Anonymous wrote:

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

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

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

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

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

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

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

At his height, when he was building one suburban house every 16 minutes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt

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

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

New new builds however are appealing for many reasons.

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

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

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

I doubt the quality of your typical 50-70s tract split/rambler etc... used high quality materials. In fact in regards to structurally, waterproofing and isulation they are inferior and would take a lot of money and work to be up to present day code.

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

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

I always liked houses built around the 90s the best. It certainly could just be my perception but it seems like a lot of the new builds used cheaper materials (thinner hardwood floors, bathroom tiles, brick facade on fireplace rather than real brick, etc.).

But, the drawback to these homes is that a lot of the systems (HVAC, HW heater, roof, etc.) are nearing the end of their lifecycle and are costly to replace. Also, many have single pane windows rather than double paned and windows are expensive to replace.

Also, with new construction you'll probably need window treatments.

I've lived in new construction my entire life and now I live in a 25 year old home. There is absolutely no difference. Both need 100% painted when you move in and normally all new lighting fixtures. Maybe more landscaping for a new construction (although my former owners left me with a mess of a yard). New is WAY better.

The only draw back was not doing it sooner

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

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

Anyone else has to simply get over it.

Enjoy!

Ok, I usually don't like new construction homes, but after living in an older home with no storage and a leaky foundation, these are starting to look pretty good! http://myevergreenehome.com/neighborhoods/reserve-at-college-heights/
Who here lives in new construction? Drawbacks?