new build v old home
Author
Discussion

thebullettrain

Original Poster:

1,069 posts

268 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
I have recently started to consider buying a house again.

I have seen some very spacious (yes, believe) executive new build homes and a few very nice victorian semis-amazing high ceilings with massive rooms.

The houses are in great areas but I'm stuck between the two. The new build has the best energy rating whilst the old home has the worst, needs a lot of work and with it being such a large house I'm told even told a new roof when cost more than 20k to replace.

So over to you PHers-what do you think?

Jambon

309 posts

269 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
IMHO: Old build.
Got a greater chance to add your personality to the house. It may have larger rooms and garden. Land settled so less chance of subsidance. House not built on 'brown' site. Added refurb costs for old build should be reflected in the price. Likely to be closer to existing infrastructre: shops, pubs, schools etc., You are not paying a developers commission on the buy price. More chances to buy probate for old build.

HOGEPH

5,249 posts

215 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
thebullettrain said:
The new build has the best energy rating whilst the old home has the worst, needs a lot of work and with it being such a large house I'm told even told a new roof when cost more than 20k to replace.
Think you have answered your own question there.

I bought an old house, character is great, old problems and inefficient energy rating is not so great.

Hobo

6,621 posts

275 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
People normally know themselves whether they prefer old or new. You can have the best of both worlds, but it is hard to find in recent developments as the builders don't seem to cater for things of use.

As a builder myself, I'd say old every time, however this is based on, like you say, comparing it against your average 'development'.

I am currently in the process of tying up a deal on a small portion of land for 6 or 7 very nice homes (of which I may keep one for myself). Whilst they are new build & as such have all the benefits which go with this, ie energy efficiency, no repair worries, etc, they will also be built of natural materials, ie stone, slate, quions, mulliions, timber windows (hate white UPVc) etc & also have extremely high ceilings & also, shock horror, garages which can fit a car (and allow you to open doors when inside) !!!

Decisions, decisions. Can see the advantages of both. At least your buying though which is a good sign.

Fatboy

8,268 posts

301 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Check out the soundproofing in the new build very carefully - also the fit and finish.

IME most newbuilds have no soundproofing (a normal conversation can be heard throughout the upstairs), and the fit and finish looks OK in the showroom, but wouldn't stand up to much...

The victorian property will be a much better bet IMHO

Hobo

6,621 posts

275 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Not entirely true. Most of the larger developers build to robust detail of which sound transfer is a major factor.

Builders not using Robust detail have to have an amount of properties sound tested for exactly the reasons as stated above, and it the properties fail them remedial works carried out to all homes on development & retested (until they achieve the desired results).


MrV

2,748 posts

257 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Fatboy said:
Check out the soundproofing in the new build very carefully - also the fit and finish.

IME most newbuilds have no soundproofing (a normal conversation can be heard throughout the upstairs), and the fit and finish looks OK in the showroom, but wouldn't stand up to much...

The victorian property will be a much better bet IMHO
All newbuild conversions should have excellent soundproofing due to regs brought in a couple of years ago.

I would still go for an older property myself smile

Nolar Dog

8,786 posts

224 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
New build.

Older house will be high maintenance and big bills.

Buy new on a nice development with individual designs and character.

jmorgan

36,010 posts

313 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Decided I don't have the patience and the time so went for new (ish) on our last move. No repair issues and associated bother. All we needed was a couple of tins of paint, as you do (well, the missis). We also had the benefit of a better insulated house and despite being larger than the previous, the heating was cheaper.

If I wanted to add personality it would have to be a wreck to start with. Personal choice here, not saying its the same for everyone.

And we did make sure the car fitted the garage before making a firm offer.

Mr Fenix

863 posts

234 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Having bought n developed a mix of new and old flats in scotchland I personally prefer old buildings compared to new. I can see the advantages of new with regards to the running costs and layout. However something tugs at my heart when I see an old dilapidated property. The high ceilings and thick solid double brick or 4ft sandstone walls also make a huge difference. A lot of the energy costs stem from poor/outdated plumbing & heating along with windows, insulation and roofing. Get those sorted and there's so much you can do to personalise and make something a little different than Barratt's philosophy of "hutches to make homes in".


Good luck with whatever you choose.


thebullettrain

Original Poster:

1,069 posts

268 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Both are nice houses but I'm torn between the two. Will go for second viewings.

The older house needs around 30k worth of work doing to it but it's value has dropped by a third over the past year that it's been on the market.

Dr KT

398 posts

231 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Some new builds can be very good. All depends on the development it self (not the developer!).

I have been looking myself- seen a few lovely old (Victorian) houses, great character, but seemed like a nightmare to look after and get up to scratch.

Figure out what you what from a house- and go for it.

Only you can decide. I am going for a 5 year old build, as for the next 5-10 years, the thought of doing up a house would push me over the edge!

TWSTEEL

1,099 posts

218 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
If you walk into a house and it feels "right", like you're at home there, doesn't really matter if new build or old. If it feels right it is right.

Davel

8,982 posts

287 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
If you want real character then, in my opinion, go for the older property.

If you are concerned about running costs, or low maintenance, then probably buy new build.

Are you intending to stay there or is it a short-term home?

Have to agree also that your first impression is usually right. You should get a gut feeling when you enter the right house!

scotal

8,751 posts

308 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Quite apart from the old vs new thing, check your favoured lender will lend on new build houses at the LTV you need. Not all will. Just a boring observation.

thebullettrain

Original Poster:

1,069 posts

268 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
Yes, need a 10 percent for the old house and 30 percent for the new home.

northandy

3,539 posts

250 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
my first house was a new build... suited me fine for 5 years...

second house is a 105 year old terrace... its cost me about 40k so far, put hardwoood sashes back in, reinstated the fireplace, new kitchen etc etc.. but its a "home" the first was just a house...

hunt_the_fox

1,044 posts

254 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
northandy said:
my first house was a new build... suited me fine for 5 years...

second house is a 105 year old terrace... its cost me about 40k so far, put hardwoood sashes back in, reinstated the fireplace, new kitchen etc etc.. but its a "home" the first was just a house...
+1 on the home point, new builds unless individually designed lack soul IMO

Pickled Piper

6,452 posts

264 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
How long do you plan staying in the house. Up to four years go new build - minimum hassle in and out. If you are staying longer term then a consider an older property.

pp

davido140

9,616 posts

255 months

Thursday 11th December 2008
quotequote all
MrV said:
Fatboy said:
Check out the soundproofing in the new build very carefully - also the fit and finish.

IME most newbuilds have no soundproofing (a normal conversation can be heard throughout the upstairs), and the fit and finish looks OK in the showroom, but wouldn't stand up to much...

The victorian property will be a much better bet IMHO
All newbuild conversions should have excellent soundproofing due to regs brought in a couple of years ago.

I would still go for an older property myself smile
I'm sat in a 12 month old new build right now (thankfully not my house) listening to the next door neighbours conversation.

Also, every time they close a door every door in the hallway here rattles. I assume its the same the other way around too.

get the old house!