Buy New, Vintage or Victorian Home?

[celtic]

Truer words were never spoken. My wife and I purchased our first home in 1994 - a Victorian built in 1886. We're still there, but can't wait to move. You simply can't stop the ravages of time and there is always something that needs to be repaired or replaced. If you want a crash course in home maintenance or the law of diminishing returns, then definitely buy an older home. :eusa_doh:

+1

I am not rich, and I am NOT a handyman, and neither is my wife. Our first was an 1890 Victorian. It was in great shape, but still needed work...

Houses will ALWAYS need something, and with the old houses, nothing new that you buy fits right: nothing is level, square, etc, so you're always eyeballing and hoping to get it right....

and it's never ONE job...

It's always "Well, I needed to change the lighting fixture, so I had to first install a new up-to-code electric box." Or "I needed to paint the porch, so I first had to strip 5-6 layers of lead paint off and replace old putty or dry rot..." Old houses like that always have lead paint and asbestos. I thought of that one day as I was stripping paint using a heat gun on a 90 degree day...."hmmm, wondering how much lead it takes to go mad"

Then a lot of the houses in the neighborhood were split up into rentals because nobody can afford to heat a 3000 sq. foot Victorian with bad insulation...


Well, we sold the Victorian and moved into a BORING, late 80s split level that has everything that we want but character.

I love it, but my wife aches for an old house. And now the garage door needs to be replaced, and even though the opener works it will need to be replaced with a new one that's up-to-code....

it NEVER ends...

BUT,

it's easier to find fixtures and replace things with a newer house.

YMMV

 

[Sefton]

My family and I own a 1924 craftsman bungalow which fortunately had almost everything restored. The windows are new, but they are traditional double hung with rope weights in the frame. They are not very effecient for heating or cooling though. We hope to be able to sell in a few years (economy and housing market willing) and get a larger home in a location more convenient to public transportation. Our ideal would be a victorian. I grew up in victorians and as an adult rented a victorian flat in San Francisco for 10 years. Lots of issues with maintenance, but so much beauty and real character to those homes. And has been stated already, an amazing quality of construction and timber. As long as the foundation is good and it's been well maintained I'd buy a victorian home without a doubt.

 

[Foofoogal]

I have lived and restored older homes. I am currently living in a new home and looking online and in real life at lots of homes.
My eyes are starting to gloss over at the sameness of newer homes. The home I am in is nice but I just don't feel it is well built at all. I honestly feel as if I can put my finger thru the walls. I keep telling the real estate lady. I don't care if it has a chandelier in every room and crown molding galore. I want it to be built. This is what you get with an older home.
"Wood" real wood. Not particle board junk.
The home I sold had tongue and groove roof decking and the second floor was the same. Built solid.
Beginning to wonder if anyone builds new homes solid. May have to do it ourselves. lol

 

[Forgotten Man]

Well, there are a lot of pros and cons to this debate but, I’ll toss in my two bits and tell ya what I think.

I rent a 1911-1912 farm house, it has been updated in many ways, most of the updates were in the 30s or 40s with the addition of a small bathroom and laundry room. The doors and some of the windows were replaced 5 or so years ago… not what I would have done but, I wasn’t living here then.

Living here in CA I’ve seen what most modern homes endure after an earthquake… it isn’t pretty. Today’s building materials aren’t as lasting as the way people built homes 100 years ago. Some things are safer, and do work “better” but you can make any old home into a safe structure because of the craftsmanship that was put into these older homes.

Old homes do take work to keep up but, its well worth it I feel. The charm and caricature that one finds in an older home surpasses that of any modern dwelling. Contemporary structures are very cold, average, unexciting, generic creatures. If one can buy a well maintained Victorian, Craftsman or Spanish Revival home for the same price as a sheetrock, drywall palace, then buy the classic home and keep it around for the next 100 years! My house is on pylons, it doesn’t sit on a foundation… originally constructed as a farm “shack” it has withstood the test of time. Has been through many earthquakes and still stands and is safe to live in. We also have many Victorians and Craftsman homes here in Monrovia that has stood against the odds.

When it comes time to buy a home, I’m buyin’ an old home that has as many original fixtures as possible! I will probably pay a company to replace the galvanized pipes and replace them with copper, also go through the electrical and restore it to the correct period specs… I want to keep my fuse box!

 

[ohairas]

I've always loved old homes, and we live in a 102 year old house. We've had to do alot, but mainly UNmuddling it.

We put a separate heating/cooling unit upstairs and down which really helped with the energy bills.

If you have the passion, time, engery, and $$$ for an old house, definitely go for it. The pride in preserving these homes is priceless....so rewarding even if you cursed through the entire experience, lol!

If you haven't the time or money, and can afford an old home that has been updated, I would go that route for sure.

As many have said, on average newer homes are built as cheaply as possible. I've heard SUCH horror stories from folks building homes. And those that have new homes have stories of leaky basements or craked foundations.

It all boils down to what you can find, old or new in your price range/area/wants/needs.

 

[maybelaughter]

i adore old houses.
ours is around 130 yeas old, or at least the original house was built then - there have been many little add-ons over the years. when we were looking to buy, we must have seen 100+ homes (not counting the ones online...). our price range was very low, and i'm very picky! i love the house we ended up with, it had been in the same family since it was built (until us), but i really wish that the woman who lived here lasts boyfriend/whatever hadn't tried to "fix" things - because we keep finding things that have to be redone because of poor workmanship... (never ever use 2-in-1 stain/sealer, esp. not on floors with bad bristle brushes...) thankfully he had someone else reroof it, and install new central heat/air and update the electric. so we can do everything else that needs to be done ourselves!
when we first moved in, we tore out the nasty carpeting and the brittle linoleum, removed the tar that was under the nasty linoleum, and refinished the original floors - beautiful white oak! the walls are mostly plaster+lathe, complete with horsehair we tore out the pantry, and a closet in one of the bedroom, and put in a 3-ft wide staircase to the attic. eventually, we'll finish insulating the attic roof, even out the rafters and put a floor in the attic, along with a large dormer window - all of this will almost double the sq.footage of the house. hooray for tall attics! (and i wish it were done - i need more space!)
i love how the house flows - large/wide archway between living room/kitchen, a double-door unlike any i've seen ( it's like two doors hinged together, with bolts that slide into the floor/ceiling in the middle, so it can swing wide open, or just be used as a normal doorway) between living room/main bedroom. i hate how the ceilings have been dropped and there's no closet space! and it gets cold cold cold in the winter...

the house i grew up in was built by my dad/grandpa and designed by my dad. both of my grandpa's houses were also built by them - all with help from various people in the community (small town). it's solid! if i had a new house, i would want them to build it. otherwise, no new houses for me, ever. too flimsy, too much money (empty lots here can go for more than our house - yikes!), and no character. i like used things.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Well, our large Victorian (a 5000 sq ft Italianate) is not as expensive to heat as a friend's 1958 2000 sq ft ranch. Our home is fitted with restored original windows, all of which now seal well. We have only replaced the original windows with thermopane in the kitchen and in the bathrooms. The walls are four-course brick, which were tuck-pointed and repainted in 2000. they have no insulation save the air spaces built into them originally. The attics have 15" of blow-in cellulose insulation, and the interior frame walls are insulated with R-11 fiberglas for sound-proofing.

We found this home to be very expensive to heat with conventional forced warm air furnaces, even after the building was insulated, but since the building rerains much of its original closed floor-plan, in which every room can be closed off from every other room, and from the halls, we have since installed individually controllable radiant heat in most of the rooms, and heat rooms as we use them.

Our average fuel bills this past winter have been under $250.00/month. Our friends' ranch has cost over 60/month to heat this past winter.

Insulating and monitor heat is a great idea for lowering heating bills in any house, new or old. To do a fair comparison of the two homes, though, you'd have to factor in what temperature you leave the thermostat on, and in how many rooms, and how many hours each day. Some people leave it it 70 all day, others 50, etc. Another factor is maintaining the furnace or boiler for efficiency. There are many variables, but I have to say in most cases, a smaller house is more economical to heat given prudent steps are taken. But as you point out, you can make an old large house more efficient!

 

[PrettySquareGal]

It IS those intangibles that I need! I could never be happy in a sterile new house. (I rented one for six years and it was SO well sealed around the windows that we had a mold problem due to poor ventilation.)

 

[FStephenMasek]

I have personally inspected many houses of all ages for asbestos, lead (paint and ceramic tile) and/or mold.

Did you know that asbestos was still used in many common materials until the middle or even late 1980s (e.g. drywall joint compound, stucco, sheet vinyl flooring, HVAC ducts)? Houses built or remodeled in the 1960s and 1970s could also be finished with asbestos ceiling texture or acoustic plaster, or even asbestos containing ceiling tiles/panels, vinyl floor tile (all sizes, not just 9" x 9"), flooring and other mastic, pipe insulation, roofing, and many other materials.

Dealing with toxic/hazardous materials can greatly increase the cost of any renovation or repair work, as well as the amount of time needed. Therefore, it is wise to obtain proper inspections of any property you are seriously considering. It is also quite normal to then give a copy of the report(s) to the seller and seller's real estate agent, therby obligating them to share what they then know with all other prospective purchasers, and to use the findings as a factor in the negotiations over the price. Be careful to obtain a good consultant, as the wrong one might recommend removal of materials which will not be disturbed and which are in good condition.

Insulation and knob and tube wiring do not mix

 

[LordBest]

Best of both worlds

Have the best of both worlds, a new house, in a traditional style:
http://www.qftarchitects.net

 

[Corky]

During the '94 Earthquake here in Los Angeles...

During the '94 Earthquake here in Los Angeles, our house and the two houses around us dating to the 1020's suffered only a few cracked panes of glass and some cracks in the wall plaster.

On the next block over, a house that was less than 10 years old collapsed like a house of cards.

And to anyone who might have forgotten that earthquakes don't only occur in California -- the largest earthquake in the United States history happened in a place called New Madrid, Missouri, back in 1812. The Mississippi River changed its course and flowed backward for a few days. The quake caused church bells to ring in Boston, sidewalks to be cracked and broken in Washington, D.C., and toppled chimneys in Maine.

It might be nice to live in a new house, but I wouldn't want to ride out a major earthquake in one.

 

[Foofoogal]

It is disheartening to me that both the newer ones are not being built well at all and that the older ones seem to be lanquishing in bad neighborhoods.
I don't care what kind of spin a realtor or person puts on it.
I rode out several bad hurricanes as a child inside very strong structures. One time a church. It scares me that there are not places of refuge like that much anymore.
I do understand the dangers of asbestos though and bad wiring and such.
I just moved into tornado alley territory and am hell bent on finding a good home or a home with a basement or at least cellar. I think it is appauling when I look around. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all the older homes have a cellar in backyard and the new ones do not.
Every week they test the siren for a tornado so every week I am hyper aware of this.
Finding the perfect house is like finding a hens tooth.
I did like the Victorian I looked at but no cellar or basement. :eusa_doh:
Maybe I could put one in.
http://www.preservationdirectory.com/HistoricalPreservation/Home.aspx

 

[texasgirl]

Or Buy New, that looks Vintage

There's a new development north of Dallas in McKinney that is building new homes that have very classic styles. I'm not wild about some of the modern interiors, but this is a huge improvement from most of the new homes in the area.

http://www.tuckerhilltx.com/AvailableHomes/SearchforaHome.aspx

 

[Foofoogal]

http://www.tuckerhilltx.com/AvailableHomes/HomeDetails.aspx?CMLS=11019205

I would buy this one in a heartbeat. Now I have to pray really, really hard I get to move there. lol

http://www.tuckerhilltx.com/AvailableHomes/HomeDetails.aspx?CMLS=11019945
this is a dream also. I actually lived in a home like this as a child and they razed it years later.

 

[Johnnysan]

My previous post from two years ago...

Truer words were never spoken. My wife and I purchased our first home in 1994 - a Victorian built in 1886. We're still there, but can't wait to move. You simply can't stop the ravages of time and there is always something that needs to be repaired or replaced. If you want a crash course in home maintenance or the law of diminishing returns, then definitely buy an older home. :eusa_doh:

Still there.
Still working.
Still broke.

lol

 

[FStephenMasek]

It might be nice to live in a new house, but I wouldn't want to ride out a major earthquake in one.

Your intentions are good, but it is not that simple. I would much rather be in a new house, or a properly retrofitted old house. Of course, a poorly built new house is no good (we noticed tie-downs with no nuts on the bolts at some other houses in our subdivision during our visits when they were being framed, and do not know if the nuts were even installed on the other houses. In the case of the house you mentioned, it could have poorly built, poorly maintained (e.g. termite damage), or the ground motion at its location may have been far stronger.

 

[Joie DeVive]

It is disheartening to me that both the newer ones are not being built well at all and that the older ones seem to be lanquishing in bad neighborhoods.

I'm with Foofoo on this one. While there have been poorly constructed homes in all eras, I think that the overall quality of homes has diminished since the mid-1970's. While home shopping, I swore by a book written by a master carpenter and home builder who agreed. I'm sorry I don't remember the name of the book or the author . I even checked my notes to see if I could find it.

With the widespread use of particle board, much of which will literally fall apart when exposed to water, structural problems are much more common. And yes, I know that they put vapor seals on the exterior, but the problem is, that that really is just plastic sheeting, and plastic eventually degrades and ruptures. While home shopping I was shocked at the number of homes that were 10 years old or less that had structural problems similar to the ones that had been built 50 to 100 years ago!!

All homes are imperfect, and they will all require work. And yes, retrofitting an older home can be much more challenging than working with a newer one. It comes with the territory. However, having seen literally hundreds of examples of homes from all eras, I'll take my solid beauty built in the late 50's-early 60's over the modern homes any day. No plastic pipes and particle board for me. I'll deal with the ravages of time as they come. Just remember the more modern houses from the 1990's will someday also be old and harder to retrofit.. Just make sure you spring for a really good inspector, so you know what you are getting!

And unrelated to my post, if you are looking at older homes, one hazard that most people don't know about it an early form of attic insulation. It is called vermiculite (sp?), and looks a lot like sparkly little rocks. If you touch it, it will be light, like styrofoam. It is a naturally occurring rock, but the problem with it is that it tends to contain veins of asbestos and uranium which degrades into radon. It is just a substance best to be avoided.

 

[Foofoogal]

I really wonder if it is even possible to build your own home as strong as the old ones.
I love the homes texasgirl has posted but wonder how well they are made.
I have picked thru tons of lumber in my day with honey and it is hard to find good boards. ( I hear the good wood goes to Japan) [huh] I know many use old barn lumber and such.
Does any person on FL do carpentry and know?

 

[Haversack]

One of things to bear in mind about our perception of the quality of older houses is that poorly constructed older houses have tended not to survive and that what are left tend to be well constructed.

That being said, there are certain qualities of older houses which tend to be superior to those of more recent vintage. First, the quality of the lumber used is certainly much less than what it was even thirty years ago. To be sure, CVG, (clear vertical grain), and #1 and better lumber are still available, but are now so expensive that they only get used for very-high-end construction and finish work. Today, you are lucky to have #2 or better. Carpenters today have to use sticks thay would have discarded in the past. This can create structural and finish problems later when the wood starts moving around. This is due to supply and demand. Demand for lumber has steadily increased for the past century and the supply of old trees has not kept up. Plus, it takes 80+ years for Douglas Fir to begin to produce high quality timber. It only takes 40-60 years for it to produce 'marketable' timber. This means that for now, it is more profitable to 'quickly' produce mediocre lumber than to 'slowly' produce high-quality lumber. Which is also why there is much more variety and use of engineered lumber. (Plywood, OSB, Glu-Lams, Wooden I-beams, etc.) These allow lesser quality lumber to be used for structurally demanding purposes.

A second area where older houses have an edge over their descendants is the amount of hand work that commonly went in to finishing them. (Plaster, Tile, Finish Carpentry, Masonry, etc.) These all require a higher degree of craftsmanship than the modern equivilents and it usually shows. (I've written earlier here about how modern materials are in part designed to be installed quickly with less-skilled labour.

The third area which I think older houses are superior is in their overall design. Most aesthetic features that we associate with older houses, (and here I mean pre-1940), such as high ceilings, deep porches, wall mouldings and wainscoting, descrete room seperation, etc. are passive solutions to practical problems. (Daylighting, cooling, protecting the wall finish, and heating). These now tend to get solved by active measures independant of the structural design.

This not to say that houses of the past were an Age of Gold to our present day Age of Plastic and Glue. We have a much better understanding of building and material physics than in the past and this is reflected in the building codes. Foundations, (size, materials, and reinforcement), of today are greatly superior to those of 100 years ago. Similarly, fastener technology, (nails, screws, connecters and strapping), make house structures much stronger than in the past. (Think earthquake bolts and hurricane clips). Electrical wiring goes without saying. Insulation against heat and cold is the rule rather than the exception. Modern heating is easier to use. (When was the last time you had to light a pilot light or receive a delivery of coal?)

I should point out two specific periods in the past in which qulaity of the housing stock suffered. These are the 1940s, and the 1970s. Both were periods of social stress and material shortages which resulted in a great deal of construction and materials innovation and experimentation. The 1940s saw building materials in short supply due to demands of the war and the subsequent postwar shortage of housing. This resulted in many shortcuts taken in construction and many substitute materials experimented with. The 1970s saw another (albeit smaller) housing shortage resulting from the postwar baby boom coupled with a steep rise in petroleum prices. This is when making houses energy efficienct became a priority. Again much experimentation and innovation. In both of these periods, many of the innovations succeeded and have improved our houses. Others, however, failed. And for some innovations, this failure took place only after they had been extensively used. Aluminum wiring and airtight houses are two examples.

Haversack.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Electrical wiring goes without saying.

I was shocked (har har) to learn from two Master electricians that fuse boxes (at least 100 amps) are perfectly safe unless people replace a fuse with one that is too large.