modern or old Houses!!! advice needed.

Poppy9

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Older properties built before central heating and plumbing was invented will have them as add ons and they are not usually very good. Older homes are often more likely to get freeze ups in winter. On the plus side they come with bigger gardens. Is that a plus? Do you like gardening? Or will it be an eyesore it a few months? (unless you pay someone else to do it)

We put CH in our previous 100 year old house as it just had coal fires when we bought it. The heating system was well designed from scratch including BG doing a survey of the most efficent sizes and positioning of all the radiators and thermostats (we then got a plumber friend to install with OH labouring to keep costs down;) ). The heating system was the best and most economical I've known. Our current house had current system installed about 30 years ago (the man a few doors away installed it before he retired). It works ok but is not hugely efficent. I know the radiators are in the wrong places, are the wrong sizes and we have to have it on for longer periods - so more expensive. No one I know who has a modern system with a Combi boiler has a good word to say about them so we are dreading the day when our trust back boiler packs in and I lose my airing cupboard!!

Gardening. We dislike and we have a very big garden. We moved in and removed the vegetable plot, the raspberry plot, other fruit bushes and flower borders to front and back. We lawned most of it and kept the furthest end as woods so no work there. So apart from cutting the grass and trimming some bushes it's not too much work. The plus side is we have a wonderful garden to indulge our DD. Over the years there has been plenty of room for swings, slides, sand pits, paddling pools and a 10ft trampoline!! A few weeks ago OH dragged me to look at a new build 5 bed detached house (I don't need 5 bedrooms ) which has been empty since it was bought as an investment 2 years ago. The downstairs was ok but rooms a bit small. It got better on the second and third floor with 4 bathrooms but I did whinge about hoovering 3 flights of stairs. I was however considering a bit until I went out the back garden. It wasn't tiny but it was on the small side and very overlooked by 2 other 3 storey new build houses. I could also see clearly into the neighbours conservatory ( what a lovely addition that made to their house - Victorian on a modern house!!). Large plots which mean large gardens give privacy which for me is a huge plus. It is tempting I could sell my 4 bed semi and buy a 4 bed detached house not too far from where I now live and clear my mortgage but I can't bring myself to as I can't compromise on the room sizes. I tell myself I will when DD goes to Uni!!

csarge

dannyboycey wrote: »

The Victorians new how to build houses properly... unlike us.

Nail and head. :T


When was the last time you saw a good old fashioned stone mason working for Redrow, Barratt, etc. etc. They might be the one's chiselling out "Poncyname Mews" or something on the wall, as you drive into your nice new flood pain positioned house.

Old homes you can renovate and add value....therefore potentially avoiding (fingers crossed) a downturn in the market (if and when that happens).

And yes when it comes to resale time, new housing estates tend to have more for sale (especially if they bought in phase 1 for 50k cheaper than they're not selling for!).

Having lived in a 1890's property, and been in friends 2 year old house, and my current house that's about 30 years old...I'd go for a house that's 30+ years old, and more than likely made of brick.

These timber sandwiches may be energy efficient and really cheap, but they can't possibly outlast stone - assuming same conditions for both.


There are examples where what I say is wrong, but 95% of the time, avoid new builds unless it suits you perfectly.


(My wife totally disagrees with me, but then she doesn't pay the mortgage - or do the DIY stuff - her values therefore don't count )

Han_naH

The truth is that developers choose areas like green belt and secluded where the buyer has no comparables. then they name their price. Be very careful of inflated prices from developers.

I had a mention on this site, explaining the problem:

http://www.citywire.co.uk/Blogs/Property/Entry.aspx?VersionID=94848&rssfeed=PropertyBlogs

Lee.

adr0ck

lee

i thought this thread was about houses not flats

and as far as i'm aware developers don't choose land.....that would be the Council

with regards to new vs old houses

old as long as its 1930's at latest

and new as long as its the last 3/4 years

try to avoid anything 1940 - 2000

especially anything built in the 60's, 70's and 80's (oh my god they hadn't even heard of noggins)

zippybungle

I don't really think one is better than the other, it depends what you are looking for really.

We have an 8 year old house, but just put it up for Sale. The house I want to move into is an old house.

Zippy x

gabyjane

I have to agree with butchdingle and say that our new build is going to be fab aswell (when we move)...our lounge will fit our furniture in perfectly our kitchen and dining room the same, we will have 2 toilets (1 bathroom) which will make my life easier, the garden is big, there is a car port and garage and parking space, it's semi-detatched and is on a lovely new estste.
We haven't bought because of the looks alone although i have to say to us it looks lovely (3 storey town house), also friends etc have been driving up and saying how nice it is!
I'm a childminder and i think it will be perfect if i didn't we wouldn't be moving and as for this will it last 170 years rubbish?? well what do i care.. even if it's passed onto dd she won't be alive to know anyway!!

dragonsoup

Another vote for old.

The current house is 200+ years old and with 18inch thick stone walls isn't going anywhere soon. Initially the renovation costs were a lot but we took it on in full knowledge of what we had to do. Iit's now mostly done and apart from on going maintenance like painting window frames etc then that should be it for a while.

Tamarin

Go for older. Ours is over 100 years old. Slate roof, lots of garden (104ft) walls 3 bricks thick (no noise from neighbours) bathrooms up and down. We are selling ours as moving to Scotland for a lot older property with even thicker walls and goodness knows what else until we start decorating. Great fun

Sapphire

epz wrote: »

someone did that up our way, a massive 150 year old listed mansion got knocked down to make room for 5 "luxury" detatched houses. apart from the houses being 300k and 5 foot apart it was out right vandalism to destroy what was a very run down but structurally sound (1) and not only a piece of art but historical record of out town.

it might be more profitable to sell two new houses than renovate one old one but it doesnt make it right, im sure serious cash changed hands to the bods that let them due it despite all sorts of lawsuits.

you would have thought we would have learned something from the council scum wrecking historic glasgow in the 60s for towerblocks.

This kind of thing makes me absolutely furious. :mad: This country is wrecking its own history, and we are going to bitterly regret it once the greedy madness over acquiring property subsides. Once the old buildings are gone, that is it - nothing like them will ever be built again because it would be too expensive, plus we lost good brick-making and other skills during the Second World War and never regained them.

Because of the rate at which the horrible characterless new-builds have been going up, our cities are becoming an unrecognizable, squalid mess. And all so that developers, bribed council officials and politicians can pocket money for themselves. What they are doing is criminal. :mad:

Sapphire

dragonsoup wrote: »

Another vote for old.

The current house is 200+ years old and with 18inch thick stone walls isn't going anywhere soon. Initially the renovation costs were a lot but we took it on in full knowledge of what we had to do. Iit's now mostly done and apart from on going maintenance like painting window frames etc then that should be it for a while.

I actually like the fact that there is work to be done on an older property - I've owned two and never regretted it. I always take my time and do the work quite slowly, thinking about what I want to do to retain (or enhance) the period feel, while making the place a comfortable nest. It makes me feel as though I am creating something and I love that process.

I find new-builds cold, small and characterless - and I don't feel the need to have an 'en suite' attached to every bedroom. I also very rarely see any new-builds that look attractive from the outside, no matter how much developers such as Barretts hype these 'luxury' properties, and how many people fall for the hype. :rolleyes: