Why are new build houses not as good as older ones?

loofer

Well that's what I keep hearing from various people.

I'm talking about the houses that are built en mass - 2/3 bedroom. Apart from the fact that they all look the same and characterless and that they are very small and dingy...

Apparently the build quality isn't as strong as older (1930's terraced) houses - accrington brick built.

The houses that are being built locally appear to have brick round the outside and then breeze blocks, but appears to be supported by timber frames.

They are town houses/mews (read "too posh for terraced") and it appears that the walls separating each house are not even brick. I think it's juts the timber frames.

I'm sure these new building methods meet regs and are uber eco-friendly but are they that bad?!

FATBALLZ

Well new developments tend to be very cramped, on the space on my parents road where they'd fit 6 houses, in my old place they had 10 flats and 10 houses. Cars all over the place. I believe John Prescott changed the planning regulations to make builders cram in loads of houses into a tiny space.

The other issue is people keep buying these !!!!!! properties at sky high prices. The small 1st floor 2 bed flat i just moved from cost more than my 3 bed, 1960s semi with a pretty big garden.

To be fair new builds are generally very energy efficient, but they still suck. Sound insulation is generally crap too.

loofer

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Well new developments tend to be very cramped, on the space on my parents road where they'd fit 6 houses, in my old place they had 10 flats and 10 houses. Cars all over the place. I believe John Prescott changed the planning regulations to make builders cram in loads of houses into a tiny space.

The other issue is people keep buying these !!!!!! properties at sky high prices. The small 1st floor 2 bed flat i just moved from cost more than my 3 bed, 1960s semi with a pretty big garden.

To be fair new builds are generally very energy efficient, but they still suck. Sound insulation is generally crap too.

Thanks,

I agree about the issue of space. In fact round here they are stacking them high. The foot space of a 4/5 bedroom is pretty much the same as a 2/3 bedroom - they just build upwards.

I referring to the strength/integrity of the building compared to older building methods/materials... something a layman wouldn't know.

JQ.

Because houses are built to a budget. We live in a world of cheap cheap cheap. If houses were built to to the same standards of yesteryear they would cost 30% more and whilst some people may pay the premium, the majority wouldn't. Same goes for room sizes, if houses were bigger they would cost more.

IHateDida

I agree with the above comment about the density - which also equals small gardens. Add into the equation the mixed population that they are trying to encourage (housing assosiation + owner occupied) - it just doesn't work.

Having just moved from a "said property" I have to say I will never go back....once bitten and all that....!:o I would rather have draughty floor boards and damp walls than live packed in like sardines in cardboard boxes!

FLAPJACK

I suppose a reason could be we are on an island, and as such with a growing population land is at a premium.

Looking at it from a builders perspective once you have invested in a "field" you want/need to maximise your return, either.... lets say 20 starter homes or 10/12 executive detached homes....depending of course on what the local market requires.

Neither market at the moment seems very attractive.....1st time buyers (starter homes) can't get mortgages.....executives probably can't sell their exsisting homes too quickly either.

I think the thinking in the OP's remarks are correct.... older places are larger and better built..albeit probably needing insulation improvements...still more cost effective to insulate an older place in the long run.

New builds seem to suffer from the modern way of construction i.e plasterboard internal walls instead of breezeblock or even brick..then again cost effective..more profit but of course way more insulated....if only they were larger homes!.

However older places at the moment are probably more difficult to get a mortgage on as they may need work doing to them structually...so not only has the buyer as an individual (couple) need to pass the mortgage test but so does the property itself....always has been that way... but alas far more relevant at the moment.

katejo

FLAPJACK wrote: »

I suppose a reason could be we are on an island, and as such with a growing population land is at a premium.

Looking at it from a builders perspective once you have invested in a "field" you want/need to maximise your return, either.... lets say 20 starter homes or 10/12 executive detached homes....depending of course on what the local market requires.

Neither market at the moment seems very attractive.....1st time buyers (starter homes) can't get mortgages.....executives probably can't sell their exsisting homes too quickly either.

I think the thinking in the OP's remarks are correct.... older places are larger and better built..albeit probably needing insulation improvements...still more cost effective to insulate an older place in the long run.

New builds seem to suffer from the modern way of construction i.e plasterboard internal walls instead of breezeblock or even brick..then again cost effective..more profit but of course way more insulated....if only they were larger homes!.

However older places at the moment are probably more difficult to get a mortgage on as they may need work doing to them structually...so not only has the buyer as an individual (couple) need to pass the mortgage test but so does the property itself....always has been that way... but alas far more relevant at the moment.

I would go for an older place any day. I would never buy a new build, partly for the reasons given by previous contributors and partly because you can buy an older place which needs a little work/redecorating which will increase its relative value. New builds tend to be painted in magnolia with cream carpets. Within a short time they look scruffy and lose value (like buying a brand new car?). The walls are often thin plasterboard and flats may also have the problem of huge maintenance charges.

My first flat was a purpose built maisonette from about 1915. My current house is a victorian terrace with original coving and lovely decorative plasterwork.

mcc100

Developers are out to make as much profit as possible, so they build houses/flats as small as possible and to the lowest specification that they are able to get away with.

They hate having to allocate 25% - 33% to housing associations because these houses have to be built at a higher specification and are sold at a lower price.

googler

I watched a flatted development being built not far from me around 18 months ago. They did the ground works, then put up a timber frame. Ground floor, first, second then third, and up to roof level.

Not a sign of any stone, metal nor brick.

Then the rains came. Some of the heaviest rain in years. The timber frame got soaked. Absolutely drenched.

Not long after that, the deliveries of 'Architectural Brick' and 'Architectural Stone' arrived on site. If I'm not mistaken, this type of brick and/or stone is described thus because it's not load-bearing....?? Or perhaps someone will correct me on that one.....

So, at the core of the building is a sodden mass of timber, with some decorative stonework thrown around the outside.

Would you buy a flat on the top floor of this?

Doozergirl

Older places aren't exactly better built. We have some of the most stringent Building Regulations in the world and they become more stringent every year. If you've ever ripped back an old house, you'll see the flaws immediately, along with all the bodged jobs that have been carried out over the years that will send shivers up you. I love old houses but they are as ugly as sin and cracked and flawed under the pretty stuff. There are terribly built later 20th century houses, which probably aren't built to the standards of older houses but the houses we build now may not have the level of craftmanship with pretty ornate features etc. but they are made with materials that are engineered to do a job.

We have building regulations in place that dictate the level of noise that can travel through the floors of flats, fireproofing between attached properties etc. insulation to keep us warm - hundreds of pages of regulations that keep us safe. New houses are very strong; concrete block, much thicker joists between floors, proper foundations calculated sit the ground they sit in - in theory, Georgian houses shouldn't even be standing! The foundations of a Victorian Terrace we owned consisted of the occasional three bricks laid in a triangle, perpendicular to the entire gable wall. No small wonder when they move! Timber frame is a fantastic way to build - very strong and flexible. Victorian terraces were built with open roof spaces which meant that fire could just sweep across the roofline and destroy every home along it.

New houses are thrown up very fast, I have no want for a house that's been chucked up by a major developer with no love, but on the other hand, I really realise how much work it takes to take an old house and turn it into something that meets modern regulations and feels truly sound. That = very expensive.

What we do with the space these days is fill it with ensuites, utilities and downstairs loos. My friend has a modern two bed terrace, really small, yet she has three toilets! We need front gardens now for parking as well, modest Victorian housing had a yard and no frontage at all! Our current Planning Guidlines specify that houses need at least 10 metres...

Given the choice between building myself a Victorian house from scratch and a new house to meet current regulations from scratch, it's a very easy choice to make.

Doozergirl

googler wrote: »

I watched a flatted development being built not far from me around 18 months ago. They did the ground works, then put up a timber frame. Ground floor, first, second then third, and up to roof level.

Not a sign of any stone, metal nor brick.

Then the rains came. Some of the heaviest rain in years. The timber frame got soaked. Absolutely drenched.

Not long after that, the deliveries of 'Architectural Brick' and 'Architectural Stone' arrived on site. If I'm not mistaken, this type of brick and/or stone is described thus because it's not load-bearing....?? Or perhaps someone will correct me on that one.....

So, at the core of the building is a sodden mass of timber, with some decorative stonework thrown around the outside.

Would you buy a flat on the top floor of this?

Almost certainly, the timber will have been treated to withstand water penetration. An awful lot of self builds are made in timber frame (very few in the green oak variety which is hugely expensive). Self builds being better built because they're the ones created with love and longevity in mind. Timber frame is pretty big in Scotland.