Reply to Older homes

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Older homes"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What about new builts post pandemic? Are those typically draft and leaky?[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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![/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.      [/quote]

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? [/quote]

Single pane windows are a source of huge heat loss and that's your biggest energy consumer there. As full of character as those old windows puttied into the metal frames look, they are very inefficient and leaky. 
Good windows are expensive for a reason. There are a lot of gaskets and thermal breaks to keep the cold out. Double or triple paned glass is not cheap either. And if the windows are operable, it's an even more complicated assembly. Add to that the installers have to know how to do it while maintaining the thermal breaks AND making it look nice with the interior trims as well as exterior sills. You want something that fits your existing opening and that means custom sizes usually.
So give windows some respect because you truly get what you pay for in performance and aesthetics when it comes to these items.[/quote]

I replaced all our 1920s windows with modern, double-paned windows.  I fairly religiously track all utility bills and it's difficult to see much savings from changing the windows...of course, there are many different variables determining utility costs...price of gas in winter, how cold the winter is, price of electricity, how the summer is, etc.

The savings were minimal...maybe a couple hundred dollars per year.  Wouldn't even remotely justifying replacing them.  However, the new windows look so much better, they actually work (the old ones were nearly impossible to open), probably 5 of the windows had some cracks so either needed to be fixed and replaced, and the house looks much better from the outside.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics