Are new builds really that bad?? Everyone is warning me off them

katejo

Apart from factors such as
thin walls, rooms with no character features, lack of individuality
there is the issue that the value will go down as the property gets older. In comparison, an older period property can be bought in need of repair and improved. More financial protection if house values crash again.

phoebe1989seb

bclark wrote: »

Wow, talk about generalisations.

Maybe, but we can't all be the same and on the whole I just don't like new-builds, LOL

The OP did ask for people's views and I was expressing mine.......

One concession would be that I do admire Border Oak houses, but they still seem to lack the internal features/character that we like in a house - but that's just my 2p

In the past, during the course of restoring our houses to their former glory, we have had to reinstall some period features that had been removed by previous owners - this can often be successfully done if carried out sympathetically. To my mind, whilst a new-build can be considered a *blank canvas* (which admittedly is what many buyers want), the features that are included in them - such as fireplaces - are often ill-matched to the style of property and can sometimes let them down even further.......of course I'm talking about average family homes here, not McMansions, LOL!

We've previously lived in Victorian (terraced & detached), Tudor, 1930s Arts & Crafts style and currently Georgian houses. Our current house may not have deep foundations, but the walls are 2' thick - something not many new-builds can boast

I do concede that they can be hard to heat, but we've never known anything different so accept this as the trade-off for living somewhere with character - and anyway we love our open fires and wood burner!

None of the period properties we've owned have had *poky* rooms IMHO and these compare very favourably with friends' newer homes.

We have friends that like their new-builds, but aspire to living in a cottage because they feel the one thing their newer homes lack is character charm.........

Pass me the broom, LOL :rotfl:

bclark

katejo wrote: »

Apart from factors such as
thin walls, rooms with no character features, lack of individuality
there is the issue that the value will go down as the property gets older. In comparison, an older period property can be bought in need of repair and improved. More financial protection if house values crash again.

And rows of Victorian terraces are really individual?

phoebe1989seb

bclark wrote: »

And rows of Victorian terraces are really individual?

They can be, yes......

Our first house - Victorian three bed, three reception mid-terrace in Portsmouth - was completely unlike its neighbours internally. It had beautiful moulded plaster ceilings in the two main receptions - not coving, but patterned all over the ceilings - that was apparently commissioned by the first man to own the house. It had very distinctive original trellis work to the rear of the small conservatory and wooden panelled bifold doors separating the front and rear reception rooms. It also had two rather grand slate fireplaces and some amazing stained glass.

Our neighbours on either side had their own original features - fireplaces, stained glass, coving etc but all were slightly different.

I should add that this was a relatively bog-standard - at least externally - house that today would sell for around £200k.

I appreciate that in new-builds you can choose various fixtures & fittings from a selection, but IMHO these are not of the same standard of craftsmanship available way back then.......

lessonlearned

bclark wrote: »

And rows of Victorian terraces are really individual?

:rotfl::rotfl:

And of course there are those endless surburban streets of identical semis with bay windows built pre and post WWII.

New builds dating to the 1960's and 70's were endless streets of identical houses it's true. I spent most of my new build negotiator career during the 80's, 90's and early 2000's. During this time the emphasis did change to a better mix of house types.

None of "my" developers built endless rows of identical properties, some were part of the big chains, some were smaller local builders. Planning regulations had moved on by then and site layouts were far more imaginative than they had been in the past, with better landscaping and a good mix of house types.

lessonlearned

phoebe1989seb wrote: »

I appreciate that in new-builds you can choose various fixtures & fittings from a selection, but IMHO these are not of the same standard of craftsmanship available way back then.......

Now on this I am in complete agreement.

Most kitchens provided by the big chains aren't that great.

Smaller local builders often score higher on fixtures and fittings.

I worked for one who built but didn't actually fit out the kitchen or bathrooms until contracts had been exchanged. The purchaser then had an "allowance" for fixtures and fittings which was included in the build price. If they wanted to up the spec they just topped up the allowance.

However, with a large scale development or a national housebuilder this level of flexibility is just not feasible.

moneyistooshorttomention

kingstreet wrote: »

to better quality fixtures and fitting than are available to the average punter.


Newbuild is a big part of my job, but I know the tricks.

Well that's something I've learnt new today then. I knew the "use dolls house furniture" trick that new builds showhomes use to make them look bigger than they actually are.

I didn't know about showhomes using better quality fixtures and fitting than the other houses would get though - I had just assumed that you get what you see in that respect and that you just had to take along a tape measure and note of standard/your furniture sizes to see if they'd fit into the rooms.

I would certainly agree with the comment that "facilities" to newbuild estates often turn up months/maybe even years later - as I can hear the moans from here (via the local media) of those people who moved in recently to newbuilds we have in this area about their lack of facilities and how long it will be before they get what they have been promised in that respect.

Tenyearstogo

No, new builds aren't all that bad.

I live on a Persimmon estate, built in 2006. Rooms are great sizes, everyone who visits says how surprised they. I have lots of storage cupboards and now I have decorated the house, it has lots of character. Its got four beds, three receptions, detatched garage and a kitchen diner. The quality of this house is great. My only niggle is the fitted kitchen. It's not laid out how I would've chosen it, and I would've had a better quality one. That said, it's still functioning perfectly.


I looked at other new builds and some of those were terrible designs, especially town houses. Four decent sized bedrooms, with 3 bathrooms, but one reception room, integrated garage and a kitchen diner. These were the same price as my house. Such variation between different properties, you can't generalise.

Prior to this I lived in a Victorian property, which had some period features. My third bedroom there was tiny as it had been divided to included a bathroom. I used a 5ft 6 length bed in there which probably deceived viewers. I had major problems with water pressure there as like many Victorian terraces, it was on shared supply.

I avoided 1980's houses like the plague though. They were all badly proportioned!

Dan-Dan

lessonlearned wrote: »

The minus's tend to be small gardens and there are often issues with "cramming" ie high density building. This can lead to issues such as shared access and problems with parking.

I would point out that in all fairness to developers this is down to planning rules. It is not, as is so often thought, pure greed on the developer's part.

i would have thought , if you build LESS houses in the same amount of area = larger gardens and no need for shared access and parking issues

It must be the developers fault because they choose how many houses to build , or is that not right?

Dan-Dan

Anyone know what the fascination with 3 bed houses now seemingly being built over 3 floors instead of two?