patrick.net

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.