Would you buy an old house or a new house?

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Martin
While there are exceptions, newer neighbourhoods tend to be some of the most depressing places to live.

-cookie cutter houses
-artificial and sanitized feel
-severe lack of vegetation
-lack of commercial properties
-pedestrian unfriendly, far from public transport, too car-focused

I'll take an old place any day.

That's why they are new - they haven't "grown" into a community yet - but they will, it takes time. The old neighbourhoods that we all remenis about didn't magically appear that way over night. In some cases it took 50 years or more for them to develope into a thriving community.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: Martin
While there are exceptions, newer neighbourhoods tend to be some of the most depressing places to live.

-cookie cutter houses
-artificial and sanitized feel
-severe lack of vegetation
-lack of commercial properties
-pedestrian unfriendly, far from public transport, too car-focused

I'll take an old place any day.

That's why they are new - they haven't "grown" into a community yet - but they will, it takes time. The old neighbourhoods that we all remenis about didn't magically appear that way over night. In some cases it took 50 years or more for them to develope into a thriving community.

True, yet there are some nicer (and yes, pricier) new districts on redeveloped urban land which go to great lengths to try get some character there.

A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

At the same time, just down the street from where I live, on some formerly empty industrial land 5km from the downtown they built these houses:
http://www.istockphoto.com/fil...d=810085&refnum=306174

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: Martin
While there are exceptions, newer neighbourhoods tend to be some of the most depressing places to live.

-cookie cutter houses
-artificial and sanitized feel
-severe lack of vegetation
-lack of commercial properties
-pedestrian unfriendly, far from public transport, too car-focused

I'll take an old place any day.

That's why they are new - they haven't "grown" into a community yet - but they will, it takes time. The old neighbourhoods that we all remenis about didn't magically appear that way over night. In some cases it took 50 years or more for them to develope into a thriving community.

The types of neighborhoods described will not.

Given the spacing and layouts of many of these types of neighborhoods they will not develop into anything like some of the developments put in 20, 30, 40+ years ago. Every single house looks the same short of different colored siding. They have enough room for one junky softwood tree to be planted in the front yard. You drive on and on for miles and feel like you are stuck in a maze.

Just like everything else made anymore, it's produced for a quick buck and with the replaceable mentaility instead of built better for longer user. A lot of these new neighborhoods will see high turnovers due to the "entry level" nature of the homes so you won't see a lot of the pride that some of the more unique/custom developments exhibit.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: Martin
While there are exceptions, newer neighbourhoods tend to be some of the most depressing places to live.

-cookie cutter houses
-artificial and sanitized feel
-severe lack of vegetation
-lack of commercial properties
-pedestrian unfriendly, far from public transport, too car-focused

I'll take an old place any day.

That's why they are new - they haven't "grown" into a community yet - but they will, it takes time. The old neighbourhoods that we all remenis about didn't magically appear that way over night. In some cases it took 50 years or more for them to develope into a thriving community.

The types of neighborhoods described will not.

Given the spacing and layouts of many of these types of neighborhoods they will not develop into anything like some of the developments put in 20, 30, 40+ years ago. Every single house looks the same short of different colored siding. They have enough room for one junky softwood tree to be planted in the front yard. You drive on and on for miles and feel like you are stuck in a maze.

Just like everything else made anymore, it's produced for a quick buck and with the replaceable mentaility instead of built better for longer user. A lot of these new neighborhoods will see high turnovers due to the "entry level" nature of the homes so you won't see a lot of the pride that some of the more unique/custom developments exhibit.

People said the same thing about the Chicago suburbs - and look at them now, they are their own communities. I just don't agree with you. It sounds like you just want something to dislike. You have picked a side and want your side to be better. I like both new and old homes and areas.

 

[MagicConch]

Originally posted by: Martin
While there are exceptions, newer neighbourhoods tend to be some of the most depressing places to live.

-cookie cutter houses
-artificial and sanitized feel
-severe lack of vegetation
-lack of commercial properties
-pedestrian unfriendly, far from public transport, too car-focused

I'll take an old place any day.

I can see how some can get to those conclusions but just as easily someone can say old neighborhoods (where I live at least) with some exceptions are equally depressing:

-eyesore properties sprinkled liberally throughout
-sloppily constructed streets and sidewalks making riding bikes, etc difficult
-community disregard for neighborhood shared space (if there is any at all)
-no natural wildlife aside from things like squirrels, etc since everything has been parcelled up and there are no nearby 50+ acre preserved natural reserves whatsoever which are everywhere in new neighborhoods here, most at least 100 acres
-no exercise facilities, tennis courts, etc, well-maintained, within walking distance
-no 5+ acre parks within a mile (there is a park within walking distance of every new home here)
-no Cat5 wiring
-out here no fiber to the premises (at&t will only do that to new houses )

both old and new have +'s and -'s imo

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

I've lived in 4 different states in cities ranging from 120k to over 3.5 million and all "affordable" new construction done in the last 5-7 years looks very similar to that.

I'd like to think that I have some sort of exposure to different areas/city sizes.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

Dude, that's Markham, which is no different from Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Vaughn, Brampton etc. You can complain about 'stigmatized views' all you want, but that is exactly what 90%+ of Toronto's 905 region is like - fucking depressing.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

Yeah, that is a rather depressing picture. I'd rather just get a condo and quit pretending like it has a yard.

Anyway, not all subdivisions are like that obviously. I also think people are misrepresenting older neighborhoods. Many of the older neighborhoods are just as bad as the newer homes in terms of construction. All you have to do is look at the lower-income neighborhoods built in the 80s to see artifacts of the same as they're building today. Slab, popcorn ceilings, laminate flooring, faux everything.

So, the older homes in better neighborhoods are probably equivalent to the newer homes in better neighborhoods. There's plenty of shoddy craftsmanship in everything in between, so I don't think there's anything universal about build quality in terms of older homes.

Also, in every city I've lived in, to get the nice older homes you're likely paying a substantial premium that most people simply can't afford. A decent "vintage" home in Atlanta will run you $600k, easy. Any less and you're living in a neighborhood without the old-world character and the same shoddy construction as a new cookie-cutter subdivision home.

imo.

 

[HannibalX]

I think you get what you pay for no matter if your house was built in 1920 or 2007. There is some weird notion that people had these grand victorian homes from the 1920s built for dirt cheap and people were living in them like kings... that just isn't the case. The average person can afford more house now than they could then. If you got the cheapest house then it had shoddy construction, if you get the cheapest house now it will have shoddy construction - nothing has changed.

 

[MovingTarget]

Older houses FTW. Newer ones seem to be rather shoddily constructed where I am from. They all try to go cheap on a McMansion scale, on top of a postage-stamp sized lot. You can't match the feel of an older, well-established neighborhood. Hardwood trees, plenty of shade, some wildlife, sturdier construction, more attention to cosmetic detail. Of course they do need some care when you first move in, but that imho doesn't surpass all the problems you can have when you discover what a contractor has skimped on when building it new nowadays.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

Dude, that's Markham, which is no different from Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Vaughn, Brampton etc. You can complain about 'stigmatized views' all you want, but that is exactly what 90%+ of Toronto's 905 region is like - fucking depressing.

That's all you needed to say.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I think you get what you pay for no matter if your house was built in 1920 or 2007. There is some weird notion that people had these grand victorian homes from the 1920s built for dirt cheap and people were living in them like kings... that just isn't the case. The average person can afford more house now than they could then. If you got the cheapest house then it had shoddy construction, if you get the cheapest house now it will have shoddy construction - nothing has changed.

That's quite true - having done a fair amount of work on my mom's house (built in the 20s) I can tell you parts of it were crappy, so that's why I didn't mention construction quality in my OP.

I just get the feeling that people have focused so much on square footage that all other areas start being neglected (similar behavior can be seen in other industries, like the MHz race in CPUs a while back).

A friend of mine is moving to Toronto's exurbs into a brand new 4bdr 3600ft^2 house (basement not included) which will be shared by him, his mom and his dad. I can't understand sacrificing everything else for so much space.

 

[HannibalX]

Older houses FTW. Newer ones seem to be rather shoddily constructed where I am from. They all try to go cheap on a McMansion scale, on top of a postage-stamp sized lot. You can't match the feel of an older, well-established neighborhood. Hardwood trees, plenty of shade, some wildlife, sturdier construction, more attention to cosmetic detail. Of course they do need some care when you first move in, but that imho doesn't surpass all the problems you can have when you discover what a contractor has skimped on when building it new nowadays.

Yeah because all contractors were good honest guys who never cut corners prior to 25 years ago... my family was in the housing business in the 1950s and we had to deal with some shady builders then.

The point is, find the house that is right for you - age doesn't mean much unless you make it mean something.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

Dude, that's Markham, which is no different from Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Vaughn, Brampton etc. You can complain about 'stigmatized views' all you want, but that is exactly what 90%+ of Toronto's 905 region is like - fucking depressing.

That's all you needed to say.

What's your point? That's where virtually all new houses/neighbourhoods are being built, so its hardly fair to talk about exceptions and options most people won't face.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

Dude, that's Markham, which is no different from Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Vaughn, Brampton etc. You can complain about 'stigmatized views' all you want, but that is exactly what 90%+ of Toronto's 905 region is like - fucking depressing.

That's all you needed to say.

What's your point? That's where virtually all new houses/neighbourhoods are being built, so its hardly fair to talk about exceptions and options most people won't face.

No construction going on in any other areas of the province eh? That's strange, since it's my job to assess new homes in the county I live in and I'm a very busy guy

My point is you generalize way too much and have no clue what you're talking about outside of where you're from. It's my job to know, and I've been all over the province doing it.

 

[ilovecolombia]

older houses have a better chance of being haunted. Elaborate on whether the older house is haunted or not.

 

[HannibalX]

What if the new house was built on an Indian barial ground? Then you're really fvcked! :|

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Martin
A friend of mine lives here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...ham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
And to me at least, the place is quite depressing.

LOL - most of those aren't even detached homes. The pic fits nicely into ATOT's vision of what a subdivision looks like though, so it applies here.

Dude, that's Markham, which is no different from Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Vaughn, Brampton etc. You can complain about 'stigmatized views' all you want, but that is exactly what 90%+ of Toronto's 905 region is like - fucking depressing.

That's all you needed to say.

What's your point? That's where virtually all new houses/neighbourhoods are being built, so its hardly fair to talk about exceptions and options most people won't face.

No construction going on in any other areas of the province eh? That's strange, since it's my job to assess new homes in the county I live in and I'm a very busy guy

My point is you generalize way too much and have no clue what you're talking about outside of where you're from. It's my job to know, and I've been all over the province doing it.

I lived in Waterloo for a while, which has a bit of a boom going on and it wasn't much different there. There is nothing wrong with generalizing when the statement is the most common case.

 

[Thegonagle]

Older neighborhood. Mature trees FTW!

(And Halloween is coming. Haunted house FTW!)

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Older house. Quality is severely lacking in most builds today.

i live in a block house built in 1955. the only downfall is the wiring, its all 2-wire. no ground. i had my office/ lab rewired to it own breaker so i could protect it, and later added a circuit or my tvs and stereo stuff around the house. cheap add on tho.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Boztech

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
The old house. If it's an an urban area, it will probably have restaurants, hardware stores, coffee shops, etc, in walking distance. If it's in a more rural area, it will probably have nice natural vegetation. I'll pass on the pedestrian-hostile, soulless new crap kthx.

A lot of generalization going on in here.

The neighborhood we will be moving to in 9 months was developed just a few years ago (master planned) was designed specifically to place it within walking distance of shopping, restaurants, a rec center, a theatre, a grade school, and even a water park.

Hometown NRH

Yay. Yuppie-ville.

Give me a 1900-era farmhouse on 2+ acres any day.

ZV

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Qacer
If you had a choice, would you buy an old house (earlier than 1960) in an established neighborhood (family oriented, safe place, etc.) or a new house (2003 or later) in a newer neighborhood?

Let's assume that the price difference for each house is somewhere between 20 to 30k, with the newer house higher in value.

My take on it is that as long as the older house is still solid and does not pose any problems, then it would rank higher on my list compared to a newer house. I think that a newer house does not necessarily translate into something good if the neighborhood is crappy.

get a new house. it looks better on the inside and out.

when i was an intern for IBM, i rented the basement of a house. the house was built a year ago. looked warm and nice.

a few weeks into my internship, went to a coworkers house. it was built in the 1960's. he + his wife just bought it a few months ago. omg it looked dirty and run down. everything was old from appliances (fridge, stove, counters, etc) to the wood floorboard. and this guy makes at least 2x more $ than my landlord. his house did not looked that inviting.

from that point on, i swore that i would not buy any old houses if i can help it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Qacer
If you had a choice, would you buy an old house (earlier than 1960) in an established neighborhood (family oriented, safe place, etc.) or a new house (2003 or later) in a newer neighborhood?

Let's assume that the price difference for each house is somewhere between 20 to 30k, with the newer house higher in value.

My take on it is that as long as the older house is still solid and does not pose any problems, then it would rank higher on my list compared to a newer house. I think that a newer house does not necessarily translate into something good if the neighborhood is crappy.

get a new house. it looks better on the inside and out.

when i was an intern for IBM, i rented the basement of a house. the house was built a year ago. looked warm and nice.

a few weeks into my internship, went to a coworkers house. it was built in the 1960's. he + his wife just bought it a few months ago. omg it looked dirty and run down. everything was old from appliances (fridge, stove, counters, etc) to the wood floorboard. and this guy makes at least 2x more $ than my landlord. his house did not looked that inviting.

from that point on, i swore that i would not buy any old houses if i can help it.

Obviously, you're young and have never heard of remodeling.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Qacer
If you had a choice, would you buy an old house (earlier than 1960) in an established neighborhood (family oriented, safe place, etc.) or a new house (2003 or later) in a newer neighborhood?

Let's assume that the price difference for each house is somewhere between 20 to 30k, with the newer house higher in value.

My take on it is that as long as the older house is still solid and does not pose any problems, then it would rank higher on my list compared to a newer house. I think that a newer house does not necessarily translate into something good if the neighborhood is crappy.

get a new house. it looks better on the inside and out.

when i was an intern for IBM, i rented the basement of a house. the house was built a year ago. looked warm and nice.

a few weeks into my internship, went to a coworkers house. it was built in the 1960's. he + his wife just bought it a few months ago. omg it looked dirty and run down. everything was old from appliances (fridge, stove, counters, etc) to the wood floorboard. and this guy makes at least 2x more $ than my landlord. his house did not looked that inviting.

from that point on, i swore that i would not buy any old houses if i can help it.

Applicances can be easily replaced. For the rest of the place you'd be amazed what a few weekends of work and a couple hundred bucks in paint & new trim will do.