patrick.net

Currently, I live in a victorian that was built in 1913. The victorian next to my building (part of the same property) was built in 1907 after the big earthquake. Both victorians have bricks on the facade that are rubble from San Francisco from the 1906 earthquake. Also they are redwood construction and both have been seismically retrofitted. The owners are constantly making improvements and renovating. Both buildings are in excellent condition, and always seem to require some $$$ to maintain.

Back in Chicago I lived in a building that was built in 1927 in the Art Deco Style with a lobby that was restored to the gaudy faux Egyptian ornamentation popular at the time. That building had been owned by Al Capone. Later it was owned by the Hiltons and Elizabeth Taylor stayed in the penthouse for a while when she was married to Conrad Hilton. When I lived there, it was before they did their recent renovations restoring the outside brick and some of the original hard wood. Now they are called "luxury apartments." They weren't luxury then, trust me. But they had their charm.

My favorite apartments have been in these two buildings. I like living in a place with some real history. Also, old construction (if it's been maintained and restored periodically) is often better quality than new construction. Quite honestly, they don't make things like they used to. Back in the day they built things to last. Both of these buildings are good examples of that mindset. Also I like the style and feel of old construction.

If I were buying, I'd only by old construction if I knew I could afford to maintain and renovate if necessary. Most places that are "old construction" require quite a bit of money for maintenance, especially if the previous owner was lax on the maintenance. If previous owners were kind to the buildings then obviously I'd feel more comfortable with buying.

When I lived in Davenport, IA I was looking to buy a house that had been built at the turn of the 19th to 20th Century. It was in excellent condition as attested to by my inspector. It was in a very good neighborhood. There were a couple of things that needed a little bit of work like wiring in the attic that was from the 1930's (wires insulated with black cloth and held up by ceramic pegs). Oh, and the brick chimney needed tuck pointing. But all in all, it was a great place with all of it's original wood. The livingroom had original wood floors and amazing original wood moulding. The original wood moulding was well maintained in on the second floor too. It was on a nice sized lot with a large front and back yard. It had a two and a half car garage (that needed some minor termite damage repair). It had 3 bedrooms, two full baths, and a full unfinished basement with a weird "work shower." I think the idea was that the shower in the basement (which had no curtain around it and simply drained in the middle of the concrete floor) was used when you came home from work full of mud and grit. The entrance from the basement was adjacent to the back door for this purpose. It was 2002 and I was going to buy it at $119,000. Well, there were lay offs where I was working and there were no other jobs for someone who wanted to earn above minimum wage anywhere close to Davenport. So, I ended up moving here to go back to school. If that hadn't happened I would have followed through with the purchase. I lost my earnest money... Damn, damn, damn... But it was a great deal and I was making a good buck at what I was doing there even if it didn't last.

So, yes, I would not hesitate to buy a house that has been lovingly maintained and well inspected that was "old construction" if I could afford the maintenance.

Good post. I hope to hear more comments. I don't mind if I can get a substantial discount from a new one (especially in Japan)...Many are torn down every 25-30 years in Nippon.

In England, houses are built to last.

SF ace, that's right. I too wouldn't buy old house located in cheap land. Not exactly investment reason, but for neighborhood issue. Beautiful drug pit still is a drug pit. I want a home in location nice/safe enough, so that I can save tons of money for ammos or potatoes.

But, simcha. Unique houses are not easy to come by, and they sold fast. Old houses I am talking about are nothing special, may or may not properly maintained. The community is pretty much a bed town. I'd say it's sort of area where mid to upper mid class with kids love to live due to great school system and easy access to major highway.

A house is a box. Keep the water out and age doesn't matter until you get old enough to have obsolete plumbing and wiring. Even that stuff doesn't matter as long as it's in good shape. I would prefer an older house in many ways as long as it's reasonably well designed. I don't believe chipboard is a material that is going to stand the test of time and many of the newer houses have design features like no eaves that I think will be very troublesome over the long term.

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

There is a huge difference from old houses to new houses. New houses don't have plumbing problems, things aren't rotting away, roof doesn't need replacement, they don't need a ton of money investment to be made up to code. Wood isn't all weather damaged requiring some updates and changes.

It's something our family learned the hard way with our first house. We hated the repairs and maintenance that place required.

I personally like older homes as long as they are structurally sound and built with quality materials (bought my first way back when I was 21). The home we are currently in was custom built in 1963 on a terrific lot using quality materials throughout. We literally gutted both baths to the wall studs along with the kitchen, refinished all the wood floors, etc. Although dry wall was available back then, the walls and ceilings are plaster (a dying art). There is something about the charm of an older home that can't be duplicated. Another advantage, IMO, is that the desirable lots, for the most part, have already been built upon, so you often times get better lots and locations with older homes. One caveat; when redoing an older home it can be costly. If you're handy and like doing this type of work you can save a lot of money and you'll also know the work was done right, provided of course you know what you're doing. As far as resale, provided the work was done properly, it's been my experience that older homes are not difficult to sell per se due to the fact that there always seems to be a number of people that appreciate what older homes have to offer.

American in Japan says

Wouldn’t this be better in the Housing Market Forum forum?

Good point. Moved.

Ray, well said. That's what I'd like to know too.

With new homes, we got open floor plan, new everything, typically smaller lot. But the thing is... "Made in USA, by immigrant, with chinese material" is what you may end up with... if you're not lucky. We can't expect the same level of workmanship from greedy commercial builders. Sad it is.

Yes, plumbing, electronic wiring, etc is kind of stuff to look for w/ old homes. Not all old homes are charming either. Some are just plain old POS. Maintenance can be costly if it's not been taken good care of by previous owners. It is very important to look out for those stuff before you bid on it.

The sort of charm that old house can get me is something I can appreciate. I want real hardwood floor(not that laminate or engineered crap), good bone and joint, and the feel of kind touch by the owners. No thanks to oil tank, pink/blue toilet, green carpet, wood parquet, and aluminum wiring. So, not seeing those in a old house is the bottom line kind of upgrade I am expecting. Back in 2008, a house I went to openhouse was nothing special about it. Can't say it's charming or greatly updated at all. Something special about the house was it's owner. He proudly showed me a folder that had last 30 years of maintanance records. He kept track of what flower he planted in his garden too. It was impressive stuff, and the house sold soon.

You have to define "old". Victorian era often were built of much, much better materials. 50's-60's suburban tract houses (sounds like the original poster's definition of "old") tended to be much lower construction quality (not always). I'll never forget my parents looking at summer houses in Massachusetts. They ended up buying one built in 1790, it was like a tank, and very nice design too. They looked at a couple "newer" houses from the 20th century and they had a lot more structural issues, dry rot, etc.

I owned a house built around the late 1800's in Alabama. It had additions from probably the 40's and 50's. The additions were essentially tear down, the original house will be there probably when I am long gone. Mechanicals are important - this house needed upgrades from the galvanized plumbing and old thick copper wiring (I did and enjoyed that work, actually).

As a kid my family lived in a few different houses in an area of Michigan. They were built new by a custom builder in 1970's with very high quality materials. I remember the front door on the best one was kind of a standard double-door but with a 3-inch layer of barn wood on top. The entry way had thick wood flooring and the breakfast area had stone tiles floors (etc. etc.). That house is kind of "old" now but beats the hell out of most of the newer houses I see.

In short, it isn't the age, it is the construction quality and the maintenance. As to the old fixtures, some are pretty cool and I would think even that pink and green stuff if well maintained might appeal to some people. But, even more (I would guess) prefer modern, efficient, fixtures.

Of course, I am not talking about glorious timeless beauty from the past. Why should I worry about reselling it in the future if I had something like that. :)

What I am keeping my eyes on is those colonial/Ranch/Split level from 40~70's. Something you can easily see in any neighborhood in the east. Typically, half brick half siding, wall papers, small kitchen, small rooms, small bath rooms, original kitchen cabinet, maybe cedar closet, wood fire place etc. I can assume the material and workmanship is adequate, at least it's not cheap chinese stuff. And also assume descent amount of care taken by owners judging by the way they garden their front yard.

ChrisLA says

There is a huge difference from old houses to new houses. New houses don’t have plumbing problems, things aren’t rotting away, roof doesn’t need replacement, they don’t need a ton of money investment to be made up to code. Wood isn’t all weather damaged requiring some updates and changes.
It’s something our family learned the hard way with our first house. We hated the repairs and maintenance that place required.

That's what a good building inspector is all about. If your inspector didn't pick all this up then he should have been sued. If he did then an appropriate discount should have been built into the price.

Good topic. I've been looking in LA and am concerned that a lot of the houses in the hills were built in the 20's-50's. I wouldn't mind fixing up a kitchen but worried about old pipes and wiring.

Old homes have a lot of personality - but generally require a bit more maintenance. Either way, I'd take a nice older home- centrally located - over a new stucco box in the middle of a field.

http://savethepinkbathrooms.com/

I HATE MY PINK BATHROOM!

Houses from the '40s to '60s are not "old". My family's house in suburban NY was built in 1922 and my gransparent's house dates from 1895. Both of them still have the original "radio button"-style light switches!

AIJ, I love how Japanese people underappreciate any home that isn't new construction. This mass delusion has to end sometime, doesn't it? (Probably around the same time the Ministry of Construction is disbanded.) Until then I'll enjoy my "used" 1970s condo that sold for a fraction of what it cost when it had never been lived in.

I dont think it matters that the house was built in the 50's more important is how well it's maintained.

My house was built in the 50's but it's not much different from a new house since just about everything has been updated.

stillrentinginLA says

I HATE MY PINK BATHROOM!

I know it sounds insane, but wealthy renters often remodel rentals to suit their tastes.

You just need to make a deal with your landlord, such as "if I replace the bathroom fixtures and you get to keep the new fixtures when I leave, can I get a guarantee you won't raise my rent for 5 years?"

They might go for it just because it will probably keep you as a tenant since you've now made an investment in the place. Turnover costs landlords a lot of money.

Thanks Patrick. It doesn't sound insane at all, but I'm afraid it's more than the hideous pink tile and ancient cabinet doors that are cracking. It's the pipes in the building that are so old that the sink and the shower back up constantly.
I know this landlord doesn't want to lose me after ten years as a good tenant though.
His only complaint would be that a new renter would be paying about $700 a month more, but I know he doesn't want to take the chance that he'll actually find someone that will be as reliable as I have been. There has been a high turnover in the building the last few years.

bob2356 says

ChrisLA says

There is a huge difference from old houses to new houses. New houses don’t have plumbing problems, things aren’t rotting away, roof doesn’t need replacement, they don’t need a ton of money investment to be made up to code. Wood isn’t all weather damaged requiring some updates and changes.

It’s something our family learned the hard way with our first house. We hated the repairs and maintenance that place required.

That’s what a good building inspector is all about. If your inspector didn’t pick all this up then he should have been sued. If he did then an appropriate discount should have been built into the price.

It's like buying a used car, not everything is caught and found early. Some things just go down over time as wear and tear.

"When I try to sell my house built in 50’s in 20~30 years later from now, will they love to buy a house that is way older than their granny?"

At least you'll have a house to sell. I can't see one single townhouse that I laid carpet in, during the late 80's building boom. That will still be in living condition, in 20-30 years from now. That will make those houses 40-50 years old by then. And the houses built since then, are even worse with piss poor materials, and the cheapest crap available across the board. The same drywall, metal studs, mud, cement CBS, Electrical wall plates, lighting fixtures(though the style and cost changes, they are mostly made of the same cheap ass quality from low end to top end.)

My first night in my house build in 52 I took a sledge hammer to a wall to liberate the Inlaw quarters to the main part of the house. My first strike, bounced off the wall, I stood there in utter disbelief, at what just happened. I can't tell you how many walls I put my foot through or moved the whole wall studs and all a few inches back, when I did carpet in those two story Town-homes in Pembroke Pines.
Not intentionally but the carpet must be streatched, or I have to come back. The way we did it for years, when walls were "WALLS" was we would put a foot on the wall behind us in the narrow hall ways, and push our knee into the kicker that was pressed down into the carpet. This was always effective, on those older walls. In those newer houses, almost always, my foot would go through the drywall, or I'd feel the floor push back as I was pushing.

Unless it was a house built by a guy that would have been as obsessive as I am about the inferior crap at the Home Depot and the other outlets that has the same supplier. And bought from specialty suppliers.
In a newer built house, then Older house was one of my main criteria. I wouldn't have paid as much as I did for this place, had it been new.

People talk crap about old houses, when the reality is, there's plaster houses in European countries many Centuries old. As long as you keep up on roof, paint, and other repairs. Those structures stay solid.
It's the older homes, that carries the Insurance industry here in South Florida. Though they make it sound like it's the Older homes in danger of blowing away. All of the pre 1960 homes here in south Florida are still standing with original roofs and all. Fire might get them long before hurricanes do.

You could do worse than buy an Older home. Like buying a brand spanking new one.
If you want a new house, go to Home Depot, or any builder store you chose and ask to see the "best quality" of wood, doors, drywall, windows, fixtures, and you'll understand. It's the same shit going in Habitat for humanity. There is no "Best quality", push come to shove you'll get Chinese Drywall damn it.

1915 here!

ChrisLA says

bob2356 says

ChrisLA says

There is a huge difference from old houses to new houses. New houses don’t have plumbing problems, things aren’t rotting away, roof doesn’t need replacement, they don’t need a ton of money investment to be made up to code. Wood isn’t all weather damaged requiring some updates and changes.
It’s something our family learned the hard way with our first house. We hated the repairs and maintenance that place required.

That’s what a good building inspector is all about. If your inspector didn’t pick all this up then he should have been sued. If he did then an appropriate discount should have been built into the price.

It’s like buying a used car, not everything is caught and found early. Some things just go down over time as wear and tear.

Used cars in rough shape sell for less than used cars in good shape. Same applies to houses. If you paid a rough shape price the the difference is the cost of fixing up. I've done rough shape houses enough. It's not rocket science. An inspector knows what he's doing should be able to tell you exactly what's going on.

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.