage treatment plant, new SS cavity ties, damp course, re-plastering, and electrical upgrade. Sold in 2002 for 60k to a very excited very pretty young lady a FTB.

Originally purchased by my vendor in 1987 for 6k as a sitting tenant.

[dubsie]

I am trying to convince my husband not to buy a newish house under any circumstances. I am having a problem convincing him however.

I say Im not paying thousands of pounds for paper walls you can bang on and get that hollow tone. He says they keep the heat in better.

Generally I think older houses give value for money which the new houses dont. There is also alot more space with an older house.

What are other peoples thoughts? Im in no rush to buy at the moment btw.

It really depends the buidling company, but in general new builds tend to be on life less estates and lack the character of the older home.

Personally I prefer the older victorian houses because the tall ceilings and old fire places. Buy a house that you love and not to make money.

[frugalista]

It really depends the buidling company, but in general new builds tend to be on life less estates and lack the character of the older home.

Personally I prefer the older victorian houses because the tall ceilings and old fire places. Buy a house that you love and not to make money.

Yes, many people would love to live in a Victorian house, but with the current mark-up for "period" properties, I think it is prudent to think twice. I think it is common for the "period" tag to add £50-100k to the price of a house in the SE compared to a similar size and quality newer (say post-1945) property.

I'm not criticizing anyone for spending their money on this but let's be clear that they are paying extra for the character of the house and not the quality.

frugalista

[Smell the Fear]

Yes, many people would love to live in a Victorian house, but with the current mark-up for "period" properties, I think it is prudent to think twice. I think it is common for the "period" tag to add £50-100k to the price of a house in the SE compared to a similar size and quality newer (say post-1945) property.

I'm not criticizing anyone for spending their money on this but let's be clear that they are paying extra for the character of the house and not the quality.

frugalista

You get to enjoy the character and show it off to your friends and neighbours, and when you come to sell you will get your premuim back most likely (at least in the sense that it will be worth more than a more recent property, even if you are in negative equity....).

Enough! It's like Channel 4 homes on here today!

[frugalista]

You get to enjoy the character and show it off to your friends and neighbours, and when you come to sell you will get your premuim back most likely (at least in the sense that it will be worth more than a more recent property, even if you are in negative equity....).

Enough! It's like Channel 4 homes on here today!

Okay but can't you think of anything better to do with 100k than spend it on high ceilings, original servants bells and defunct fireplaces?

Gradually, everything becomes period. In the SE there was a rash of building in the 1930s esp. Mock Tudor which was sneered at a bit in the 60s and 70s, but now it is on the cusp of having graduated to being "period".

What might be an idea is to buy something that isn't "period" now but will be period by the time you sell it in 2020 or whatever. Perhaps something from the 1950s? Trouble is I don't think many houses were built around that time, I suspect it was mainly flats.

frugalista