Old home vs new home - what'd you rather?

Nine_Lives

Does what it says on the tin basically.

We live in an old home. I don't know exactly how old, but if you care to find out when the canal system was built - then our house is as old as that, as it's an old canal house & in years gone by, they were for those who worked on the canal system. British Waterways then (years ago) decided to sell them off quite cheaply.

The brick (or rather stone) work is super thick in parts. I know when we had our shower installed, the chap kept trying to drill through it & it wiped out a good amount of his drill bits & he was commenting on how thick & strong the walls were.

It's terribly cold in winter though. I remember thick ice on the insides of the windows as a kid. Not just a film of it.

Then there's the damp issues - i'd hazard a slight guess at the damp proof regs being slightly different back then.

To bring it up in line with the current regs, i'd also guess you'd need to spend a pretty penny.

Personally, i think i'd rather a new build - something that has been built in line with current regs. You assume things improve over time, so structurally i imagine a new build would be better. I could be way out on this though.

So what'd you rather & why?

ormus

there are very few new houses i would buy. esp the typical estate type boxes.
modern houses are small and the build quality is pretty pi ss poor.

converted-lurker

Its a tricky one, on the one hand old houses can be a risk.

Eg. I nearly bought a house a few years ago and was out bid by another buyer. It turned out that the other buyer was one of my friends (I did not know them very well at the time), so initially I was a little upset we did not get the house, however over the last 4 years they have spent a fortune on damp problems etc which seem never ending. So we had a lucky escape!

However I agree that many modern houses are built badly - I would like to see them still standing in 100 years!

missindecisive

personally I prefer an older property, more character & maybe unique. Then there's often the location, older properties are quite often off the beaten track..housing estate life would'nt suit me. However, it all depends a lot on, your lifestyle, your budget, your DIY skills! Older properties , unless completely modernised, often need updating to provide warmth, modern comforts etc...so I can see the appeal for some people just to want something 'newer' & 'easier'.

WestonDave

Let me see - using local examples, would you rather have a 1950's 4 bed detached house, nice area, outskirts of town, one row of houses from open countryside on a roughly 50ft by 40ft plot for £450k (and that was overpriced but was the sold price!), or a Crest newbuild 4 bed town house, crammed on a 60ft by 15ft plot, reclaimed from an old crane factory nearer town but still 15 minutes walk from the shops etc, surrounded by mostly social or affordable housing on the rest of the site, with 2 of the 3 phases of construction still to start (so plenty of noise and mess for the next few years)? Oh sorry I forgot the price of the second - currently on the market for £700k!

Whilst you might get certain modern design features on a newbuild, they are ferociously poor value, often poorly built (timber prefab with brick/stone cladding is common) and so you are just paying for the fact that its new and all clean etc.

Nine_Lives

I didn't know that that was the general view on new builds - poorly built.

Why is this the case then (that they're poorly built)?

WestonDave wrote: »

1950's.

There's something that i didn't take into consideration - an individuals definition of "old". As 1950 to me isn't old.

wannabehermit

This is where DH and I differ. I'd go for old, i.e. pre-1st world war. They're solidly built, have big rooms, usually more rooms (2 receptions) and have something about them.

He'd go for a brand new house, he seems to think hassle free, better built (although all other houses he has lived in have been 1970s so shoved up in seconds and he does have a point over that era of housing) and warmer (again yes he has a point there). But I think they're small, not enough rooms and they're soulless boxes, plus I don't think they're very well built.

I suppose it's what you're used to. I'm used to Victorian/Georgian houses which were built really well and had no problems, so I'd go for something similar. DH is used to 1970s houses, so would go for new build over that all the time, he's never lived in an old house.

VfM4meplse

I personally love smart Georgian architecture, so that would be my choice next time round. I actively dislike Victorian and Edwardian architecture, all damp and crammed together, long thin gardens with no light, yuk! I cannot stand pokey, when I see people um-and-ah over period features on property shows I always think fair enough, but overall it doesn't save a grim property from being a tiny hovel.

Realistically I think I will end up with a 1930s build as these tend to be spacious, retains some character and have decent-szied, wide gardens.

ed110220

Depends what you mean by old and new. I'd prefer not to have a newly built house as they are normally small, boxy and I don't like their aesthetics... too prim and twee. I'd rather not have a pre-1930s house either as again they are not really my taste, especially the older ones, which I do not usually find very comfortable. I have found all pre-20th Century houses and flats I've lived in cold and with serious condensation problems, solidly built is often literally the problem as the walls are solid with no cavity for insulation. The layouts are not usually convenient either and I find excessively high ceilings un-cosy.

A mid-20th century house would be my choice, maybe that's just because it's what I grew up in, but it seems like the best compromise it terms of comfort and space.

SuzieSue

I'd go for a good quality new build everytime.

My friend bought an enormous 5 bedroom new build around 10 years ago from a small firm of housebuilders who really cared about what they were building.

There are a few good small housebuilders, but unsurprisingly, they concentrate on the top end of the market - £1m + so most people can't afford them.

I would never buy a new build from a mass market house builder because of the poor quality.

ed110220

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I personally love smart Georgian architecture, so that would be my choice next time round. I actively dislike Victorian and Edwardian architecture, all damp and crammed together, long thin gardens with no light, yuk! I cannot stand pokey, when I see people um-and-ah over period features on property shows I always think fair enough, but overall it doesn't save a grim property from being a tiny hovel.

Must say I agree with you on this one! Lots of people rave about Victorian and will pay twice the amount for a smaller house than the mid-20th century building I'd prefer though.

I am from South Africa and grew up in a 1940s-60s suburb, so anything Victorian and terraced looks like something from Dickens to me :rotfl: