Old vs New property

Missy79

You'd rarely be comparing like for like and both have advantages and disadvantages. For example, older houses would tend to have bigger gardens and more spacious rooms. Newer houses are more likely to have more open plan living, en suites, utility room but the rooms would often be smaller. While your scenario has them next to each other in most real life situations a new build would be on an estate of similar houses which tend to be packed in with narrow streets that become very crowded due to limited parking. 

RelievedSheff

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

One must consider the fact that older builds tend to be of better quality than new ones.  That doesn't hold true everywhere, as there are good new builds and shocking seventies exec places, but it's a reasonable rule to stick to.  It's also wise to think about where the house actually is, in the geographical sense.  Where I live all the prime building land, that which is stable and not on flood plains, has already been built on.  As a result the new builds are going on land which is very much second best, such as on top of old sand and gravel workings or in areas prone to flooding.  As a result, the new builds there have issues with subsidence and so on. 

I have to disagree with that. Our 2019 new build is of far better build quality than our previous 1930's semi. If you wanted poor build quality that was a prime example!

RelievedSheff

Missy79 said:

You'd rarely be comparing like for like and both have advantages and disadvantages. For example, older houses would tend to have bigger gardens and more spacious rooms. Newer houses are more likely to have more open plan living, en suites, utility room but the rooms would often be smaller. While your scenario has them next to each other in most real life situations a new build would be on an estate of similar houses which tend to be packed in with narrow streets that become very crowded due to limited parking. 

As apposed to older housing which often doesn't have off street parking at all?

Soot2006

Honestly just view some places, decide what you like, what you need, what you love, what you hate, etc ... I found that my compromises shifted as I viewed more houses. I was open to a newer build at the start of the process, but the ones I saw seemed to be commanding a price premium just for being a bit shinier yet were not all that attractive to me. I ended up in a house that wasn't anything like what I imagined and so far we're happy here!

AlexMac

I agree with cattie  who said:

Very often an older house will have a higher price if it has all or many of it's original features, which are quite sought after by a lot of people. On the whole new build properties lack the character that a period property will have & people tend to be happier to pay a bit more for this reason.

but the OP, jumperabv3 asked about new-build versus an "old" house "built around 1990".  By my standards, a 1990 property is still what I call "new"; but then, all the half-dozen homes I bought and lived in before my current one were built between 1860 and the very early 1900's. 

So I can't see that you'd get any desirable "original features" in a late 20th Century house.  I call mine "new"; a 1986 property which is massively more energy efficient than all of my 19th Century ones.  So although insulation values have probably increased even more in the past 25 years, if you bung in extra loft insulation, you'll probably get your energy costs down to close to that of a new-build (I only pay £1,200 for gas and leccy on my 30+ year old 4/5 bed property).

Received wisdom and others' experiences as reported on these forum posts puts me off new-builds- and I'd certainly be very dubious about buying off-plan.  As others say, you can see what you get with a "used" house, and hopefully any problems will have been rectified.  Brand new ones often reportedly suffer from small rooms, high price/profit expectations on the part of a developer and occasionally, genuine building faults.

Similarly, there's no real difference when it comes to valuing a historic, modern (late 20th century) or new 21st Century gaff/  It's only places like Italy where houses are priced by the square metre.  Here we seem to generalise by numbers of bedrooms, and any particular house is only worth what somone will pay for it.  So in the current (falling?) market, it might depend on your negotiating skills.  I've tended to start with an offer 10-7% under the asking price, sometimes got it for 7% below, more usually 4-5% under, and only once, in a sellers market have I had to pay the asking price.

Local Agents' listings and sold prices from zoopla or all the other property websites will give you a good guide to wheter the vendor is 'avin a laff!

Good luck

Thrugelmir

RelievedSheff said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

One must consider the fact that older builds tend to be of better quality than new ones.  That doesn't hold true everywhere, as there are good new builds and shocking seventies exec places, but it's a reasonable rule to stick to.  It's also wise to think about where the house actually is, in the geographical sense.  Where I live all the prime building land, that which is stable and not on flood plains, has already been built on.  As a result the new builds are going on land which is very much second best, such as on top of old sand and gravel workings or in areas prone to flooding.  As a result, the new builds there have issues with subsidence and so on. 

I have to disagree with that. Our 2019 new build is of far better build quality than our previous 1930's semi. If you wanted poor build quality that was a prime example!

It's what you cannot see that's the worry. Not the shiny finish. 

Swami_Trinel

For me the trick is to list your priorities, wants and nice to haves in your property search and go from there. I recently pulled out of a new build which ticked every box until I received the TP1 which contained a litany of spurious, uncapped charges and conditions.
I've since found a couple of older properties that tick many (not quite all) my wants and needs without the new home premium. Cost per sqft is a good, but not perfect, comparitor in that regard.
As a previous poster stated, a house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay. 

RelievedSheff

Thrugelmir said:

RelievedSheff said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

One must consider the fact that older builds tend to be of better quality than new ones.  That doesn't hold true everywhere, as there are good new builds and shocking seventies exec places, but it's a reasonable rule to stick to.  It's also wise to think about where the house actually is, in the geographical sense.  Where I live all the prime building land, that which is stable and not on flood plains, has already been built on.  As a result the new builds are going on land which is very much second best, such as on top of old sand and gravel workings or in areas prone to flooding.  As a result, the new builds there have issues with subsidence and so on. 

I have to disagree with that. Our 2019 new build is of far better build quality than our previous 1930's semi. If you wanted poor build quality that was a prime example!

It's what you cannot see that's the worry. Not the shiny finish. 

It was what you couldn't see with the old house that was the problem!!

I have far more confidence in our new build being a more solid and sound house.