New Construction vs. Old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not buy any home made during the housing boom.

Entire neighborhoods went up in a few weeks. I can't imagine that the builders didn't cut corners, fail to allow things like concrete to cure properly before building on top of it, etc.

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

You do realize every home must have an inspection including curing foundation etc... your not really thinking here...

Spoken like somebody who has no idea what they are talking about - At. All.

There is no 'curing inspection'. There is barely a compressive strength test - 99% of those are third party inspections. Nobody even looks at them.


As for materials - you get what you pay for. Demand goes up, the cost of land goes up, builders are under pressure to lower or maintain costs so they use cheaper materials and try to do more with less.

There are PLENTY of new construction homes, primarily custom, with great design, and great features. The problem is that as with everything, nice things cost money.

I would also say that if you are talking about a neighborhood with 200 brick ramblers in it and thumbing your nose at the quality of new construction that is pretty hilarious. Tract is tract and custom is custom regardless of era. Materials today and building practice today far exceeds anything you will find in an old home. Anybody with foil back insulation or knob and tube wiring can testify to this.

In fairfax county they had to inspect the foundation and the builder had to wait until it cured. So it's not like the builder could just throw up houses whenever he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You don't have to pretend to be in the "anti new construction" camp, OP.

People buy new construction (big secret here) BECAUSE THEY CAN.

Anyone else has to simply get over it.

Enjoy!

So not true. I'd prefer to buy old as in historic. Also unless you are really going completely custom almost all new homes are cheaply built and look it in the inside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people pretend to be in the "anti new construction" camp...new construction homes (nice custom homes aside) are generally built using lower quality materials than older homes, and often don't have the charm of older homes. However, you generally have a few years before problems start cropping up, whereas an older home can have issues that need to be addressed right when you move in. I wouldn't say I'm against new construction-the model home on the link looks pretty nice to me- but I would generally prefer an older home that's been well-maintained and tastefully updated.

+1

[Anonymous]

I've found with new construction is that you spend more on things like landscaping, patio/deck, window coverings and re-painting. Those things can add up, but of course if you buy an existing home you often have some repairs and renovations anyway. But even new homes aren't always move-in-ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this debate on DCUM. The most heated proponents on both sides are so absurd. It all comes down to materials, craftsmanship, and stylistic preference. A new build doesn't automatically have better or worse materials than an old build ... it's all a function of how much the builder/buyer put into it. At different price points, one's preferences may vary. I live in a 1940s updated & expanded colonial - it's close to $1.5mm and for the same price , I do not like the higher-end craftsman new builds nearly as much. On the other hand, I've lived in a ~$650k 1960s rambler, and I would take a new build at that price all day over the old model a/b/c neighborhoods that sprouted post-WW2.

Today's building codes greatly exceed those of 20 years a go. That's a fact. Whether you used vintage finishing etc... that is all taste and style.

I'm the 90's home poster and, I'm asking because I don't know, but in what tangible ways that a homeowner would notice are the building codes better? Do you mean like the insulation is better?

I guess the other thing I like about the 90s homes is that most people have done updates and usually they use higher quality materials than you would find in a new house.

I don't remember the exact details but when we were renovating our house, the code was for R-24 insulation ( again, the specific number eludes me) but it is thicker than the older insulation and therefore requires more space. Our house was built with 2x4 framing. The thickness of the new insulation requires 2x6 framing. A new house would have the required framing to support the thicker insulation thus making the house more energy efficient. Without tearing down all the exterior walls, my house will never be as energy efficient as a new house could be.

Thank you, makes sense on the insulation. Interesting about the framing too, never would have thought of that. I'll admit I'm probably somewhat spoiled as the houses I'm looking at (90's) mostly have custom/higher end upgrades so things like the cabinets are nicer than the new builds we looked at. If we could afford a new build with all the upgrades we would get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not buy any home made during the housing boom.

Entire neighborhoods went up in a few weeks. I can't imagine that the builders didn't cut corners, fail to allow things like concrete to cure properly before building on top of it, etc.

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

You do realize every home must have an inspection including curing foundation etc... your not really thinking here...

Don't bother. They don't want to accept the new homes, to an irrational point....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tract is tract and custom is custom regardless of era. Materials today and building practice today far exceeds anything you will find in an old home. Anybody with foil back insulation or knob and tube wiring can testify to this.

+1. Well said.

[Anonymous]

In general, even cheaply made new construction, incl. materials, is better than old. This obviously excludes builder-grade fixtures, etc. But what you'd call "bones" is almost always better with new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not buy any home made during the housing boom.

Entire neighborhoods went up in a few weeks. I can't imagine that the builders didn't cut corners, fail to allow things like concrete to cure properly before building on top of it, etc.

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

You do realize every home must have an inspection including curing foundation etc... your not really thinking here...

Don't bother. They don't want to accept the new homes, to an irrational point....

Just one particular type of newer home built during a 3-5 year window...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not buy any home made during the housing boom.

Entire neighborhoods went up in a few weeks. I can't imagine that the builders didn't cut corners, fail to allow things like concrete to cure properly before building on top of it, etc.

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

You do realize every home must have an inspection including curing foundation etc... your not really thinking here...

Spoken like somebody who has no idea what they are talking about - At. All.

There is no 'curing inspection'. There is barely a compressive strength test - 99% of those are third party inspections. Nobody even looks at them.


As for materials - you get what you pay for. Demand goes up, the cost of land goes up, builders are under pressure to lower or maintain costs so they use cheaper materials and try to do more with less.

There are PLENTY of new construction homes, primarily custom, with great design, and great features. The problem is that as with everything, nice things cost money.

I would also say that if you are talking about a neighborhood with 200 brick ramblers in it and thumbing your nose at the quality of new construction that is pretty hilarious. Tract is tract and custom is custom regardless of era. Materials today and building practice today far exceeds anything you will find in an old home. Anybody with foil back insulation or knob and tube wiring can testify to this.

In fairfax county they had to inspect the foundation and the builder had to wait until it cured. So it's not like the builder could just throw up houses whenever he wanted.

The recommended code is 28 days before building on a concrete foundation.

They were not waiting 28 days before building during the boom.

The foundations were poured, frames removed, and they were building on them within days.

[Anonymous]

It's a personal reason but I'd be too nervous to buy a brand new home because I'd be worried about escalating costs and not catching the builder taking short cuts. For example, my friend had a house built and the basics that the house came with only included two cable outlets for the whole house. There were a few other examples he told me about of things that one would expect to come standard with a house that were not and that he had to pay extra for. Also, you have to make sure you visit the house every day to make sure the builders aren't taking shortcuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a personal reason but I'd be too nervous to buy a brand new home because I'd be worried about escalating costs and not catching the builder taking short cuts. For example, my friend had a house built and the basics that the house came with only included two cable outlets for the whole house. There were a few other examples he told me about of things that one would expect to come standard with a house that were not and that he had to pay extra for. Also, you have to make sure you visit the house every day to make sure the builders aren't taking shortcuts.

lol opposed to no cable outlets in an old home?

If those are the scarey short cuts sign me up.

Nothing like seeing old newspapers stuffed into windows gaps as a bad shortcut in old homes.

The old home shortcuts are terrifying because the codes didn't enforce much back then.

[Anonymous]

My house was built in the late 1930's on a custom basis (we still have the original ad) -- solid brick, slate roof, plaster walls. Yes, insulation needed to be added to the attic and I have nothing against new construction (may even buy it in the future), but I don't think today's homes with the wide spread use of plywood and drywall provide "better bones." New homes tend to have better layouts and less problems because they are new, not because they are better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a personal reason but I'd be too nervous to buy a brand new home because I'd be worried about escalating costs and not catching the builder taking short cuts. For example, my friend had a house built and the basics that the house came with only included two cable outlets for the whole house. There were a few other examples he told me about of things that one would expect to come standard with a house that were not and that he had to pay extra for. Also, you have to make sure you visit the house every day to make sure the builders aren't taking shortcuts.

Not being an educated buyer is not the same as worrying about the quality of new construction.

I am sure the builder would have clarified the number of cable outlets if he asked. 'expecting' things to come standard is just silly.


We have owned three new homes - when we bought the second one, I had 20 pages of sketches and clarifications because we thought through the details and wanted to be sure we knew what we were getting.


There are things that you need to be concerned about when you buy a new home, and there are things you need to be concerned about when you buy an old home.

It is one of your largest investments - you should treat it that way. Leave no stone un-turned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not buy any home made during the housing boom.
.

You do realize every home must have an inspection including curing foundation etc... your not really thinking here...

Spoken like somebody who has no idea what they are talking about - At. All.
There is no 'curing inspection'. There is barely a compressive strength test - 99% of those are third party inspections. Nobody even looks at them.
As for materials - you get what you pay for. Demand goes up, the cost of land goes up, builders are under pressure to lower or maintain costs so they use cheaper materials and try to do more with less.
There are PLENTY of new construction homes, primarily custom, with great design, and great features. The problem is that as with everything, nice things cost money.
I would also say that if you are talking about a neighborhood with 200 brick ramblers in it and thumbing your nose at the quality of new construction that is pretty hilarious. Tract is tract and custom is custom regardless of era. Materials today and building practice today far exceeds anything you will find in an old home. Anybody with foil back insulation or knob and tube wiring can testify to this.

In fairfax county they had to inspect the foundation and the builder had to wait until it cured. So it's not like the builder could just throw up houses whenever he wanted.

The recommended code is 28 days before building on a concrete foundation.They were not waiting 28 days before building during the boom.The foundations were poured, frames removed, and they were building on them within days.

Once concrete reaches its 28 day strength (another way of calling it "full strength"), you're good to go. Today's strip mixes do not take 28 days to reach it's 28th day strength ( a.k.a. full strength). Mixes frequently surpass 100% f'c ( 28 day strength) in 3 days.