Older homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did think about the cost savings of new windows. Let's assume you're quoted 30k for new windows. How much will you actually save in heating costs? There's maybe 4-5 months of the year when heat is on with a significant difference from exterior temperatures. If my heating bills dropped by half between November and March, I would save maybe $1200-1500 at the most. Probably $1000 is more realistic.

It'd take me 20-30 years to recover the costs plus all the lost opportunities of investing in the market.

They guesstimate that new, energy efficient windows will give you a roughly 70% increase in your home value based on your investment.

So, to put it in your terms, you are investing $30,000, seeing a $22,000 return in Year 1 (70% * $30,000 of increased home value, plus $1,000 in energy savings), and then $1,000 a year thereafter. You are recovering your costs after 9 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did think about the cost savings of new windows. Let's assume you're quoted 30k for new windows. How much will you actually save in heating costs? There's maybe 4-5 months of the year when heat is on with a significant difference from exterior temperatures. If my heating bills dropped by half between November and March, I would save maybe $1200-1500 at the most. Probably $1000 is more realistic.

It'd take me 20-30 years to recover the costs plus all the lost opportunities of investing in the market.

They guesstimate that new, energy efficient windows will give you a roughly 70% increase in your home value based on your investment.

So, to put it in your terms, you are investing $30,000, seeing a $22,000 return in Year 1 (70% * $30,000 of increased home value, plus $1,000 in energy savings), and then $1,000 a year thereafter. You are recovering your costs after 9 years.

Snake oil salesmen, eh? Making up numbers while beaming at you.

You forgot to factor in market gains from leaving 30k in your funds for that 9 years.

Like most home improvements, it's never going to be something that pays for itself but you can get utility out of it. Exceptions, sure, like with anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did think about the cost savings of new windows. Let's assume you're quoted 30k for new windows. How much will you actually save in heating costs? There's maybe 4-5 months of the year when heat is on with a significant difference from exterior temperatures. If my heating bills dropped by half between November and March, I would save maybe $1200-1500 at the most. Probably $1000 is more realistic.

It'd take me 20-30 years to recover the costs plus all the lost opportunities of investing in the market.

They guesstimate that new, energy efficient windows will give you a roughly 70% increase in your home value based on your investment.

So, to put it in your terms, you are investing $30,000, seeing a $22,000 return in Year 1 (70% * $30,000 of increased home value, plus $1,000 in energy savings), and then $1,000 a year thereafter. You are recovering your costs after 9 years.

Snake oil salesmen, eh? Making up numbers while beaming at you.

You forgot to factor in market gains from leaving 30k in your funds for that 9 years.

Like most home improvements, it's never going to be something that pays for itself but you can get utility out of it. Exceptions, sure, like with anything.

Not making up numbers…just correcting your incorrect assumptions. Didn’t say it’s better than market gains, but it’s better than buying bonds or a money market if you have $30k that’s not invested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a 1950s ranch. Renovated it, so more open with high ceilings. Had to redo plumbing, electric, but everyone comments on how well-built it is. Our HVAC inside system is in a weird area because originally no central air, so to get it serviced or when we need a new one that will be annoying (we did not put the system there, previous owners did).

Neighbors have new build from maybe 2019, it is poorly built. Neighbors complain all the time and inside it just looks cheap. It is a larger home (4000-4500 square feet not including basement), but they are having issues with almost everything.

Pros and cons to everything. You have lead and asbestos, but who knows what all the new construction materials will do to us over time either.

I think the only issue is if you have to disturb it. In most cases, people just go over it, no?

False. I have a friend whose kid is in really poor shape just from living in an old home and it wasn’t even “disturbed”. Think every time you open a door or window, lead particles enter the air and also your childrens’ brains causing permanent damage.

Anything is true when you lie. JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?

They use thermoply for exterior sheathing now. It's supposed to be better, but it's basically cardboard.

Older homes don’t necessarily have good bones. They were built with lumber and brick veneer, just like new homes, but without proper codes for weather resistance and insulation. If not brick veneer, many older homes used materials like asbestos siding, which is even worse.

These older homes were cheaply built “Mc-shacks,” thrown up to accommodate the post-WWII housing boom. If they were built during WWII, they often used low-quality materials due to wartime shortages.

Newer homes, on the other hand, are built under the latest building codes, which provide better standards for safety, insulation, and weatherproofing. The only real advantage older homes might have is that, over time, they’ve passed through multiple owners who may have corrected some of the original issues. New homes haven’t gone through that process yet, but they do come with warranties to address problems as they arise.

No thanks.

New homes around here are built with OSB, not Thermo-Ply like in cheaper areas of the US.

I think the pre-war versus post-war distinction continues to be a good rule of thumb. Pre-war home were not built with brick veneer or asbestos!

Beware that asbestos can still turn up. Our home was built in 1915, but during a renovation we uncovered old floor covering that had asbestos in it. Even though it was a small amount, it required special handling and added. Few thousand dollars to the cost of the project.

Well not everyone is nutso, I had that and just put wall to wall carpet over it.

Removing asbestos isn’t exactly nutso.

Don’t you have to disclose if you know there is asbestos in your house, even if you carpeted it?

Is it more dangerous to remove asbestos than to leave it alone and put new flooring over it? Asbestos is only a danger when it is disturbed. The mastic is loosened and becomes friable and enters the air space. That's why plenty of people say leave it and encapsulate it.

Asbestos, like lead paint, is one of those things that some people will never tolerate and can even be silly about, while others are more pragmatic. My sainted mother, back in the 70s, decided she didn't like the loose black asbestos tiles in her laundry room so she ripped them all up with no protection or gear, scraped the floor of the mastic, and threw it away and had new tiles put down. She's still with us, healthy and fit, in her 80s.

But it’s the best to hire a firm and remove the asbestos entirely.

I would think a house loses 8 out of 10 prospective buyers if you say you have asbestos…but don’t worry it’s under carpet. The headline risk is too high.

It’s not as though carpet is the best thing to cover it as carpet degrades over time and asbestos particles will get through.

More like 1-2 buyers out of 10.

It's clear you don't understand asbestos. Like lead paint, there's a mantra instilled in some people to avoid at all costs. In reality? Asbestos isn't dangerous if left alone and encapsulated. The idea you'd gain 2k in value in the house by spending 2k removing Asbestos is not based on anything but personal feelings. Other things in the house are far more important to buyers. Sellers in older desirable areas will always get a good supply of buyers so missing out on the 1-2 buyers who can't live with Asbestos tiles ine basement is no big deal. And such buyers are mostly only going to be looking at newer houses in the first place.

I understand it completely. My own house is 100 years old and we had the asbestos removed (tiles), but it seemed to scare off enough buyers because we ended up not getting into a bidding war back in 2004 (when things were kind of nuts) and it's really not that expensive. There is a house that just went on the market that was built in 1917 and the realtor made the sellers (an estate as the longtime owners died) remove the asbestos because she said it will scare off a majority of potential buyers or at the least they will factor something into the price...so why do that for a relatively minimal cost.

We live in neighborhoods with $1.5MM+ homes...why wouldn't you spend several thousand to just remove it? It's chump change.

Lead paint is actually a far more expensive endeavor if you try to remove it. If it only cost $2k to remove lead paint, more would do so...but yes, you hope there are several layers of non-lead paint covering it and you find the biggest issues with lead paint is of course in very old, poor homes where it is chipping everywhere and small children are literally eating it.

There were other things going on with your house, not just asbestos. I bought an old house last year that had very visible basement asbestos tile and there were 6 other offers and a bidding war.
We just covered it up with floor leveler and put LVP over it. NBD.

+1

Yeah, those 8x8’s are super-common in basements around here (and elsewhere) and I’ve never heard of them being a deterrent to a desirable property. They’re easy to cover and removal is more trouble than it’s worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did think about the cost savings of new windows. Let's assume you're quoted 30k for new windows. How much will you actually save in heating costs? There's maybe 4-5 months of the year when heat is on with a significant difference from exterior temperatures. If my heating bills dropped by half between November and March, I would save maybe $1200-1500 at the most. Probably $1000 is more realistic.

It'd take me 20-30 years to recover the costs plus all the lost opportunities of investing in the market.

They guesstimate that new, energy efficient windows will give you a roughly 70% increase in your home value based on your investment.

So, to put it in your terms, you are investing $30,000, seeing a $22,000 return in Year 1 (70% * $30,000 of increased home value, plus $1,000 in energy savings), and then $1,000 a year thereafter. You are recovering your costs after 9 years.

Snake oil salesmen, eh? Making up numbers while beaming at you.

You forgot to factor in market gains from leaving 30k in your funds for that 9 years.

Like most home improvements, it's never going to be something that pays for itself but you can get utility out of it. Exceptions, sure, like with anything.

Not making up numbers…just correcting your incorrect assumptions. Didn’t say it’s better than market gains, but it’s better than buying bonds or a money market if you have $30k that’s not invested.

Not a single piece of reliable evidence new windows get 70% of their value back. Am familiar enough with this trope as an experienced homeowner who's done a few renovations.

You could spend the 30k, then there's a recession and home prices drop. Or flatline. You put the 30k into windows and discover you need to move two years later for whatever reasons.

It's a snake oil claim. I can tell, from the way you place one extremely optimistic pro new windows outcome against one extremely negative keep money in boring bonds, while ignoring every house is different, every market is different, every homeowner is different. That said, yes, windows frequently do need replacing. You're just unlikely to get the money back the way the salesmen claim while driving home a deal.

[Anonymous]

Just chiming in to say I bought a new build and while it may not have a lot of character on the outside (for now), that is fixable with some siding, paint, copper gutters, and decorations. I’d rather spend my maintenance budget on making the house my own than retrofitting something existing and putting square pegs in round holes

Never going back to an old house with lead pipes, drafts, mysterious dampness, and bad air flow. A house is not simply 4 walls. My new house is absurdly energy efficient AND quiet from how well sealed it is

[Anonymous]

It depends on where the older home is based.

We had a 1938 built SFH on a 1/3 acre lot in Bethesda, walking distance to Giant and the library, strong school district (W schools).

When we bought it there was a lot of updating needed because nothing had been done superficially since the 70s though there was a new boiler, laundry etc and maintenance to the roof and AC had been undertaken.

The advantage of buying this house is that it still held some elegance and features of when it was built, we were able to sympathetically update it and then we sold it for a huge profit about 8 yrs later because it was not a MacMansion that would cost more than double its value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did think about the cost savings of new windows. Let's assume you're quoted 30k for new windows. How much will you actually save in heating costs? There's maybe 4-5 months of the year when heat is on with a significant difference from exterior temperatures. If my heating bills dropped by half between November and March, I would save maybe $1200-1500 at the most. Probably $1000 is more realistic.

It'd take me 20-30 years to recover the costs plus all the lost opportunities of investing in the market.

They guesstimate that new, energy efficient windows will give you a roughly 70% increase in your home value based on your investment.

So, to put it in your terms, you are investing $30,000, seeing a $22,000 return in Year 1 (70% * $30,000 of increased home value, plus $1,000 in energy savings), and then $1,000 a year thereafter. You are recovering your costs after 9 years.

Snake oil salesmen, eh? Making up numbers while beaming at you.

You forgot to factor in market gains from leaving 30k in your funds for that 9 years.

Like most home improvements, it's never going to be something that pays for itself but you can get utility out of it. Exceptions, sure, like with anything.

Not making up numbers…just correcting your incorrect assumptions. Didn’t say it’s better than market gains, but it’s better than buying bonds or a money market if you have $30k that’s not invested.

Not a single piece of reliable evidence new windows get 70% of their value back. Am familiar enough with this trope as an experienced homeowner who's done a few renovations.

You could spend the 30k, then there's a recession and home prices drop. Or flatline. You put the 30k into windows and discover you need to move two years later for whatever reasons.

It's a snake oil claim. I can tell, from the way you place one extremely optimistic pro new windows outcome against one extremely negative keep money in boring bonds, while ignoring every house is different, every market is different, every homeowner is different. That said, yes, windows frequently do need replacing. You're just unlikely to get the money back the way the salesmen claim while driving home a deal.

If there is a recession...guess what, the stock market will drop a ton as well. I don't know what you consider reliable evidence, but here is what Google says:

Consumer Reports and other sources suggest new windows offer a mixed financial payback, recouping roughly 70-85% of costs via increased home resale value (like vinyl recouping ~76%), but energy savings alone often take decades (20-50+ years) to offset the high installation costs, making it more about comfort, reduced drafts, and potential energy bill reductions (up to 15% for Energy Star) rather than a fast financial ROI, unless your old windows are extremely inefficient or you get significant tax credits/rebates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did think about the cost savings of new windows. Let's assume you're quoted 30k for new windows. How much will you actually save in heating costs? There's maybe 4-5 months of the year when heat is on with a significant difference from exterior temperatures. If my heating bills dropped by half between November and March, I would save maybe $1200-1500 at the most. Probably $1000 is more realistic.

It'd take me 20-30 years to recover the costs plus all the lost opportunities of investing in the market.

They guesstimate that new, energy efficient windows will give you a roughly 70% increase in your home value based on your investment.

So, to put it in your terms, you are investing $30,000, seeing a $22,000 return in Year 1 (70% * $30,000 of increased home value, plus $1,000 in energy savings), and then $1,000 a year thereafter. You are recovering your costs after 9 years.

Snake oil salesmen, eh? Making up numbers while beaming at you.

You forgot to factor in market gains from leaving 30k in your funds for that 9 years.

Like most home improvements, it's never going to be something that pays for itself but you can get utility out of it. Exceptions, sure, like with anything.

Not making up numbers…just correcting your incorrect assumptions. Didn’t say it’s better than market gains, but it’s better than buying bonds or a money market if you have $30k that’s not invested.

Not a single piece of reliable evidence new windows get 70% of their value back. Am familiar enough with this trope as an experienced homeowner who's done a few renovations.

You could spend the 30k, then there's a recession and home prices drop. Or flatline. You put the 30k into windows and discover you need to move two years later for whatever reasons.

It's a snake oil claim. I can tell, from the way you place one extremely optimistic pro new windows outcome against one extremely negative keep money in boring bonds, while ignoring every house is different, every market is different, every homeowner is different. That said, yes, windows frequently do need replacing. You're just unlikely to get the money back the way the salesmen claim while driving home a deal.

If there is a recession...guess what, the stock market will drop a ton as well. I don't know what you consider reliable evidence, but here is what Google says:

Consumer Reports and other sources suggest new windows offer a mixed financial payback, recouping roughly 70-85% of costs via increased home resale value (like vinyl recouping ~76%), but energy savings alone often take decades (20-50+ years) to offset the high installation costs, making it more about comfort, reduced drafts, and potential energy bill reductions (up to 15% for Energy Star) rather than a fast financial ROI, unless your old windows are extremely inefficient or you get significant tax credits/rebates.

Yep. Love the no citation, no data parroting point that is blindly repeated by salesmen. Note that even Consumer Reports here only says "suggests" which is not the same as a factual truth. It's a "maybe" because even CR knows theres some limits to what they're saying. And goes on to admit strictly on energy costs, it takes decades to recover.

I've watched fully renovated with new windows sell for the exact same price range as estate sales because of scarcity of inventory. I've seen bad flips with new windows sit forever while older unrenovated properties sell with multiple offers. I've seen the real estate market in every condition from boom to bust to know making the claim you get your money back guaranteed on XYZ utterly laughable. Love these salesmen.

Hey, I have replaced windows. I know the deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and you didn't report the poor conditions?

She didn't say it was no glass in the windows Come on now. People live in older homes all the time, they aren't illegal and it's not mandatory for housing to have fully insulated double pane windows. As long as heat is working and windows work, it's all good. True for everyone living in older homes, including owners and non-student renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just chiming in to say I bought a new build and while it may not have a lot of character on the outside (for now), that is fixable with some siding, paint, copper gutters, and decorations. I’d rather spend my maintenance budget on making the house my own than retrofitting something existing and putting square pegs in round holes

Never going back to an old house with lead pipes, drafts, mysterious dampness, and bad air flow. A house is not simply 4 walls. My new house is absurdly energy efficient AND quiet from how well sealed it is

I cannot wait for this moment as I sit here shivering in my cold a** starter home w original windows. Heats at 72 but you’d never know.