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

LittleMissAspie

To me an old house is pre-WW1. Normal is between the wars, modern is post-WW2 to about 1980 and 1980 onwards is new.

I currently live in a "new" house and it's lovely and warm, the bills are cheap, it's easy to look after. It's doing a great job at being our first home. But it's small and bland and feels flimsy in comparison to my parents' 1930s house. I wouldn't want to live here forever even if it was bigger.

My dream house is an old one although I've never lived in one and I might change my mind when I do! I understand they are expensive to heat and need more maintenance. To me it's worth the extra expense and hassle to have a home that feels like an established long-term home than a fancy portacabin.

ormus

SuzieSue wrote: »

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.

aye, good quality new build every time.
but only possible if you have 500k-1m to spend.

Doozergirl

K_P83 wrote: »

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

Well, they are, in general, thrown up by developers without any particular love or attention to what is architecturally good. What people don't really take into account though is modern building materials and our Building Regulations.

Whilst modern building materials may not be entirely natural, they are developed to a particular standard. Our Building Regulations are some of the most stringent in the world. The wood will be resistant to rot, foundations specifically calculated to the ground etc. and so I have no doubt that new houses will stand the test of time,especially if they are improved as they are maintained, iyswim. Developers often only put in stud walls where there used to be brick which is an annoyance for hanging pictures and sometimes sound transference within a house, between attached houses and flats, there are now stringent regulations for noise and fire.

We've ripped apart many, many old houses and pieced them back together at great expense. A 100 year old house is a mess! If people really knew what hides behind their plaster, they'd be a little more concerned! But people often judge houses on the cover.

I love the character of old buildings. My choice would be a well renovated period home or really a well designed new build built with care and on a plot of my choosing - which we're hoping to do shortly! You can build a new home with character.

I'd not be keen on a 50s-70s house as standards were pretty low and there's the use of asbestos to contend with.

ormus

even spending a lot of money doesnt mean its built well.

Doozergirl

ormus wrote: »

even spending a lot of money doesnt mean its built well.

That's a wee bit unfair considering the storms they've had to endure of late.

That said, there was a hefty overhang on the gable end that would have wanted to act as a kite in that weather. Which it clearly ended up doing.

ormus

aye, but notice the other two roofs next door.

Doozergirl

ormus wrote: »

aye, but notice the other two roofs next door.

The design was hurricane prone I doubt it was badly built, but the design was flawed for weather like that. If the area is prone to very high winds, then it was a bad design. You can see from the picture of it from the front why it was more susceptible than the neighbours.
http://www.planetpropertyblog.co.uk/2012/01/03/grand-design-house-has-roof-blown-off/

I don't think it supports any general new vs old debate though. If the design of the roof had been the same as the others, it would be a fairer test.

loracan1

Old. Simply for the thrill of finding it here (1881 is free to search)

System

Would go for old (80 years+) unless it was a new build i could spec and oversee the construction!

Ben84

This is very much a question of our preconceived ideas, because really there are examples of very good and very bad houses from all times. However, most houses I like were built between the 1950s-70s. Generally they were still building solid houses with brick internal walls back then, as well as decent size rooms and gardens, but also including good modern features like cavity walls and large windows. Houses built with central heating from new also have a lot less chimneys and fireplaces cluttering the rooms up.

Anyway, I seem to be the only person who pulls a bad face at the word "period features", but it's always draughty old fireplaces and leaky windows they want me to pay more for. Unpopular as I suspect this view is, it's never a bad thing to like something unpopular, as the houses from this era are not just the ones I prefer, they're also cheaper

I think though, given total free choice, I'd like a brand new house I helped design.