70s house

dragonsoup

Give me Victorian over 1970s any day!

My 1970s house was a bespoke build when put up but despite having cost the original owners a small fortune had walls of tissue paper. Fortunately it was detached but even so there was no privacy.

booksurr

Asas wrote: »

I think I've just wanted someone to say that 70s house is fine and assure me in a way.

without having seen the property and as a gross generalisation I would say from personal experience that Victorian workmanship is far superior to that of 1970's 3 day a week layabouts whose only interest was when was the next strike due

Hoploz

It might have deeper foundations, but a flat roof will always need regular maintenance, and the walls are often not solid. If there are tile hung sections, for example, they may be timber framed rather than brick or block.

Does it have deep window sills? This is a way to see how thick the walls are. Many 1970's houses are cross wall construction which means terraces where the end and dividing walls are solid, but the front and back walls are very thin and not brick built.

Is it terraced? If so, sometimes the end houses can be vulnerable to movement along the terrace so check whether the walls bow at all or show signs of cracking. A relative owned one of these for a couple of years and had problems where her roof was in reasonable condition, but she had damp walls due to the neighbour having had a shoddy roof job which didn't join properly.

In my opinion it's particularly worthwhile getting a survey on this type of house if you sent able to assess it properly yourself.

nearlyrich

dragonsoup wrote: »

Give me Victorian over 1970s any day!

My 1970s house was a bespoke build when put up but despite having cost the original owners a small fortune had walls of tissue paper. Fortunately it was detached but even so there was no privacy.

We have a 1970s house too, it is double skin brick, our bathroom has a flat roof it is like a dormer and it is original with no issues. We had the garage re-roofed a few years ago. There is no asbestos in the property unless it's very well hidden.


Our rooms are bigger than most new builds

Samsonite1

Some comments in red below:

Asas wrote: »

1. It was resurfaced in 2005. You have to renew every 10 - 15 years, so do not be surprised if the survey says it needs to be replaced. I had this work done on my last house, but it was done well and still looked brand new when selling the house 4 years later.

2. What I was trying to ask Initially was because it is 70s house, it might have a good foundation unlike the Victorian? So may be less likely to have subsidence? Also mid terraced means less risky? However I've realised it needs survey. You are not wrong in the sense that building regulations from the mid-sixties required deeper foundations to guard against subsidence.

3. I cannot see artex ceiling but it is a bit dated. Also down to survey I guess
The survey will tell you - you need a survey regardless as it will tell you the things you did not think about too. We have a redundant asbestos water tank in the loft. It is no danger unless I smashed it up with a sledgehammer. The advise was to leave it, but if I do a loft conversion in the future, just get it taken out of any opening made in the roof.

4. It is noting to do with 70s. Just my concern. After all, I don't think it will cause any trouble.
Low flood risk seems good? It is probably hard to get no risk as it has to include the possibility of torrential rain storms and surface flooding on the property itself. If you dig into the detailed flood risk reports, they normally say that the flood risk is Low/Medium/High within 250 metres (or more - they usually show a few measures) of the property. In my case, there is tiny stream quite far from the property which has never flooded. I am out of the flood risk zone entirely, yet on the survey they said that I was "near a low flood risk zone".

I think I've just wanted someone to say that 70s house is fine and assure me in a way.
As above - they did improve foundations in the 60s so that is in its favour. People often favour Georgian, Edwardian and Victorian buildings because they would be very expensive to build today and certainly the above ground construction was very decent. Also if a house is in good condition after over a century, it was probably well built.
Thanks a lot for your replies.

maninthestreet

Has it been re-wired? Plasticisers in the PVC insulation used in the cables of ring main react with the copper conductors producing green goo. This applies to cabling manufactured between 1965 and 1971.

AdrianC

Asas wrote: »

My concerns are
1. It has a flat roof, not 100% may be 75%?

Flat roofs need more maintenance. It's just the nature of the beast.

2. As the potential of natural ground subsidence is medium to high in the area and the house is positioned on the slight sloping land. I am worried about the subsidence already.

Subsidence isn't houses sliding down a hill sideways. It's bits of them going down vertically because the ground's not stopping them.

3. Asbestos. Is it so common in that era?

It's possible, but it's less common than in '50s and '60s.

4. Flood risk comes as low but it did shock me since I thought is was Flood free.

You'll never see anybody say "zero risk". But you said it was on a slope? There's a nice thing about being half-way up a slope, when it comes to flood risk... Water doesn't much like sticking to the side of hills.