Do houses ever fall down?

StarGazer85

I've been browsing this forum for a while now mainly due to interest and eventually wanting to buy a house. I've seen a lot of posts about people ordering surveys for older properties and it made me wonder if older properties do actually have serious structural faults that could lead to say a ceiling/floor collapsing or a wall falling down. Is this a common thing?

For me, I wouldn't be interested in buying a house over 50 years old but I can see why people do. Surely there must come a point where even a small 2-bed terraced house becomes more expensive than a much larger, modern house due to the costs of structural repairs and maintenance increasing massively over time? Could this then make any houses over a certain age - even if well maintained - very unappealing?

tacpot12

Yes, houses can and do fall down. Fortunately, the number that do is very low. The majority of old houses have very sound walls. The quality of the bricks that they are built with surpasses the quality of modern bricks; by an order of magnitude in some cases.

Most older properties offer good value for money in terms of space, but do come with additional risks and costs. The main issue (for me) is energy efficiency: old houses are difficult to insulate, and therefore heat, to the same level as modern houses.

In terms of structural repairs, very few houses will need more than the electrics, plumbing, windows, doors and roof replacing. The roof is the most expensive, but if you can by an old house for £20K less than a modern house, putting a new roof on an old house is still going to cost less than buying a modern house.

To answer your question, I don't believe that the cost of repairs will make any house over a certain age unappealing. Older houses tend to be bigger and have bigger gardens than modern houses, and this will always appeal to some. Although the cost of repairs can be substantial, e.g. to add thermal insulation, the lifetime of the property makes the cost per month really quite small.

FYI: I live in an old property and budget on £200 pcm for househould repairs (which includes appliance/furniture replacement and redecorating, as well as bigger jobs like replacing the roof). If I lived in a modern property, I reckon I could reduce this to £100 pcm. You should always be saving towards replacing your sofa/matress/boiler.

davidmcn

Very few properties need "structural repairs". If they've stayed up for 50 years then it's unlikely they have any fundamental structural problems, and they'll probably continue to stand for another 50+ years.

Plus

Often the way that houses 'fall down' is the roof going, water ingress, and then further damage. Likewise water ingress through damaged walls or windows - eventually woodwork rots and floors become unsafe. Also vandalism. All of which are in the 'dereliction' stage - you'd notice and do something about them long before they became a serious problem.

Look at 'urban exploration' photos for the sorts of things - properties abandoned for decades, in many cases.

Doozergirl

It's exceptionally rare for parts of houses to collapse. There has to be a reason for it and it really needs to be something where the house has been undermined greatly in a short period or absolutely neglected for an awfully long time.

The OP is really quite a strange question because such a large amount of housing stock in this country comes from the Victorian period - knocking on for nearly 200 years old in some cases, and from the 1930s, approaching 100 years old. You're surrounded by them and they are not falling down. If it was common, you'd see it.

All houses need ongoing maintenance and even new houses don't stay new for long in the grand scheme. They need maintenance. If a house is particularly neglected, then it simply devalues the house to allow the cost of repairs. Do the repairs and the house is back up to the value of the rest of the area. Value is largely dictated by square footage, not the age of a property.

Aside from when houses are brand new and subject to marketing spin by developers who can even sell the same house for different prices based on a coloured in plan stickers on, period houses attract a price premium in many places, London being a shining example.

Roofs are not the most expensive element of a house to replace, particularly. I suspect most people in average houses spend more on kitchens than they need to on a roof.

Truth is, most houses are quite shocking once you get behind the plaster. Whether it's bits of old broken bricks forming party walls in older houses or studwork made with flimsy bits of metal in new ones. Older houses do come with more caveats but then you won't accidentally stick your foot through a flimsy piece of plasterboard in an old house and the doors are worth more than £20.

Plus

One other thing to be aware of is 'non-traditional' properties: steel frames that rust, concrete cancer, new-fangled construction techniques that turned out to be flawed (panel systems that fall apart, foamed concrete that shatters).

Those need careful identification of the types (some are fine, some are officially Defective according to legislation) and surveying to assess the state. If they're in good condition they're perfectly liveable, but if parts are failing they can be difficult or expensive to repair. You might need to be more proactive in maintenance to prevent future damage.

EachPenny

StarGazer85 wrote: »

I've been browsing this forum for a while now mainly due to interest and eventually wanting to buy a house. I've seen a lot of posts about people ordering surveys for older properties and it made me wonder if older properties do actually have serious structural faults that could lead to say a ceiling/floor collapsing or a wall falling down. Is this a common thing?

For me, I wouldn't be interested in buying a house over 50 years old but I can see why people do. Surely there must come a point where even a small 2-bed terraced house becomes more expensive than a much larger, modern house due to the costs of structural repairs and maintenance increasing massively over time? Could this then make any houses over a certain age - even if well maintained - very unappealing?

There's a flip side to this - if a building has stood for a long time then it is reasonable to assume that it is built well and will continue to stand for the foreseeable future. There's a reason why people say "stand the test of time".

The main issue for longevity of buildings is keeping out the elements, especially water. Water can do all kinds of damage to the structure of a building and is bad news. But if the roof is sound, and it drains into gutters and underground drainage, then the worst problems can be avoided.

Stone and brickwork can be damaged by water, but by far the most vulnerable material is timber because it is organic and subject to rot and insect attack. Keep the water out, and treat the timber to protect it against insects and it will last for centuries.

For old buildings it isn't true to say "structural repairs and maintenance [cost will be] increasing massively over time". At some point in time most buildings will need the roof replacing. Some will need timber floors replacing. Even modern buildings will need this work done at some point in time. The issue is trying to avoid being the owner at the time this work needs doing - or else do the work at a time when you can make a profit from it.

The costs of maintenance don't increase linearly during the life of the building. They come in big 'dollops', sometimes unpredictably. And that is why some people get surveys done on properties they are planning to buy - they want to know if there is anything obvious that will need a big dollop of cash spending on it on the day of completion (or soon after)

Also, don't get too focussed on structural issues. A lot of modern buildings are going to have some very high maintenance costs for non-structural elements. For example timber or plastic/metal cladding which will look horrible a very long time before there is any risk of it falling off the building. Repairs which are needed for cosmetic reasons can be just as expensive as structural repairs.

But the quick answer to your question is that floors, walls or rooves are most likely to collapse when someone has carried out alterations without knowing what they are doing - and that can afflict buildings of any age. Again, here you hope the survey will spot things which aren't as they should be.

Plus

Other reasons for catastrophic damage to buildings are external stresses: fire, flood, land movement. You mitigate those by doing your homework as to potential risks (mine workings, floodplain, landfill site, erosion) and prevention/mitigation (stabilisation, drainage, fire protection).

tacpot12

I suspect most people in average houses spend more on kitchens than they need to on a roof.

I agree that many people spend more on their kitchens than they do in their roofs; whether this is a wise approach is a matter of opinion.

vivatifosi

It's interesting to contrast housing in this country and abroad.

Here houses are built to last out of durable, long lasting materials. Overseas, esp in places like the USA and Australia, there is more of a culture of putting up houses to stand say 50 years, perhaps more, after which they'll be torn down and replaced with something more modern.

We're actually very lucky here. By and large the houses are very well built, and we don't tend to have environmental conditions doing their best to tear them down (tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, tsunamis, etc).

Doozergirl

tacpot12 wrote: »

I agree that many people spend more on their kitchens than they do in their roofs; whether this is a wise approach is a matter of opinion.

I think you missed my point. A new roof isn't the most expensive renovation item. I think roofs are pretty good value for money, considering how important they are.