Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 23:22     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say they don't like new builds. They don't like the tacky vinyl caverns (with brick front!) with 7000 sqft and no charm. These fucking things seem to be all over the place in NoVa, and it looks awful. I would say these new builds are on par in terms of aesthetics with a lot of the shitty ramblers they are replacing.

Personally, I like well built homes. I have lived in places where the nicest custom homes were built in the 90s. I have lived in other places where the best built homes were from the 40s and earlier. It all depends on how the area developed. Much of the inner ring DC suburbs were middle and lower-middle class until very recently, and the housing stock reflects that. The frustrating thing about the market around here is that so much of the housing stock - both new builds as well as the older homes - is of low quality.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.


On par with ramblers? HAHAHAHAHAH, note the 1.7 million price tag, the fact they are everywhere (in demand). You can't deny the fact that 7000 SF is much more livable than 1000. Anyways... You can argue asthetics but the fact is the new homes have low maintenance, are more insulated, have better floor plans and are more comfortable.

Excuse me, pardon my awesomeness!!!

Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 22:43     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say they don't like new builds. They don't like the tacky vinyl caverns (with brick front!) with 7000 sqft and no charm. These fucking things seem to be all over the place in NoVa, and it looks awful. I would say these new builds are on par in terms of aesthetics with a lot of the shitty ramblers they are replacing.

Personally, I like well built homes. I have lived in places where the nicest custom homes were built in the 90s. I have lived in other places where the best built homes were from the 40s and earlier. It all depends on how the area developed. Much of the inner ring DC suburbs were middle and lower-middle class until very recently, and the housing stock reflects that. The frustrating thing about the market around here is that so much of the housing stock - both new builds as well as the older homes - is of low quality.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 22:32     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
Our friends bought a new build in Falls Church for 1.7 million about a year ago. The finishes are so cheap, the windows are vinyl and there's absolutely no character. It's cavernous though.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 22:22     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
I think when people are talking about preferring old construction, they're talking about homes built before WWII. Not the 1990s or 1960s.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 22:00     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
If the neighborhood is still being built, you might not like the look. A new area can look not-so-nice in 10 years.
Will it be rezoned for another school district? Will the builders promise of a swimming pool ever happen?
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 20:41     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:



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


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

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

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



This is another silly post.

28 days is full compressive strength. There is no reason to wait for that. The house won't be fully loaded until the roof is on, sheathing is on and all of the drywall is in place. That will be a couple of months.

24 hours will give you about 2/3 of the strength and doesn't put anything at risk - very standard practice and it is not cutting corners. Waiting 2-3 days is conservative.


stop trying to scare people if you don't know what the hell you are talking about.




This is a very informative (and seemingly informed) post. Thank you.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 20:30     Subject: Re:New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My house was built in the late 1930's on a custom basis (we still have the original ad) -- solid brick, slate roof, plaster walls. Yes, insulation needed to be added to the attic and I have nothing against new construction (may even buy it in the future), but I don't think today's homes with the wide spread use of plywood and drywall provide "better bones." New homes tend to have better layouts and less problems because they are new, not because they are better.


We have a similar old house but have been quoted $400,000 for a renovation and addition. My DW wants to teardown and build new but with a budget of $800,000 I don't think new will have the same charm or uniqueness as our current house. We're on a 6,500 small lot in Bethesda.


Lol at 800k , that's the Bethesda markup. You can build an excellent house semi custom 5 to 600


Which builders?
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:51     Subject: Re:New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My house was built in the late 1930's on a custom basis (we still have the original ad) -- solid brick, slate roof, plaster walls. Yes, insulation needed to be added to the attic and I have nothing against new construction (may even buy it in the future), but I don't think today's homes with the wide spread use of plywood and drywall provide "better bones." New homes tend to have better layouts and less problems because they are new, not because they are better.


We have a similar old house but have been quoted $400,000 for a renovation and addition. My DW wants to teardown and build new but with a budget of $800,000 I don't think new will have the same charm or uniqueness as our current house. We're on a 6,500 small lot in Bethesda.


Lol at 800k , that's the Bethesda markup. You can build an excellent house semi custom 5 to 600
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:50     Subject: Re:New Construction vs. Old
15:48 poster. When we bought our house at the market peak, the cost to rebuild the house appraisal exceeded the market value of the property (which was not low).
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:44     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:PP - We faced a similar situation and lot size. We decided to add on and renovate rather than teardown. We would have been the first tear down on our street. You might well decide to do differently if teardowns are common in your neighborhood.


16:00 here. Our neighborhood is mostly teardowns. Very few neighbors are renovating . Something about tearing down a brick house with plaster walls and a slate roof seems wrong and I don't know that $800,000 will be enough $$ to build a really nice house.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:41     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
Say what you want about the foundation, but I lived in a new build house in another state with very strict building codes, California to be exact.

The house was put up very quickly, the concrete did not properly cure, and there was visible crumbling in spots and cracks in the walls from settling.

All of the houses in this neighborhood had the same issues.

We also looked at a house here in NOVA in a neighborhood that was built during the height of the boom.

The house had visible cracks in the foundation, the garage slab and the concrete patio. The house was about a decade old and in my opinion, unsellable. I saw that neighborhood go up, and the houses were raised virtually overnight.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:27     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
PP - We faced a similar situation and lot size. We decided to add on and renovate rather than teardown. We would have been the first tear down on our street. You might well decide to do differently if teardowns are common in your neighborhood.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:00     Subject: Re:New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:My house was built in the late 1930's on a custom basis (we still have the original ad) -- solid brick, slate roof, plaster walls. Yes, insulation needed to be added to the attic and I have nothing against new construction (may even buy it in the future), but I don't think today's homes with the wide spread use of plywood and drywall provide "better bones." New homes tend to have better layouts and less problems because they are new, not because they are better.


We have a similar old house but have been quoted $400,000 for a renovation and addition. My DW wants to teardown and build new but with a budget of $800,000 I don't think new will have the same charm or uniqueness as our current house. We're on a 6,500 small lot in Bethesda.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 16:00     Subject: New Construction vs. Old
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a personal reason but I'd be too nervous to buy a brand new home because I'd be worried about escalating costs and not catching the builder taking short cuts. For example, my friend had a house built and the basics that the house came with only included two cable outlets for the whole house. There were a few other examples he told me about of things that one would expect to come standard with a house that were not and that he had to pay extra for. Also, you have to make sure you visit the house every day to make sure the builders aren't taking shortcuts.

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

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

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


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

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


I never said it was the same thing. OP asked for benefits and drawbacks of new vs. existing construction. On the bolded part, that's great but you have to know to ask the questions and someone with less experience may not know to ask the questions or may not catch the builder cutting corners. I think there's less questions you have to worry about with an existing home and I think it's easier to visualize what you want when you're looking at the house as compared to floor plan.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2014 15:59     Subject: New Construction vs. Old




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


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

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

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



This is another silly post.

28 days is full compressive strength. There is no reason to wait for that. The house won't be fully loaded until the roof is on, sheathing is on and all of the drywall is in place. That will be a couple of months.

24 hours will give you about 2/3 of the strength and doesn't put anything at risk - very standard practice and it is not cutting corners. Waiting 2-3 days is conservative.


stop trying to scare people if you don't know what the hell you are talking about.