So… I probably won’t have all my financial ducks enough in a row for several more months when it comes to putting a reasonable down payment on anything, but while trying to see who bought the house next door, I found some really reasonably priced houses in town; real honest to god houses with yards, I mean, not mobile homes in parks. One’s a three bedroom house with an attached 2 bedroom rental property for $130,000, and another’s a 3 bedroom for $109,000. Besides those prices meaning the houses will probably need a lot of work (not sure how much from the photos) the more expensive one was built in 1850, and the less in 1900.
This has me wondering, how old a house do you think is too old to consider? I’m not going to try to buy either of these houses, but what would you advise someone like me when it comes to considering the age of a home?
[ul]
[li]Especially a first-time buyer[/li][li]Who is single[/li][li]And, while is a kickass wall painter and box furniture constructor, has 0 experience with wiring or plumbing more complicated than helping to replace a toilet or sink[/li][li]Could realistically afford some emergency repairs (not a real money pit, though)[/li][li]Would of course consult a home inspector before placing any bids[/li][/ul]
What sort of problems would a buyer face more often with an older house than…well, you tell me, how young does a house have to be to have a reasonable expectation that you won’t need to replace the furnace this month, the roof next month, and the plumbing and wiring the month after that?
The age of the house itself has nothing to do with the age of what’s inside it. My 200 year old house has a 1 year old furnace. The roof is 75 years old, but super solid metal that will last 50 years more than a new shingle roof. The copper plumbing is god knows how old, but is solid and shouldn’t need to be replaced in my lifetime- same for the electrical.
We bought a house that was built in the 1890s. But, it was no big deal because the house had been lifted, with a block basement put in, the roof was new-ish, the windows were modern Andersens and the structure was sound. The were some issues with the electrical and we had to switch to a breaker box, and the plumbing was replaced slowly over time by my husband, who upgraded from crappy 1960s plumbing to modern PVC. The real issue was that instead of replacing the plaster walls, they had paneled over them, and then added wallpaper on that, and along with some really awful carpet, it was kinda fugly.
But - we have a historic Victorian on a hill with a solid oak staircase and trim, and the pleasant discoveries of Southern pine and inlaid oak hardwood flooring under the carpet. We have been cosmetically updating over time. And, most importantly to us, it has loads of character and is just awesome, because it’s so cool.
Nothing is wrong with an old house, as long as the HVAC, electric and plumbing and the structure is sound. Lots of times there’s a bonus in that the materials used were high grade and super durable, so a quick strip and some wood stain gets you custom trim or flooring that would cost thousands to replace from scratch. There’s things like engraved hinges and cast iron grates that add so much to a property, and can only be found on a historic home.
I say don’t be afraid to look. A good home inspection will uncover defects to stay away from, and the awesomeness of having a house that isn’t some cookie cutter bullshit is fantastic.
What pabstist said. A really old house can actually be a better bet than one that’s only a few decades old. On your hypothetical 30-40 year old house, most of the stuff is still going to be original, but firmly in the “can break any day” age range. Plus it was likely put in by a developer building to a budget. A hypothetical 130 year old house, on the other hand, has been a century-long renovation project, so stuff is all over the place age-wise and decisions about quality were made by the people who actually lived there. There’s also a bit of natural selection with old houses-- they made plenty of crummy cookie-cutter houses back in the day, but most of those are long since torn down and the houses that survive today are the ones that were built to last.
How well the house has been maintained is a major factor. My parents’ house was built before 1860 and it’s in great shape - as far as we can tell it’s always been occupied and kept up. A newer house that’s been unoccupied for ten years, on the other hand, might be on the verge of collapse.
It’s never too old. The information above is quite true. A house that’s been standing for over 100 years was probably built and a better value than one built this year. I’m very familiar with several houses and buildings much old than the ones you are looking at, and they will likely be there long after many modern homes are gone. My house may be no older than 75 years making mine the youngster in this group. It needed a lot of work moving in, but my homeowners policy required me to insure it at twice the purchase price because the replacement cost would have been so high, and that was in the midst of the housing boom, not after the bubble burst.
Oldest one I’ve ever bought dated from 1867 (right after the war in Virginia). It was a fixer-upper but structurally it was excellent. The work that was needed was mostly cosmetic (except for a new roof).
In, order, the homes I have bought:
1946
1867
1906
2007
And I’m thinking of building one for the first time next year. After all those years fixing up old farmhouses and Victorians I’m intrigued by the “A little off this menu and some of that menu” school of home.
My wife works for a UK-based firm. One of her UK co-workers told her of a vacation where she and her husband were visiting the Boston area and had joined a tourist group on a colnial building tour. At one point the tour guide was showing them an old house and he said proudly “this house is over 250 years old!”
…which made the coworker and her husband slightly confused. As she told my wife “our house is three hundred years old.”
So you might want to bear that in mind when you’re thinking in terms of “old houses”
Interesting thread. We just bought our third and oldest house - built in 1958! But from our shopping, I’ll suggest that a lot of crappy recent construction goes downhill REALLY fast absent ongoing maintenance. It really was a sad eyeopener to see the sorry condition of quite new houses which had been neglected through the short-sale and foreclosure process.
Also, don’t know anything about older homes, but try to suss out WHEN any updates were done. The last half of the 20th century saw a lot of novel approaches to such things as plumbing and electrical. Pushmatic breakers come to mind. So things might look really clean, but then be a headache should you need to do any work on them. An older home might have been updated during those periods using technology that subsequently proved undesireable.
True that. Most people in the UK at some point in time buy a house that’s at least 100 years old, because the Victorians built so much. A typical first time buyer’s property will be a Victorian 2 bed terrace. I’ve lived in houses bult in:
1860
1810
1874
1792
1720
1890 (my current - and newest).
My parents bought a house built in 1971. They’ve had to do just as much work on it as I have ever had to do. Mainly because house building in the 70s was awful.
Cool, sounds like they were ahead of the times. These days, metal roofs are often just 26 ga, which isn’t all that thick, but it does the job and can come with 40 year warranties depending on the paint. And today there are self-tapping screws that have a slight dome shape that helps enclose a rubber gasket that they use to attach the metal roof that will last as long as it will.
I wasn’t aware of anything remotely like this 75 years ago other than maybe some corrugated sheet metal roofs, but I’m not sure if that would have held up that long. Was it galvanized metal or painted? How was it attached?
My Grandpa’s house was sold this spring-it was built in 1906. The new owners tore out everything (except the exterior walls).
When it is done, it will be a new house. Gutting an old house is the way to go-you can replumb it, rewire it, insulate it to modern standards. Piecemeal renovation of an old house is expensive and a PIA.
Why? You’ll probably hear from the “they don’t build them like they used to” choir, those that believe every old house was lovingly crafted by immigrants from the old world, who used to work on the great cathedrals of Europe. Bullshit.
1920 is around the time housing in the United States started to become “modern”, by
today’s standards. That means:
Building codes began to become widespread.
In urban areas, plumbing, electricity, and distributed heating were an integral part of the design.
Floor plans that clearly delineated public rooms (living, kitchen, dining) with private rooms (bedrooms and bathrooms).
Closets.
Mass production (both from builders and catalogs), which means more competition, and growing refinement in floor plans and structural design.
Accommodation of automobile ownership, with a garage or provisions to add one on the lot.
Even then, kitchen layouts will probably be less than ideal, and you may have problems with larger refrigerators, dishwashers, and the like. I’ve seen a lot of interwar houses where the fridge is in a hallway next to the kitchen.
Make sure the twists and turns of any hallways and stairwells don’t stop you from getting a queen- or king-sized mattress to any of the bedrooms. It’s a common problem in houses built before 1960.
In the town where I now live, house hunting will be something of a challenge, because the housing stock is too old. Some folks like this, because of the resulting “character”. However, that character also brings with it a lot of shortcomings.
Electricity, indoor plumbing, and HVAC are afterthoughts.
Many pre-1920 houses have odd floor plans. At best, they’ll be chopped up, reflecting Victorian visitation rituals. More typically, there will be poor delineation of private and public spaces; e.g. bedrooms off the living or dining room with no intervening hallway, bedrooms accessible only through other bedrooms, the only bathroom is off the kitchen or living room, etc. For example, http://i.imgur.com/frmgkAA.jpg. If you have to pass through more than just a hallway when you go from your bedroom to the nearest bathroom, pass.
No corner will come together at a true right angle.
Additions are more likely, with inevitable roofing and structural problems at the point new rooms meet the old house. I will never buy another house that has had an addition.
Seven foot ceilings. It’s commonplace in many houses built before 1880.
Absolutely true. But keep in mind we’re not really talking about “houses built a hundred years ago” - a lot of which were horribly thrown together. We’re talking about “houses built a hundred years ago that are still standing” - that shows some kind of workmanship went into its construction. I’d be perfectly happy to buy a house built in 2013 if the builder was willing to guarantee it would still be in good condition in 2113.
Also keep in mind that virtually all the houses from the 19th century that are still an acceptable size for a modern single family dwelling were built for very wealthy people and were built at a time when skilled labor was relatively cheap. So there is a bit of truth to the “they don’t build 'em like that anymore” sentiment, although maybe it’s more that they do still build 'em like that, but you pay a whole hell of a lot more for 'em with modern labor costs.
The amount of work needed didn’t correlate much to the age of the house, but more to the quality of work done (initial building and remodeling/rewiring/replumbing/additions/etc).
For making an offer, I’d go with your gut instincts. With older homes, make sure the lines are still straight. (I remember really liking one very lovely big old home, but noticing that all the ceiling lines drooped, walls weren’t straight – I bet it would have been a money pit!)
Then you get a contractor’s inspection. That’s when you find out the bottom line on whether a home needs more maintenance than you can manage. Get a good contractor and ask questions during the inspection; learn as much as you can about what they look for, and that will help guide you in the future.
Be prepared to drop out of an offer if the inspection isn’t satisfactory! Once we’ve made an offer, many of us are reluctant to let go, both for emotional reasons, and losing the deposit. But, better a cheap lesson than an expensive one.
There is no telling before you see what it’s actually like. My parent’s house is about 300 years old, and you’d have no problem with that. Except that nothing is straight and the corners aren’t right angles. But right now the house is winning the fight against damp, electricity is fine, closet space is abundant even for American standards, the roof is good etc etc.
Our old Welsh cottage OTOH, is about 500 years old and not much has changed in that time. There has been an attempt at electricity and it keeps the rain out, and that is the most that can be said. It’s my favourite place in the world, but it’s probably not a very good idea to buy it.
On the third hand, my SO and I are looking right now and regularly run into houses built 50 years ago that are in worse state than our 500 year old cottage. And by worse, I mean they aren’t as good at keeping the rain out and the attempt at electricity was even more of a failure.
You won’t know until you see it. But there certainly is no such thing as “too old”, only too far behind on the upkeep.
Our present home was built in 1923-and we have spent a lot of time and money upgrading it. But certain things remain-I don’t have fires in the fireplace because the chimney is unlined, and the fireplace is built with soft-fired bricks-these things cold shatter anytime. WE had to break up the cellar floor a few years back (to replace the deteriorated cast iron sewer pipes). And we’ve replaced all of the old plumbing (there was one run of galvanized steel pipe-it rusted away.
So yes, old houses can be OK, but if you buy a new house, you can get a structure that is almost maintainence-free (for 30 years at least). With the cost of labor soaring, this is a big consideration.
Elmwood, that was a lot of constructive advice (post 14) that I’ve never considered before or heard of for the most part, but makes a lot of sense.
Have any good advice about termites?
Why not? Old corroded wiring with only a few wires ran 110 along with fuses, and corroded plumbing over 100 years ago, is almost certain to give a house problems today. It would probably also mean no insulation and certainly no HVAC. Doing much of this requires a lot of gutting and making it as reliable and as maintenance free as possible. I do like much of the old woodwork inside and out that quite a bit of the older homes had, which certainly gives it charm, but I think many would try to save it or duplicate it again if the wood was too far gone.
