New Builds

terrierlady

new builds do make the money when the site is in full swing especially if your home is of the same type as the show-home which usually sell out first,
one can make money by buying at the start and selling just before the end of a development.
In terrace homes yes you can hear next door but also in older homes one can, the detached homes are most sought after with 3 storey homes being the slowest sellers, if the kitchen is downstairs from the lounge which is common in some,the length of selling time can be around twice as long as a normal 2 storey home.
running cost are usually better with new builds and because people all move into a new development the usual Top dog syndrome doesn't apply,
Check out the parking is OK and measure the garage as in some although built to NHBC standard you need to open the car door to let passengers alight outside before you enter, as the space is tight.
Check the width of the drive as if you are getting children/pushchairs out etc on a wet day they may need to step out onto wet grass because the drive is too narrow.
negotiate well on new homes the incentives are there to be had.

John_M_Business

bunking_off wrote:

It does always amuse me that advocates of older properties can't acknowledge that newbuilds have their attractions, and believe that any purchasers must be mistaken. Me? I prefer newer properties but can understand why others might like older properties. Why don't people on the other side of the fence seem able to acknowledge other's preferences? Not having a go at any of the posters hear, more the C4/Locationlocation effect. Why have a nice sleek modern house when you can live in this derelict barn for a year and possibly make £10k poncing it up.... :-)

It is a fact that older properties will have more land (it's inherent in the planning rules), but it's not true to say the rooms on older properties are always bigger. To find an period house in my area with 2000sq ft like my newbuild would need a wallet at least twice the size.

Surely you're contradicting yourself here... on the one hand you're saying that newbuilds have their attractions, and then on the other the market is dictating that they are worth considerably LESS than the market. And, given your other figures, when the new 'sheen' of the building is lost, then it gets LESS 'valuable' to a buyer (thus the 1980s / 1970s viewpoint).

I raised this issue in my original post - but in reference to the crazy idea that newbuilds are worth MORE than the equivalent in the surrounding area... this is just RUBBISH. The great attraction of newbuilds is the newness. Generally, in my experience, they have smaller living spaces and, many have really rather stupid layouts (and, given that architecture SHOULD have got better during this time, this is particularly galling to see).

However there are SOME newbuilds that are worth considering, and these are usually the ones that have had a modicum of thought put into them beyond "how many flats can we fit onto half an acre". For example loft flats in East / East Central London - very desirable!! Mmmm (although now I'm a dad, too impractical)...

bunking_off

John_M_Business wrote:

Surely you're contradicting yourself here... on the one hand you're saying that newbuilds have their attractions, and then on the other the market is dictating that they are worth considerably LESS than the market. And, given your other figures, when the new 'sheen' of the building is lost, then it gets LESS 'valuable' to a buyer (thus the 1980s / 1970s viewpoint).

I don't think it's contradictory at all. There is a segment of the market willing to pay more for the same space, because they want period features. Fair enough. That doesn't mean EVERYONE wants these features, nor does it mean that this segment is right or wrong : just that they have an preference, which given there's limited stock pushes up prices. My point is that I dislike the inclination of the advocates of "period style" to give the impression that their taste is correct and those that don't share the same taste are by definition wrong.

John_M_Business wrote:

I raised this issue in my original post - but in reference to the crazy idea that newbuilds are worth MORE than the equivalent in the surrounding area... this is just RUBBISH. The great attraction of newbuilds is the newness. Generally, in my experience, they have smaller living spaces and, many have really rather stupid layouts (and, given that architecture SHOULD have got better during this time, this is particularly galling to see).

Well I'd say that if the builders are selling an identical property for £20k more, and it actually sells, then by definition the market believes it's worth more. You might not think it's worth more, but you're not buying it...there only needs to be 1 buyer and 1 seller to fix a price. I'd agree that a like-for-like sized 19th century house is preferable to a 21st century house (in my case probably not for the features, but because older houses tend to come with more land). The market clearly agrees as well because that's what prices reflect. However, this isn't the case when comparing new with nearly new, and particularly isn't the case when comparing new with 1960-80s properties. Therefore, it's not as black/white as new versus "not new" - there's lots of shades of grey around just how old the "not new" comparator is. Now, you can argue whether the market gets it wrong, but that's more of a discussion of whether your views reflect the views of the market.

My property has an entirely logical layout, but I'd acknowledge it's a bit out of the norm in having a proper (and proper sized) dining room. Newness was a minor attraction to me - what drove our buying decision was layout, location, lack of chain and security of delivery (having been gazumped on 2 properties and had another one fallen through after the vendors couldn't agree their divorce).

meanmachine_2

Personally I'd never buy a new build because the actual market value for the property hasn't been set by the market but by a builder "making one up".

Having said that, the older the property, the more likely it is to be on a busy noisy road, which is a definite no-no for me.

And "new build" doesn't always mean mock tudor boxes. I would, for example consider new conversions of quality buildings - school houses or former hospitals for example, but that's because you have the advantage of the old (a sound, well made quality structure) combined with the latest designs.

Again, though, others might disagree.

But I certaily think today's new builds are aesthetically more plesing than their 80s equivalents, so that's a plus. But will they last? That's the big unknown...

Kenny4315

I would not touch anything later than say around 1920. It is undisputed that Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian houses have more style and quality than new build. I can't imagine that barratts houses have marble fireplaces in the bedrooms, and ornate ceiling roses, etc. They build there rubbish at a price to make a profit, and this sort of stuff costs alot of cash. If you want the mod cons just buy an older victorian type property that's in good condition, rather than one that needs work, or better still get one in poor condition cheaper, buy yourself a DIY book and tailor it to your needs specifically.

Pokey rooms in older houses, how many Victorian townhouses have you seen with pokey rooms, can't remember who said it but they are having a laugh. I saw one a while ago that had a drawing room that was so pokey you could easily fit a full sized snooker table in it.

The only problem with the period properties is there is a huge premium to pay for things like a large garden, and parking, due to the fact most are built close to city centres, (which also commands a premium normally). Which I will admit is a pain, but I think personally that its worth paying the extra for a quality period house than this new build/recent build rubbish.

alared

Meanmachine said
Personally I'd never buy a new build because the actual market value for the property hasn't been set by the market but by a builder "making one up".

This is perfectly true but also applies to "old" property where the price is set by the estate agent "making one up".

terrierlady

Developers don't make prices up they sell by homes by square footage, they obtain price this by doing market research of the older homes already on the market in the build area.
How would this panel of readers determine the price of a house if not by estate agents and the use of square footage?
If its not priced right it dont sell, simple really.

bunking_off

Exactly.

Incidentally, that's what the Valuation Agency do as well....get the square footage then find comparable properties. However, (at least around here), the comparison is with "older" properties, but with older being defined in the 15-30 yr range....15 because what they do is find a comparable property that sold in 1991 (?) when the bands were set.

This is very different to looking at, say, a 60 yr old house of the same footage, which - at least around here - carries a premium over newer property.

We've wandered badly off topic here, but the OP was asking about price premium of a new build. I'd assumed that if we were talking about premium, a comparison with like-for-like was required, which implies nearly-new-build as the reference. On that basis, looking at the example of my neighbour's property, the builders seem to think the market will bear a premium of approx 5%.

alared

terrierlady wrote:

Developers don't make prices up they sell by homes by square footage, they obtain price this by doing market research of the older homes already on the market in the build area.
How would this panel of readers determine the price of a house if not by estate agents and the use of square footage?
If its not priced right it dont sell, simple really.

Go back and have a look at post 16 of mine!
Of course "they make the price up" and as most people are gullible and are easily led by these salespeople saying "the markets this the markets that" and the "price is sure to rise on the next plots being released" they believe all this spiel.
The truth is the builders will try and get as much as they can for each plot by fair but mainly foul means.
(lying through their teeth)
When will the public learn that there are far too many "snouts in the trough" making lots of money by "talking the housing market up".
Government (stamp duty),estate agents,banks,building societies,surveyors,solicitors,BUILDERS,uncle tom cobbley and all.
IT`S NOT IN THEIR INTEREST TO SEE THE MARKET GO DOWN.

terrierlady

I don't agree, most people are wise to the fact that sites like this exist for help and advise and also price comparison and are not gullible, in fact at this moment in time only properties priced right are selling.that applies to both old and new.
new builds have their devotees and so do older properties the beauty of older properties are larger plots thicker walls but higher running costs.