patrick.net

Some interesting points, and I appreciate you guys sharing them for all of us.

Looks like many of you guys don't really mind the age of the house. Things that matter more than the age are location, building quality and material used, maintenance etc... and pink toilet. (It does matter to me though I probabaly won't see the color while I am on it) I found ptiemann's church comment is very intersting, and TOT's carpet comment is kinda hillarious.

zzyzzx says

I prefer the hardwood and bricks in older houses over the particleboard and plastic in new houses.

I concur. I would rather have a old house that solidly built but need some updating then to some of this crap built today. I occasionally do electrical work for friends and I am very surprised that what builders can get away with today in building houses. I've seen the attics of town houses and condos where the framing is entirely 2x4's with 20 inches of more between the studs. You can't tell me that's half as strong as 2x8's with 16 inch centers I see in older homes. They cross brace the hell out of it, but I still say it's not as strong. Also the exterior walls are pressed wood, they even used it on roofs and it lead to all kinds of problems, but it's illegal to do now. (If the roof leaks the pressed wood falls apart when it gets wet and basically your roof collapses under the weight of the shingles.) New is not always better.

FortWayne says

roof doesn't need replacement

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Plenty of new houses were built with "engineered wood" (just a step up from particleboard) for roofing boards instead of real plywood. They fall apart when they get wet, just like particleboard.

RayAmerica says

Although dry wall was available back then, the walls and ceilings are plaster (a dying art).

LOL. We I gutted the bathroom in my old house, I picked up a good 5 inches in square footage from 2 walls, replacing the tiled plastered walls with Sheetrock. It was a good 3 inches thick. It was a hell of a mess to rip out too. :)

My house was built in 1955. It (was) is your typical 3/2 ranch house in so cal. One of the previous owners took out a bedroom and opened it up so now it is really an open floor plan 2/2. The quality of the construction work and materials on these older homes is much better than the newer crap we looked at before buying this one. Anything post late-70's was really shoddy.

I hate my pink bathroom, but it is functional and the re-do of it is pretty low on my list of things I want to do. My other bathroom is green with the cast iron green porcline tub. That thing will outlive me.

The kitchen cabenites in my kitchen are solid, unlike my friends 1990s built house in Vegas. The house also has real nice read and white oak hardwood throughout.

Do I like old houses? Sure. Problem is that so do most yuppies and other folks in the Bay Area and thus anything remotely old and cool is a crapload of money.

Yes, I live in south Florida and the old houses are all built like crap and are not up to hurricane standards. Any house built before hurricane Andrew is a tear-me-down.

Of course, this does not necessarily apply to other places. If I lived in CA, I'd be more concerned with earthquake standards.

stillrentinginLA says

I HATE MY PINK BATHROOM!

Advice: paint is a lot cheaper than moving.

Look, as my pal from The Canary Islands puts it, USA is made with wood, gets burned and moldy and wears out. Look at Europes older structures, masonry. They last for centuries upon centuries, there is no comparison between wood and masonry. I have restored a craftsman over 5 years and sold 5 years after. Old is painful, new is peaceful.

Be prepared for much higher renovation and repair costs if your pre-1978 house is found to have lead in it. The new EPA laws for contractors make it necessary for them to bump up their prices significantly.

What I like about my old house 1940s rancher is that nothing is actually level or square , so when I redid the whole house if something wasnt perfect it realy didnt matter .

The extra costs involve not only the lead testing, but also EPA fees, certification fees, employee training, EPA required supplies and equipment, and the extra labor costs for paperwork/recordkeeping and setting up, breaking down, and cleaning of the containment/construction area in accordance with EPA rules.

The best thing to do with lead paint? Paint over it. Don't sand. That is what i heard when renovating my old house 1923.

By the way, property owners who perform renovation, repair, and painting projects for their pre-1978 rentals must also be EPA certified.

I grew up in a house made in the 40's. The walls could take a beating and generally I don't remember anything that actually failed or broke. Yes it flooded sometimes but that is what sump pumps are for. Now I'm in one made in '93 and it isn't so much the materials but the workmanship. Lightswitches with no wiring, electrical wire for lights with no shielding, switches with unknown functions (even today) etc These were all gradually discovered and fixed.

My great grandparents built their house around 1905 and put an addition on twenty years later. Nothing really broke in that place although the walls are extremely thick.

Yes homes back then did have lead paint and asbestos but if they are contained exposure can be lessened. Today there is actually an increase in radon because homes were not as air tight as they are today.

Again I don't think it is that much in the way of materials but labor. Yes, inspections should help but with a boom some might turn a blind eye.

chirpy says

By the way, property owners who perform renovation, repair, and painting projects for their pre-1978 rentals must also be EPA certified.

Only if there is lead paint present and is going to be disturbed. The testing isn't that expensive and is a very good idea even for non landlord homeowners who aren't subject the the epa requirements. Lead paint isn't as common as many people think. Something like 50% of houses up to 1960 had some lead paint, a lot less after that as the quality of much cheaper non lead paint became better. Lead based paint was expensive premium paint mostly used for exterior work.

This certification requirement isn't a big deal. It involves a one day training course. I think it's an excellent idea. Many people really don't know much, if anything, about lead paint. Handling it isn't difficult at all if you know what you are doing. I always just assumed old paint was lead based and followed the epa guidelines, which aren't that complicated, before it became a requirement. I don't want to ingest lead.

Zlxr says

Most of our top grade lumber goes to Japan. At least from people I know who worked for LP up in Alaska.
That would explain why you have to go through a whole pile of wood at Home Depot just to find 10 good pieces.

You mean the lumber I can buy at places like Home Depot of Lowes is domestically produced????

bob2356 says

chirpy says

By the way, property owners who perform renovation, repair, and painting projects for their pre-1978 rentals must also be EPA certified.

Only if there is lead paint present and is going to be disturbed.

Yes, I should have clarified that as I did in my earlier post. I just thought I'd bring this up for purchasers of older homes who might not be aware of the new laws. More details here:

http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf

KILLERJANE says

Look, as my pal from The Canary Islands puts it, USA is made with wood, gets burned and moldy and wears out. Look at Europes older structures, masonry. They last for centuries upon centuries, there is no comparison between wood and masonry.

In earthquake country? Maybe on the east coast, masonry is fine, but here you need to reinforce it significantly or only use masonry as a facade (as opposed to structural). But even masonry can do badly if you don't maintain it or if you build it improperly.

As for wood, depends on what kind of wood, how it was built, and how it has been maintained. You could probably find 100+ year old redwood houses in SF, for example, where you could reuse the redwood when you remodel those houses, and the redwood might be good for quite a long time. Other materials, especially when poorly maintained, who knows?

I am currently living in the Oakland Hills (area that was taken out by the '91 firestorm) where my property and most properties within a 2 mile radius of me have been built since then. As a result, most homes in the area are relatively new. However, I would enjoy being down the hill a bit into Rockridge where there is more life, restaurants, bars, walking distance to BART, etc... One big deterrent for me has been the age of homes in that region. Most are 50-70yrs old. Although any home can be remodeled if the owner is willing to invest into it, age can certainly be a turn-off for many people.

It's difficult to think that a buyer would ever say, "nope, this home is just too new for me," but the opposite can be very true and should be considered when purchasing a home.

In the case of Rockridge, nearly the entire area has real estate that's accumulated some age, so people have no choice and it remains desirable regardless.

BayArea says

It's difficult to think that a buyer would ever say, "nope, this home is just too new for me," but the opposite can be very true and should be considered when purchasing a home.

I think that all the time. I live in a "cheap" 1950s tract home, 1022sf, 3/1, built for the post-war refinery workers. This thing is a little tank, solid construction, perfectly situated, rarely spend more than $50 a month on energy bills.

Everything we look at newer than the 1960s was crap, unless it's a really expensive custom home.