New Builds Vs Old Builds

bery_451

TheProfessional said:

People have their preferences.

Our preference was period. First house was a Victorian terrace which we loved. Walls not necessarily straight, cellar which wasn't watertight, creaky floors in places, old pipes and wiring which we had no idea what it did or where it went. It was beautiful.

Others don't want that sort of hassle. They like straight walls and everything new. They don't expect to have poor build quality. They don't expect to have the problems with new builds you talk about - theres a warranty innit!

Most new builds I see tend to look very small inside. I think the solo ones that go up are better than the estates but that's just my opinion

Also a lot of people use schemes to buy which are available only on new build

Good thing we all have different wants and needs otherwise everyone would be scrabbling for the same type of house

Has the Government stopped the Starter Home scheme where 1st time buyers can qualify for a 20% discount off a new build on market value?

When you say solo you mean detached homes, not semi-detached?

Lastly how long these warranties last for on new builds and do they really work? Lets say a rat or mice chewed its way into a new build because they are not solid compared to a old build then that start nibbling on the plastic central heating pipes hidden behind walls and ceilings because new builds use plastic pipes instead of more expensive metal copper pipes and the rodents caused the pipe to leak and remember new builds have a water meter so you be paying for the water leaking. Question is can the homebuyer of the new build get the leaking pipe fixed under warranty and compensated for the water bill and water damage or will the property company tell the new homeowner to get lost?

sonyarita

I live in a home built in 1930s, was an absolute steal but have had to do and will still need to do a lot of work.
It is a lot bigger and has more outside space than many new builds in my area but not sure about the workmanship. We have been putting in new door frames and stuff and it hasn't been easy as the walls aren't plum. Not sure if that is down to age or workmanship.
I wouldn't mind living in a newer build next as long as it was a suitable size. I would like to not have to do as much work next time round.

bery_451

Davesnave said:

bery_451 said:

FreeBear said:

There have always been cowboy builders and dodgy developers. Just because a house is old, doesn't mean it is constructed any better than a modern build.

I would also take issue with the notion that timber framed construction will not last. Take a walk through somewhere like Lavenham, and you'll find countless timber framed houses that has stood the test of time. OK, they generally used oak, but even modern softwood framing will last as long as it is kept dry.

Oak is good strong solid wood to be used for framed construction however are the property developers using it nowadays for new builds? If not do they use oak for the so called 'luxury' new builds?

Normal non-oak timber requires special coating on it called treatment or varnish whatever you wanna call it to stop the timber rotting from humidity/moisture. Are the property developers treating their timber for new builds? If not it be very concerning as we live in a climate where we have freezing winters and warm summers and these volatile weather cycles throughout the year can affect soft wood like timber. Imagine having termites in a timber framed new build 

I think this post demonstrates the dangers of having a little knowledge and trying to extrapolate from that without doing more detailed research.

No, builders don't usually use oak to make timber framing, nor is it 'coated;' it's pressure-treated to stop rot and insect attack. Also, a timber framed house in this country usually has a brick or similar skin, so the frame is not exposed to weather. Termites have only ever existed in this country in a small coastal area of North Devon.

As for climatic variations and harsh weather, ask yourself what houses are often made from in somewhere with those and a higher per capita income than the UK, like Norway or Finland!

Doesn't wood expand in hot weather and contracts in colder weather? Over decades this can lead to a long term structural problem correct? 

Yes the timber frame is not exposed however moisture or damp can still get to it. If the timber frame new build is in a flood zone and its get flooded then its game over for the house.

I see treated timber looks greenish, so they just spray it at the factory before it arrives at the builders merchants and how long this treatment lasts for before it needs to be treated again?

I dont know what kind of wood they using in Norway or Finland. Maybe they are using good hard wood like solid Oak, who knows? 

Im talking about timber framed in new builds in UK, if a karate chop can break the wood used in these new builds then that be very concerning? What if there was like a mini temp 2 sec groundshake or Earthquake that happens rarely every 30 years or so in the UK, are timber framed new builds strong enough?

TadleyBaggie

Bought a new build in 1983, timber framed but with brick skin, development of 3 with a small builder. Was a complete nightmare to getting snagging fixed.

Next house was bought in 1987, it was a new build (Bovis) but since it had been the showhouse it was well bedded in when we bought it. Didn't have any issues with it.

Current house was built in 1988 but we didn't buy it until 1992, so again all issue resolved before we purchased it. Talking to neighbours who bought new, they had major issues with damp for the first couple of years. Builder (Rockhold) eventually went out of business I believe.

I would never buy new again, any house I buy in future will be at least 5 years old.

weeg

I'm not usually the person to call Troll, but, the OP's replies seem like there might be a bridge nearby... Either that or wilful ignorance.

It's really not hard to understand the timbers are pressure treated, and protected from the weather, or to ascertain that Scandi houses are built with exactly the same woods as UK houses. The assumption that houses are worse here than in the rest of europe irritates the knickers off me.

Does the OP really think all builders/engineers/ designers are charlatans and fools? Does the concept of building standards and design codes mean nothing? I'm not going to defend the contractors or designers at Grenfell, but I'd also point out that they wouldn't have been spending money on the block if it didn't already have major problems.

Do they really think all old buildings were really better designed and built - the London slums, the overcrowded Glasgow tenements, the shoddy back-to-backs? Yeah, no thanks. These were demolished for good reason.

Nebulous2

bery_451 said:

Nebulous2 said:

What do you live in? Do you like it? 

I bought a new build,  timber-framed as most houses in Scotland are, 30 years ago. Maintenance was minimal. One boiler, occasional coat of paint on external woodwork, very frugal on heating. 

I bought a 250 year old house 2 years ago. We've had work done on the roof twice. Spent more on maintenance in 2 years than in 30 of the other house. It had substantial interior work in 63, 87 and now needs it again. 

I like them both. Largely because of where they are. The new build really suited us with a young family. Hopefully the old one will suit us in a new phase of our lives. 

Some people know the freemasons were the best builders in the world that built the best beautiful buildings and when they moved to Scotland centuries ago from France they built excellent buildings is Scotland. The word mason means builder I believe.

Surprised to hear that most houses in Scotland are timber framed, you saying most of the property development took place in Scotland from the 90s modern?

Timber-framing seems very normal to me - for as long as I have been looking at houses it has been the dominant method of building, from the early 1980s or so. I'm not entirely sure whether that is regional or applies to the whole of Scotland. I know that lenders in England sometimes had a reticence to lend on timber-framed houses, but would specify that they were happy to provide mortgages on these in Scotland. 

917700

weeg said:

I'm not usually the person to call Troll, but, the OP's replies seem like there might be a bridge nearby... Either that or wilful ignorance.

It's really not hard to understand the timbers are pressure treated, and protected from the weather, or to ascertain that Scandi houses are built with exactly the same woods as UK houses. The assumption that houses are worse here than in the rest of europe irritates the knickers off me.

Does the OP really think all builders/engineers/ designers are charlatans and fools? Does the concept of building standards and design codes mean nothing? I'm not going to defend the contractors or designers at Grenfell, but I'd also point out that they wouldn't have been spending money on the block if it didn't already have major problems.

Do they really think all old buildings were really better designed and built - the London slums, the overcrowded Glasgow tenements, the shoddy back-to-backs? Yeah, no thanks. These were demolished for good reason.

I completely agree with you. After reading the OP's posts, I decided not to reply and entertain him. 

stuart45

bery_451 said:

 What if there was like a mini temp 2 sec groundshake or Earthquake that happens rarely every 30 years or so in the UK, are timber framed new builds strong enough?

Timber buildings actually survive better than most masonry buildings in an earthquake. Most residential buildings in Southern California are timber construction. Structural masonry there is normally reinforced blockwork.

RelievedSheff

Nebulous2 said:

bery_451 said:

Nebulous2 said:

What do you live in? Do you like it? 

I bought a new build,  timber-framed as most houses in Scotland are, 30 years ago. Maintenance was minimal. One boiler, occasional coat of paint on external woodwork, very frugal on heating. 

I bought a 250 year old house 2 years ago. We've had work done on the roof twice. Spent more on maintenance in 2 years than in 30 of the other house. It had substantial interior work in 63, 87 and now needs it again. 

I like them both. Largely because of where they are. The new build really suited us with a young family. Hopefully the old one will suit us in a new phase of our lives. 

Some people know the freemasons were the best builders in the world that built the best beautiful buildings and when they moved to Scotland centuries ago from France they built excellent buildings is Scotland. The word mason means builder I believe.

Surprised to hear that most houses in Scotland are timber framed, you saying most of the property development took place in Scotland from the 90s modern?

Timber-framing seems very normal to me - for as long as I have been looking at houses it has been the dominant method of building, from the early 1980s or so. I'm not entirely sure whether that is regional or applies to the whole of Scotland. I know that lenders in England sometimes had a reticence to lend on timber-framed houses, but would specify that they were happy to provide mortgages on these in Scotland. 

Timber Framed houses have not been as common in our area of the UK and brick and block has been pretty much the norm. However in the last few years there has certainly been an increase in the number of timber framed housing developments that we are involved in.

We are also now working on a number of projects with modular housing units where the homes are prefabricated off site and brought to site almost complete barring the masonry outer skin.

For me, I still prefer a traditional brick and block construction and we were happy that the new build we bought was brick and block. They are just starting the new phase of the development here and I have a sneaking suspicion that the developers might switch to timber framed houses as they have recently purchased a timber framing company.

Murphybear

We lived on an old farmhouse on the edge of Dartmoor for a while.  The walls were about 3 ft thick and it was warm in the winter and cool in the summer.  It was incredibly quiet as well.  The only problem was trying to get a mobile signal, you had to either stand next to a window or go outside.

I don’t think they build houses like that anymore.

i was brought up in a council house that was part of the post war development.  Our town was one of those bombed and they had a massive housing programme.  The house was solidly brick built with decent size rooms, including a separate dining room and we had a large garden round the side of the house as well as the back.  It was very quiet, we couldn’t hear our neighbours at all. We were one end of a block of 4.  

The houses built in later years were much smaller with tiny gardens.