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:

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.

What came after single pane ones? Doubles? Triples? What are the options nowadays?

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:

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.

What came after single pane ones? Doubles? Triples? What are the options nowadays?

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.

What came after the single panes? Doubles? Triple? How many panes are "modern" 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: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.

What came after single pane ones? Doubles? Triples? What are the options nowadays?

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.

What came after the single panes? Doubles? Triple? How many panes are "modern" 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: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.

What came after single pane ones? Doubles? Triples? What are the options nowadays?

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.

What came after the single panes? Doubles? Triple? How many panes are "modern" windows?

We replaced single panes with energy-efficient windows: double pane filled with gas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not age- houses built in the 1950s-80s were really poor quality. My parents bought a very stylish but nightmarish house built in the 60s. I would lean towards a younger or older home than that period.

Yes, we had one of those 1950’s split levels that are all around this area. The overall structure was okay but there was very little insulation and the windows were drafty. It also had tiny closets and bathrooms compared to modern 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:

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.

What came after single pane ones? Doubles? Triples? What are the options nowadays?

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.

What came after the single panes? Doubles? Triple? How many panes are "modern" windows?

We replaced single panes with energy-efficient windows: double pane filled with gas.

How does that work?

[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.

What came after single pane ones? Doubles? Triples? What are the options nowadays?

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.

What came after the single panes? Doubles? Triple? How many panes are "modern" windows?

We replaced single panes with energy-efficient windows: double pane filled with gas.

How does that work?

Works fantastic to lower utility bills.

[Anonymous]

I dumped my old house and it felt better than selling a boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP. Just watch out for lead and asbestos.

Truth. A real pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a new build home that was built when I was 2. It was drafty, leaky and had mold issues. I now live in a house that is 100 years old. Pre-1950 homes have quality materials and craftsmanship that is tough to find in homes built after that time. Trouble is they have to have been well-maintained. I was lucky to find an older home in good shape and I vastly prefer living here but it does require extra care.

I've found that there were some "growing" pains in the house construction and codes around 2000's. Like they started using high efficiency heating and compact fluorescent lighting for example. These were awful. The older homes were much less efficient but comfortable. The high efficiency heating sucked the moisture out of the air and also drew in air from the outside, made the house dry and drafty. If you install a humidifier for the winter and a whole house fan for the summer and seal your duct work, it's fabulous.
Oh and get rid of those compact fluorescent (which progressive thought those were a good idea.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dumped my old house and it felt better than selling a boat.

What did you "upgrade" to

[Anonymous]

I'm not a fan of new homes because they are built with so much glue and plastic. Beams are are no longer solid wood - they are boards made out of little pieces of scrap wood glued together, and then bound together in 3's to maybe simulate the strength of a solid piece of wood. Go on a construction site during the rain and the chemical smell is overwhelming, and you see the leaks. Go around a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago and you'll see siding that blows around in the wind. None of this can be good.
I understand that this is a generalization, and some new homes may be quality - but you have to know what's in them and how they were built. Maybe custom homes built by a known contractor? All the rest seems like crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of new homes because they are built with so much glue and plastic. Beams are are no longer solid wood - they are boards made out of little pieces of scrap wood glued together, and then bound together in 3's to maybe simulate the strength of a solid piece of wood. Go on a construction site during the rain and the chemical smell is overwhelming, and you see the leaks. Go around a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago and you'll see siding that blows around in the wind. None of this can be good.
I understand that this is a generalization, and some new homes may be quality - but you have to know what's in them and how they were built. Maybe custom homes built by a known contractor? All the rest seems like crap.

This is such a conundrum to me! I have an older home, not historic but a well-built 30+ year old house, and even that seems to literally have something that needs to be done at all times. I daydream about having a new, low maintenance house, but I don't think that exists. Every new thing we get is far inferior to the old items. Just one example: the HVAC unit. The 30 year old one was actually better than the new one that seems to require an expensive repair down every season. Add to that the inferior construction materials and craftsmanship of a new build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of new homes because they are built with so much glue and plastic. Beams are are no longer solid wood - they are boards made out of little pieces of scrap wood glued together, and then bound together in 3's to maybe simulate the strength of a solid piece of wood. Go on a construction site during the rain and the chemical smell is overwhelming, and you see the leaks. Go around a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago and you'll see siding that blows around in the wind. None of this can be good.
I understand that this is a generalization, and some new homes may be quality - but you have to know what's in them and how they were built. Maybe custom homes built by a known contractor? All the rest seems like crap.

And you are clearly lacking in information and understanding. Modern, engineered wood beams generally offer greater strength, stability, and load-bearing consistency than solid wood beams. They use smaller pieces of wood bonded with adhesives to eliminate natural defects like knots and inconsistent grain patterns found in solid timber. They also offer a higher and more consistent strength-to-weight ratio than solid lumber. The manufacturing process and layering increase durability and resistance to warping, splitting, and shrinking. They also support larger loads and span longer distances due to their engineered composition, allowing for more open floor plans.

As for the siding, that is typically the crap vinyl siding. Fiber cement siding (brand name is Hardiplank) is made from cement, sand, and cellulose fibers and offers much better durability than wood as it is resistant to pests, rot, fire, and moisture damage.

[Anonymous]

Our home was built in 1972. One owner.
We sacrificed space on the inside. Rooms are a bit smaller.

However, it works perfectly for just us two.
We also have a big lot with plenty of space in between our neighbors and the backyard -- which is rare.