Older homes

[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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

[Anonymous]

our house was built in 1966. it is on a big lot. We have basically replaced everything piece meal. New roof, new AC, nee electrical panel and wiring, new cement driveway, new screened in porch, new bathrooms, new kitchen, new insulation, new windows, new door, new flooring, new lighting, new, new. new. you name it we have replaced it.

I think the biggest pro is the lot size. Cons- we have small bathrooms, small closets, small bedrooms and don't really love the house.

[Anonymous]

I've owned 2 houses. The first was built in the late 80's and it needed most everything replaced within 10 years of purchase (roof, 2 zones of HVAC, flooring, deck, porch, some exterior work due to water/mold infiltration).

My 2nd was a 1910 rowhouse in DC. It's like a solid brick box, so not much can go wrong. There's radiator heating, and the home was retrofitted with AC at some point. The floors are solid wood as are the doors. The downside is you have to deal with ancient wiring, lead in pipes, paint and some other old-home specific issues like no closet space or places to put modern appliances like washer/dryers. That said, the overall cost to maintain the older home has been less, not factoring in optional renovations.

Hindsight is 20/20, so if I were a new homeowner, I think it would have been more affordable to choose the older home in decent condition, and save money for the optional renovations, rather than the newer home where we were constantly worrying about what was going to break next.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Omg who are you proles?? Do not replace those windows!! Repair them. Many of them are priceless. They do not make them like that anymore.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

[Anonymous]

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

Not post pandemic, but we live in a new build completed in 2019. It has 2x6 construction and is well insulated. It's 4400 sq ft and our utility bills are the same as for our rowhouse n DC that was half the size. Construction quality varies by a huge amount, but we are pretty comfortable with ours. We lived in a 100 yr old rowhouse in DC and while there's so much we loved about the older home, it's a relief to not have to continuously be in remodeling or repair mode. An older home is a labor of love...but if you don't love the process of improving it, it's just labor. We were also lucky to buy in DC in the early 2000s when fixer uppers in up and coming neighborhoods were cheap, so it was an investment. Remodeling costs have skyrocketed along with home prices so unless you have some real DIY skills a home that needs a lot of work gets very expensive.

You also have to really watch out for cheapo flip jobs on older homes where you might have to redo a lot of the work. We had good friends who bought one of these and they found some crazy shortcuts - like the ductwork for their HVAC hadn't been fastened together...just the pieces roughly assembled and leaking like a sieve. So...new home or older home...construction and remodeling quality varies by a lot. Inspections are really important...and if you buy new, research the builder.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

Ours were ancient, but not at all beautiful and a bunch had cracks in them. We upgraded to modern vinyl windows and they look so much better...not to mention they work. We did arrange for a group that salvages and repurposes the windows to come take the old ones.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

Ours were ancient, but not at all beautiful and a bunch had cracks in them. We upgraded to modern vinyl windows and they look so much better...not to mention they work. We did arrange for a group that salvages and repurposes the windows to come take the old ones.

Modern vinyl windows have short life spans, typically 20 years before needing replacement. Older windows last much longer. Restore and reglazing isn't cheaper than new windows but properly done will take you the next 50 years, at a minimum.

I live in a historic area and rarely see new windows that are as attractive as older windows. You can come reasonably close but it's still never quite the same. I can immediately tell if the windows are a replacement and if the owners cheapened out.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

Ours were ancient, but not at all beautiful and a bunch had cracks in them. We upgraded to modern vinyl windows and they look so much better...not to mention they work. We did arrange for a group that salvages and repurposes the windows to come take the old ones.

Modern vinyl windows have short life spans, typically 20 years before needing replacement. Older windows last much longer. Restore and reglazing isn't cheaper than new windows but properly done will take you the next 50 years, at a minimum.

I live in a historic area and rarely see new windows that are as attractive as older windows. You can come reasonably close but it's still never quite the same. I can immediately tell if the windows are a replacement and if the owners cheapened out.

None of what you say is true…but nice parroting of historic district talking points.

Nice vinyl windows these days will last longer than wood and a 20 year lifespan is only if you live in a very high humid full sun environment…so Florida as example because the three months of humid DC weather isn’t enough.

Nearly every realtor will tell you that new windows will enhance the home value…doesn’t matter what materials from which they are made. Like any project, if you replace windows on an 18th century Georgetown home with something completely nuts out of character it may backfire, but other than that it’s always going to add value.

I too live in an area with many 100+ old homes and the houses that have original windows are almost always the ones that will likely sell to developers because the entire house is in relatively poor shape. They aren’t upgraded because the homeowner can’t afford to do it.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

Ours were ancient, but not at all beautiful and a bunch had cracks in them. We upgraded to modern vinyl windows and they look so much better...not to mention they work. We did arrange for a group that salvages and repurposes the windows to come take the old ones.

Modern vinyl windows have short life spans, typically 20 years before needing replacement. Older windows last much longer. Restore and reglazing isn't cheaper than new windows but properly done will take you the next 50 years, at a minimum.

I live in a historic area and rarely see new windows that are as attractive as older windows. You can come reasonably close but it's still never quite the same. I can immediately tell if the windows are a replacement and if the owners cheapened out.

None of what you say is true…but nice parroting of historic district talking points.

Nice vinyl windows these days will last longer than wood and a 20 year lifespan is only if you live in a very high humid full sun environment…so Florida as example because the three months of humid DC weather isn’t enough.

Nearly every realtor will tell you that new windows will enhance the home value…doesn’t matter what materials from which they are made. Like any project, if you replace windows on an 18th century Georgetown home with something completely nuts out of character it may backfire, but other than that it’s always going to add value.

I too live in an area with many 100+ old homes and the houses that have original windows are almost always the ones that will likely sell to developers because the entire house is in relatively poor shape. They aren’t upgraded because the homeowner can’t afford to do it.

If these are historic district parroting points, maybe there's something to it, no?

Kind of you to post during your break at Thompson Creek or Pella and you certainly speak with the zeal of a window salesman making up half of what he's saying to make a deal. Vinyl windows, under factory conditions, can in theory last multiple decades. In the real world, both weather and sun exposure greatly affects the longevity of vinyl, and this is as true in Maryland or Massachusetts as in Florida. Seals frequently disintegrate leading to the foggy window syndrome that is so common. There's no shortage of buyer complaints online of failing windows after just a decade. And like all things, there are cheap vinyl and expensive vinyl and most people are getting the cheap Home Depot vinyl.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

Ours were ancient, but not at all beautiful and a bunch had cracks in them. We upgraded to modern vinyl windows and they look so much better...not to mention they work. We did arrange for a group that salvages and repurposes the windows to come take the old ones.

Modern vinyl windows have short life spans, typically 20 years before needing replacement. Older windows last much longer. Restore and reglazing isn't cheaper than new windows but properly done will take you the next 50 years, at a minimum.

I live in a historic area and rarely see new windows that are as attractive as older windows. You can come reasonably close but it's still never quite the same. I can immediately tell if the windows are a replacement and if the owners cheapened out.

None of what you say is true…but nice parroting of historic district talking points.

Nice vinyl windows these days will last longer than wood and a 20 year lifespan is only if you live in a very high humid full sun environment…so Florida as example because the three months of humid DC weather isn’t enough.

Nearly every realtor will tell you that new windows will enhance the home value…doesn’t matter what materials from which they are made. Like any project, if you replace windows on an 18th century Georgetown home with something completely nuts out of character it may backfire, but other than that it’s always going to add value.

I too live in an area with many 100+ old homes and the houses that have original windows are almost always the ones that will likely sell to developers because the entire house is in relatively poor shape. They aren’t upgraded because the homeowner can’t afford to do it.

If these are historic district parroting points, maybe there's something to it, no?

Kind of you to post during your break at Thompson Creek or Pella and you certainly speak with the zeal of a window salesman making up half of what he's saying to make a deal. Vinyl windows, under factory conditions, can in theory last multiple decades. In the real world, both weather and sun exposure greatly affects the longevity of vinyl, and this is as true in Maryland or Massachusetts as in Florida. Seals frequently disintegrate leading to the foggy window syndrome that is so common. There's no shortage of buyer complaints online of failing windows after just a decade. And like all things, there are cheap vinyl and expensive vinyl and most people are getting the cheap Home Depot vinyl.

Not really...more like people that just love to dictate what the neighbors do to the exterior of their homes. I guess that's you.

Go look at Consumer Reports and all their top-ranked windows are vinyl with maybe one wooden window in the top 10 (and it's very expensive). They aren't exactly a shill for anyone. At least one of the HD brands is highly rated, though it's not the absolute cheapest.

So, seems like you agree that top-rated vinyl windows are the best. What looks very cheap...and literally is very cheap...are the existing single pain, poorly upkept wooden windows that you see on many old homes. These owners aren't meticulously doing anything, they just can't afford to do anything about it.

Now, granted this isn't a historic district like Georgetown where homeowners have always been wealthier and can afford for the most part of maintain their 18th and 19th century windows.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Yeah, we moved into an old house with beautiful and ancient wood windows. They’re huge and single pane so the utility bills pack a punch. But it seemed a travesty to rip them out for vinyl and the $80k we’d need for wood windows is not in the budget so we’re living with them.

Ours were ancient, but not at all beautiful and a bunch had cracks in them. We upgraded to modern vinyl windows and they look so much better...not to mention they work. We did arrange for a group that salvages and repurposes the windows to come take the old ones.

Modern vinyl windows have short life spans, typically 20 years before needing replacement. Older windows last much longer. Restore and reglazing isn't cheaper than new windows but properly done will take you the next 50 years, at a minimum.

I live in a historic area and rarely see new windows that are as attractive as older windows. You can come reasonably close but it's still never quite the same. I can immediately tell if the windows are a replacement and if the owners cheapened out.

None of what you say is true…but nice parroting of historic district talking points.

Nice vinyl windows these days will last longer than wood and a 20 year lifespan is only if you live in a very high humid full sun environment…so Florida as example because the three months of humid DC weather isn’t enough.

Nearly every realtor will tell you that new windows will enhance the home value…doesn’t matter what materials from which they are made. Like any project, if you replace windows on an 18th century Georgetown home with something completely nuts out of character it may backfire, but other than that it’s always going to add value.

I too live in an area with many 100+ old homes and the houses that have original windows are almost always the ones that will likely sell to developers because the entire house is in relatively poor shape. They aren’t upgraded because the homeowner can’t afford to do it.

If these are historic district parroting points, maybe there's something to it, no?

Kind of you to post during your break at Thompson Creek or Pella and you certainly speak with the zeal of a window salesman making up half of what he's saying to make a deal. Vinyl windows, under factory conditions, can in theory last multiple decades. In the real world, both weather and sun exposure greatly affects the longevity of vinyl, and this is as true in Maryland or Massachusetts as in Florida. Seals frequently disintegrate leading to the foggy window syndrome that is so common. There's no shortage of buyer complaints online of failing windows after just a decade. And like all things, there are cheap vinyl and expensive vinyl and most people are getting the cheap Home Depot vinyl.

Not really...more like people that just love to dictate what the neighbors do to the exterior of their homes. I guess that's you.

Go look at Consumer Reports and all their top-ranked windows are vinyl with maybe one wooden window in the top 10 (and it's very expensive). They aren't exactly a shill for anyone. At least one of the HD brands is highly rated, though it's not the absolute cheapest.

So, seems like you agree that top-rated vinyl windows are the best. What looks very cheap...and literally is very cheap...are the existing single pain, poorly upkept wooden windows that you see on many old homes. These owners aren't meticulously doing anything, they just can't afford to do anything about it.

Now, granted this isn't a historic district like Georgetown where homeowners have always been wealthier and can afford for the most part of maintain their 18th and 19th century windows.

I have done two high end remodels of older houses. The first was circa 1910 brick and the second was a 1929 stone. I wouldn't call them restorations but they were significant remodels aimed at respecting the original quality and character while bringing the house up to date, including one addition. With both houses, we worked with an excellent remodeling crew experienced with both older and newer houses and in both cases everyone across the board said keep the original windows if you can. Restore is the best way to go.

It is not always possible. Some windows are just gone. Other times it's the restoration lead time that doesn't work, as there are few restorers left. We did actually replace some windows that needed it. But we kept most windows and thankfully they only needed minor restoration that could he done by the crew, along with reglazing and painting.

It isn't lost on me that for both our houses, the windows lasted nearly a century before needing some work, meanwhile people are already replacing windows on high end 1990s construction.

[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:

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.

Even lead paint is a non issue for most. Why? only moving things like windows and doors coated in lead paint is a real issue. And when abestos finally outlawed most people a few years earlier already stopped it. So unless. you have windows ovcer 50 years old it is likely there is no lead and if windows are over 50 years old they are getting replaced anyhow before you move in.

A large percentage of the homes in our area are 100+ years old and I would say at least 60% still have original windows.

Just curious why you think the windows are getting replaced? Windows are quite expensive…do you think the new homeowner is spending up to $50k to replace all the windows?

Omg who are you proles?? Do not replace those windows!! Repair them. Many of them are priceless. They do not make them like that anymore.

Old isn't necessarily good. We had 100 year old windows when we bought our house, and there was no "repairing" them. They were functional, but insufficiently insulated. You can't add extra panes to old windows.

We got pretty high-end replacements, color-matched to the original chestnut trim, and it's been the single best thing we did for the comfort of the home. Noise and temp both improved more than I can describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:our house was built in 1966. it is on a big lot. We have basically replaced everything piece meal. New roof, new AC, nee electrical panel and wiring, new cement driveway, new screened in porch, new bathrooms, new kitchen, new insulation, new windows, new door, new flooring, new lighting, new, new. new. you name it we have replaced it.

I think the biggest pro is the lot size. Cons- we have small bathrooms, small closets, small bedrooms and don't really love the house.

Can't fix that. Try finding a new place or tear down current one and rebuild