Homes… Your Thoughts… Old or New?

[IndyIan]

Build quality, a good design, well thought out updates, and keeping up on maintenance, can make old places better than new ones, but it has to be done right...
We are upgrading my FIL well built 1918 place. He did a significant update in 1980 but cut a few corners with upgrading the HVAC, electrics, plumbing, and someone thought a chimney at the base of a valley in the roof would be fine with some extra flashing...(probaby leaked since 1984....) and since about 2005 he hasn't really kept up on maintenance....
I guess he saved a few 1980's dollars, but its been quite a few bucks now to get things up to scratch... Its triple brick on a stone foundation that is 5' wide at the base, so its not falling down real soon, but it needed some help.
I've been in lots of farm houses from the same time that are very very nice though, and would cost a fortune to replicate now. Those owners have no interest in moving to a new house.

 

[JeepHead]

Good homes are sill being built but not generally in neighborhoods where they're building one home after another or even multiple at a time. Those tend to get slapped up fast and have lots of issues. I know, I built my first home like that. The home we have now was built in 1965 and owned by the same old couple until we bought it 20 months ago. Our home is all brick and was completely remodeled with with no expense spared right before we purchased it. We're very happy with it!

I would have no issues building a new home today but I would have the Amish do it if I went that route.

 

[masseyrider]

Two levels of old.
1
60s and early 70s.
Still solid wood. Tongue and groove boards. Real 2x10-12s.
Exterior grade plywood roof.
Admittedly insulation, windows, HVAC, electrical aren't as good.
However the basic box is superior to what they are building now.
2
I love the look of a real Victorian.
You couldn't afford the trim and hardwoods throughout now adays.
They need a thorough gutting and update but the style

 

[WinterDeere]

I'm chuckling at anyone calling 1920's "old", as that's basically modern construction, if you ignore the obvious safety concern with balloon framing. Really, I'd consider anything after the invention of Portland cement as relatively modern, meaning Victorian onward, with regard to maintenance costs and frequency.

I've lived in and worked on houses spanning 1690's - 1950's, and my life has been mostly marked as a long series of home rennovations. There are pros and cons to each era, so it'd help to know your goals.

Our present home was built in four phases, the oldest dating to the 1730's. It's beautiful, but admittedly very expensive to maintain. I'd recommend a home of this age only to someone who's seriously into older houses.

The house I owned just prior to this was a Victorian, built in the 1870's or 1880's, and by comparison to the present house, very modern and easy to maintain. As I'd done a nearly-complete rennovation of the place, the person living in it now no more maintenance work than a modern home, other than repainting the remaining original windows every 5 - 10 years. In fact, given how poorly some things are flashed and weatherproofed on modern homes, their total maintenance may be lower on that Victorian.

What are your goals, and your preferences? Do you mind maintenance and rennovations? Is heating cost a serious concern? Do you see value in the character and ambience that only a truly old home can provide?

My home office now is built into the 1775 kitchen addition of this house, with a walk-in fireplace behind me containing a wood stove, and leather sofa across from that. There's four old wavy glass divided light windows from which I can look out on acres of lawn and woods in all directions from my desk, and I can see every battle scar in the floor from generations of past homeowners who used this room every day as their kitchen. Just outside the office is the staircase to the second floor, treads scalloped 1/2" deep by the probably 3 - 4 million trips made up and down those stairs, over the last 250 years. The room below my office is the original 1734 kitchen and living room. I really can't imagine a nicer place to have to sit and do my work, which at least in my mind, makes the cost of maintaining and heating the place worthwhile. Of course, others may feel differently.

 

[Tomtint]

If you have the means to build a new custom home, I believe its for superior to older homes. More energy efficient, Quieter, etc. I have built a number of our houses, The one we are in now I built in 2009, It will be here another 200 years with all the steel and micro lams in it.

 

[ultrarunner]

I think the reason so many 100 year old homes here have weathered well is the very mild California climate…

Somewhere I have the original bill of sale listing down payment in 1922 as $10 US Gold.

The layout and craftsman standards like the Bay Window, Built In Hutch and Matchstick Hardwood are appreciated 100 years later…

I like the original double hung windows, door hardware, 1922 high leg stove and gravity central heat…

 

[David in KY]

I've lived all over America, in nice neighborhoods and in many custom built homes (wife traveled climbing the corporate ladder).

Every home we lived in had attractive layouts and were spacious. But each one had various layout flaws and design problems.
My retirement home will be a ICF ranch style house of my own design. Being a jack of all trades and having been around construction most of my life, I will do the much of the work myself. The main motivation for that is seeing shoddy workmanship and poor designs that become permanent issues for the "next guy".

Also, you can address design priorities like building to withstand tornadoes and earthquakes, or having a large pantry, or dog wash station, or whatever strikes your fancy, to accommodate your own circumstances.

To the OP, new would be my choice, if you have the option.

 

[FullMetalBucket]

two of the houses I grew up in were old. The first was 200ish years old in the early 70s, but not sure if the exact year. It’s long since been torn down now. Then we moved into a house in NH that was built in 1750. That was a very interesting house with a history. We did a lot of work on the house as it was in tough shape.

here’s a pic of the dining room.

Towards the back of the property there was an old iron door in a small hill that was rumored to lead to underground tunnels. It was locked or rusted shut and we were told never to go near it. I got curious once and when I got close to it the hair on my body literally stood up on end and I gtfo of there .. completely creeped out. A lot of the houses in the area were the same timeframe and lots of stories to go with them.

In any case it’s now 275 years old and still standing.

 

[Dftodd]

Last house was an early 80's build. It was quite comfy after opening the kitchen, updating the windows, venting the attic, and adding 10" of insulation to the attic.

My grandparents home was built in the early 1900's.

The original house had a pitched roof for the second floor with gables.

My great grandfather purchased the house in the 1940's and immediately raised the roof and put in a full second floor without the pitched ceilings and added a full attic in the new pitched portion.

The issue was insulation. My grandfather had blown in insulation added to the walls when he and my grandmother inherited the place and moved in.

What he didn't realize was the headers for the walls were there, as the old gables. So there were places without insulation.

The house was gorgeous, but drafty.

The gas furnace was undersized for the 3500 sqft.

Original single pane windows with the storm inserts.

To put in mildly, it was 40° in the bedrooms in the winter

Electrical needed a serious updating, heating system needed updating, etc.....

 

[4570Man]

I’m a contractor and as far as I’m concerned the idea that old houses are better is completely rubbish. There’s always been shoddy builders but at least now they have some building codes to keep them in check. I’m not sure how anyone thinks that people could build whatever they wanted completely unchecked and untrained made for better quality? My county didn’t enforce any build codes until 2012. Until then you were completely free to span 2x6 floor joints 16 ft on 24” centers if you felt like it. Now days plumbing and electrical has to be done by licensed plumbers and electricians and be inspected. Does that ensure quality? Of course not but that’s better than harry hack doing it with zero oversight. Depending on where we’re drawing the line as old the old houses didn’t even have plumbing, electrical or HVAC. Those systems were usually installed later and almost always hacked up. Even crappy new windows seal better than old ones. Heating old homes especially really old ones is a costly venture. Building code requires insulation. Old homes frequently have none or very little. People are usually comparing the elite class of old homes and ignoring that the vast majority of them fell down already. I will agree that old timber was better and the old building lots were usually better. I’m not saying all new houses are good. There’s definitely shoddy builders but at least now they at least have code enforcement. But there’s always been shoddy builders and previously they had zero oversight. I don’t exactly send the code guys a Christmas card they make my life harder and more expensive but I’ve seen enough shoddy work to realize why they exist.