House Buying: New Construction vs "older" home

W

wilkens21

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
52
Just had a deal fall thru on a house because of foundation related issues (had a great inspector that caught it). The house is 40 years old and sadly was not maintained well by the current owner.

Now I'm not sure what to do next....

I'm looking in a location in which sadly buying a 800K house will pretty much land you a dump that needs renovations! Very sad... the reason I'm looking there is because of family and the desire to be near them. Not ideal but it is what it is.

So, now I'm wondering if we should look in another town, and possibly even looking at new construction, in which 800K will at least net you a very, very nice place.

Problem is I'm scared of new constructions because they were profit generators for builders during the bubble. And the corners that were cut are definitely scary especially as the homes will age. Was burned as a child, with a new home as we had water leakage problems almost immediately, and then of course the builder then "disappeared".

I think watching Holmes Inspection also scares me when it comes to new constructions.

Been going back and forth, since I really don't want to do major work on a new home. But are the newer homes worth it? Dunno...

What are your thoughts? :)
 
and you can request inspections at each stage of the construction. If the builder says no to the phased inspections, I'd find another builder. I'm sure there are many out there that would love your business.
 
I had a house built from the ground up once in 1990, it was still the best house we've ever lived in (size, floorplan & features/amenities) but I don't think I'd ever do it again. We relocated to another state in 1993.

It took 7 months to have built, was supposed to be complete in 4-6 months. I went to the jobsite every single day after work, found quite a few sizeable errors (some examples - shower plumbing in the wrong wall, insulation left out completely after I'd paid for an upgrade, shingles put on with no felt underneath, etc.). The builder corrected every one of them properly, but I am sure he wouldn't have done so if I was not watching him like a hawk. It was sub contractor errors and he really wasn't watching them very closely. We only lived in the house for 3 years, though I visited the new owners when the house was about 20 years old and it's still in good shape.

So you can get exactly what you want, but you'd better know something about how construction is supposed to go and be prepared to supervise the job yourself. And you'd better have the stomach to raise issues immediately when they occur, if you can't handle conflict, you'll have issues. YMMV
 
I have only owned 2 homes in the 35 years that I have been working. The first was construction by a builder who went bankrupt. Which caused a big delay and some financial setback. The home that I am in now was built by a builder on speculation. I would not buy a home from a builder that was not completed after the first experience.

Things worked out ok in both cases.
 
I can't imagine buying an existing home without an inspection or multiple inspections. The point of an inspection is to find out about issues like foundation problems. Then if a significant problem is found, you can either negotiate price or back out as you did, depending on the problem.

Just because one existing home didn't pass inspection, is no reason to reject all existing homes! I'd look at more of them, if I were in your situation.

I can't answer about new homes, because although I did have one once, I presently prefer existing homes. I like the fact that an older home has a history.
 
Last edited:
I think you should be able to find a good quality older home, that's my preference now from a quality and value point of view. I'm sure you walked through this house one or more times before the inspector found the foundation issues. I would suggest looking at the inspector's list of items and use this as a guide for any home you consider, old or new. When I bought my current house, I had to point out a few issues to the house inspector that he didn't catch. The more information/research you do yourself only helps in the long run. Know your strengths and weaknesses, keep the inspector that you just used, it seems you liked his work. When I went looking at homes w/DW, she looked at the cosmetic stuff, I concentrated on the inner workings of the home. I know my weakness is with heating/AC and complex electrical work. I only got into this years ago from financial need/hobby interest. I always wanted to do some woodworking, then it morphed into full blown home remodelling as a hobby.
 
I would continue to look at older homes. The advantage is that their defects are easier to spot than the newer ones. Tell your realtor that condition is priority one. The word gets around in the 'trade' which ones have problems and your realtor doesn't want to waste his/her time on a failed sale. Keep the name and # of that inspector and let him/her know that you are the client, not a realtor. Oh, and send that inspector a bottle of wine (or flowers) for catching that.
 
You didn't specify what the foundation problem was, but foundations can be fixed if you really loved the house. For example, if the foundation was sinking, you could've had it reinforced/stabilized by hydualic underpinning. I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap, but that's something you could've demanded from the seller or reduced the price accordingly.
 
didn't want to bother with paying for the foundation issue as it was stressful enough with some of the other things we wanted to do it. wasn't worth renegotiating i think....as i didn't love the house per se.

hopeful to watch "Holmes Inspection" as i'm learning about a lot of things. am scared about mold/ventilation issues in the attic and other "hidden" costs for some of the older homes. But then again perhaps the homeowners would maintain it better than the house that i walked away from.
 
There are often 'hidden' costs in newer homes too.
 
wilkens21 said:
didn't want to bother with paying for the foundation issue as it was stressful enough with some of the other things we wanted to do it. wasn't worth renegotiating i think....as i didn't love the house per se.

hopeful to watch "Holmes Inspection" as i'm learning about a lot of things. am scared about mold/ventilation issues in the attic and other "hidden" costs for some of the older homes. But then again perhaps the homeowners would maintain it better than the house that i walked away from.
Click to expand...

The house we bought has mold in the attic. Had a mold inspector look at it, nothing more than everyday mold from inproper ventilation. This allowed me to get a few thousand credit paid by the seller. He suggested cover it with a mold inhibiting paint by Zinsser or sand/vacuum it off. I'm going to use option #2, it'll look odd to future buyers why I painted the inside of the attic ceiling. I already added bigger/more vents, cut the roof top and installed ridge venting to solve the ventilation issue. DW liked the area and house, no one has any reaction to the mold, so this wasn't a deal killer.
 
wilkens21 said:
I think watching Holmes Inspection also scares me when it comes to new constructions.
Been going back and forth, since I really don't want to do major work on a new home. But are the newer homes worth it? Dunno...
What are your thoughts? :)
Click to expand...
It's much easier to find construction defects in an older home, even if it's "just" 10 years old. It's also a lot easier to find neighbors who will tell you what's wrong with the home you're contemplating buying.

There's a long list of construction materials/techniques that seemed like a great idea at the time, but 10 years later were a problem: aluminum electrical wiring, 19980s versions of plastic water piping, cementitious roofing shakes, 1970s aluminum siding, insulation emitting formaldehyde, thin-wall copper piping in concrete foundations, drywall from some Chinese suppliers...

I don't know anyone who bought new construction and would care to repeat the experience.
 
If you buy a house more than 30 years old there is a high likelihood that the ceiling texture or the drywall joint compound contains asbestos. It might or might be high enough to trigger the threshhold to be considered asbestos containing (equal or greater to 1%). Unless you test during the inspection period you would likely not know. Sellers will almost always answer "no" to questions about asbestos because they don't actually know. Realtors and home inspectors often do know of the high likelihood but don't say anything.

If you never plan to change the house this is probably not a problem. But if you want to do any remodeling that would disturb ceilings and walls then it is a concern.

Also there are new regs on lead paint for older houses and this can make renovation much more expensive.

For this reasons I wouldn't consider a house more than 30 years old.

One advantage of a house that is, say, 5 to 20 years old is that a major foundation problem if one is to developed will likely already have happened.

However, older houses are often much less energy efficient than newer houses.

While I recognize the risks inherent in building we are choosing to build our next home.

The best of both worlds, however, might be to buy a house that is around 5 years old.
 
The houses that were built during the bubble are probably the worst in terms of construction quality since it was just a profit machine where developers put out inferior products and people were falling all over themselves to buy it.

Case in point is that plastic piping that is used for my sink and tub in the apartment that I currently live in (complex is pretty new). That's cheap stuff! That's just the tip of the iceberg...

Am hoping that now with the bubble fully bursting that there will be some sanity in terms of the quality of products since the buyers are more prudent.

I am also worried when people finish their basements since it covers up what could a disaster in the waiting and there aren't easy ways to take a look behind it, although i assume thermal cameras might be able to
 
The asbestos that Katsmeow is talking about is in the 'popcorn' that can be found on some, not all, ceilings in older houses. It isn't really a big deal to remove it but it must be done by someone certified for that activity. It is easy to find out if the ceiling treatment has asbestos by submitting it to a lab. Asbestos is a problem when it becomes airborne, in most cases it is encapsulated by paint and quite safe. It really isn't a major issue.
 
The longer I live in an older building, the more I like living there but the less I would want to own the building or a unit.

In fact, the longer I look around at RE, and the more I consider what can go wrong, the pickier I get. For example- today a plumber came to my unit, looking for a slow leak that was showing up downstairs in the boiler room. How much luck would I have if I owned a 2nd floor condo unit and there was a slow leak coming from somewhere, presumably above me, but in fact perhaps several door over, etc, etc? Would I be able to get that owner to hire a quality plumber, and spend money that may in fact not be her resposibility when all is known? Could I even find her?

I may look at some of the townhomes built prior to when the bubble began here- say around 2004. My main concern with these is that many of them look like shite, and you would have to be a goat to really like going up and down 3 to 4 floors all the time. These places are vertical! I have no issues now, but I am no kid and I would hate to come home from surgery some day and have no place to go.

I could only afford a SFH that is old, and as a guy who lived in and maintained an old sfh for many years, no way José! Again, most of what I could find in this category would turn my stomach to look at.

My friend lives in a typical Seatle bungalow, and he claims to enjoy keeping the thing up, but it is barely kept up, and he is always looking for excuses to do something else. Plus, they cost a fortune to heat, even with today's cheap natural gas. Luckily for him, his wife is a maniac for cleaning and generally keepoing things ship-shape.

Given my tastes, the only downside to continued renting for me is being long term short rent. Most of my neighbors are people I would be proud to have as friends. And the resident manager is very picky, and seems to enjoy having this part-time job, so I think this resident quality is likely to continue.

To return to the OP, no way would I spend $800,000 for an old junk heap. Rent the damn thing!

Ha
 
Brat said:
The asbestos that Katsmeow is talking about is in the 'popcorn' that can be found on some, not all, ceilings in older houses. It isn't really a big deal to remove it but it must be done by someone certified for that activity. It is easy to find out if the ceiling treatment has asbestos by submitting it to a lab. Asbestos is a problem when it becomes airborne, in most cases it is encapsulated by paint and quite safe. It really isn't a major issue.
Click to expand...


I agree with this to a point. I am partly talking about asbestos on ceilings. However, there is also often asbestos in drywall joint compound. Again, I agree it is safe so long as you aren't doing major remodeling.

I also agree that removing asbestos from the ceiling is not particularly difficult but has to be done by someone certified to do it. (Removing the drywall is a much harder job of course).

And if you aren't going to ever sell your house then that is fine. But bear in mind that if you do decide to do some remodeling and have that popcorn ceiling removed, you may have difficulties if you later sell your. We were just recently filling out a disclosure for the house we are selling (it is new enough that we aren't worried about asbestos) but it not only asked if you are aware of any asbestos in the house it also asks if you have ever had any asbestos remediation done.

So even if you have the ceiling remediated or replace the drywall it may create resale problems.
 
It didn't in my daughter's case and the California home sale disclosure requirements are very detailed (she removed ceiling popcorn).

I have never heard of asbestos in drywall mud. I would be much more worried about contaminated drywall manufactured in China which can be found in recent construction.
 
Brat said:
It didn't in my daughter's case and the California home sale disclosure requirements are very detailed (she removed ceiling popcorn).

I have never heard of asbestos in drywall mud. I would be much more worried about contaminated drywall manufactured in China which can be found in recent construction.
Click to expand...

It is simply a concern that is a very real one that someone buying an older home should consider.

 
I bought my present SFH new in 2004 from a custom builder who was building on a vacant lot in an established neighborhood on speculation. While certain aspects of my home do not seem at all "custom" to me, more builder's grade, I think over all I am satisfied with my purchase. I wanted something new, as I did not feel that I could keep up with the maintenance on an older home after my husband passed away. By the time this place starts falling apart, it will be time to move again.:)

I have not needed a plumber or electrician or handyman of any sort since I moved in, so it must be pretty sound. I have not seen any cracks in the foundation or garage due to settling either. I have noticed a few things like my master bath vanity has a small gap now between the counter and the wall and there is some caulking that is needed on the baseboard running up the staircase. Some things I would alter after having lived in the space for awhile, mostly layout issues...my mudroom is too small (door hits my dryer), I have a stupidly located downstairs powder room that is practically in the dining room, I would have placed some electrical outlets differently. I would have designed the front entrance so that there isn't a long narrow window next to the door. Oh, and I don't like that my upstairs does not have a separate thermostat. I find that my air conditioning is sort of scant in the summer up there while the downstairs is freezing. I overlooked a lot of these things in my haste to close and move in as my previous home was sold. But all in all a fairly well built house. Factors that figured heavily in my selection of this home were location close to work, nearby shopping, no neighbors across the street or behind me, a nice level lot, established neighborhood with trees, and lower price compared to similar new construction that I saw (almost all of the others were in new housing tracts which I wasn't crazy about).
 
I asked my husband about asbestos in drywall mud. He is 73, formerly active in Construction Specification Institute, a registered Architect for 45 +/- years, worked for architectural and engineering firms even in high school. He never heard of asbestos in drywall mud.

Based on that I wouldn't be concerned about asbestos when disturbing drywall seams. That doesn't mean that one should not wear a face mask and safety goggles when removing drywall. Fine particulates are still a health hazard. I vote for a disposable bunny suit too because all that grit can cause laundry grief.
 
Katsmeow said:
It is simply a concern that is a very real one that someone buying an older home should consider.
Click to expand...

This definitely made me curious. My house was built in 1963. Seems asbestos was used as a binding agent from 1963 to 1977. Here's an article on it:

Drywall Tapers and Asbestos Exposure | Asbestos Exposure | Mesothelioma Lawyer & Asbestos Cancer Resource | Sokolove Law

Then this one from a supplier in Canada as recently as 2008 selling to the US, alluding they didn't even list it as an ingredient on the label

Asbestos drywall mud still coming into the US - JLC-Online Forums

Makes me a bit concerned, I'm doing small remodelling jobs that involve light sanding of the drywall compound, all I did was remove wood paneling. I can see having to do this removing old wallpaper too. All you need is a little sanding and the stuff is airborne.

I held a summer job while in college removing asbestos from city schools, a very nasty job, had to wear tyvek suits, booties, gloves, gas mask and everything was sprayed down. We used sledgehammers to remove the popcorn ceilings because scraping wouldn't remove it in a timely manner.
 
Interesting. Years ago I remember my husband complaining about the fire marshals requiring asbestos around boilers in schools, a practice he objected to but they would not approve other approaches.

I doubt that many in the trade were aware of asbestos used as a binder in drywall mud, it would have been easy to prohibit that in the specifications even if it were not prohibited by statute. The risk would exist in the sanding portion of the finishing process.

In remodeling airborne particulates are always a risk. Fiberglass insulation that becomes airborne is very nasty stuff. Demolition workers should always wear respirators.

In the 80s an acquaintance of mine who worked at the San Francisco Federal Building died from asbestosis. She was in her mid 50s and to the best of my knowledge she worked for the USDOL from her early 20. We all wondered where she was exposed.

Maybe its just me but attorney advertising for clients make me suspicious about their claims. Like the DOL employee exposure can happen almost anywhere.

Oh, asbestos was used in the 40-50s for model building so if you had a model train layout and built scenery you were exposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Question on Home Insurance & the Home Value - UnderInsured or OverInsured?
Replies
12
Views
1K
COcheesehead
C
C
Neighbor Un-Retired after spending for Home Upgrades
Replies
20
Views
2K
Koolau
Koolau
S
Buying a brand new construction - what to look out for?
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
Brat
Brat
Chuckanut
Buying a New Car
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Car-Guy
Car-Guy
street
Home Insurance Company Reimburse
Replies
3
Views
177
street
street

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom