On Oct 16, 10:32*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:44*am, blueman wrote:

One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that my house
only gets better and more valuable with age whereas even the latest
and greatest megamansion starts looking "dated" after a decade or so
since it's key selling point are modernity, latest-and-greatest, and
up-to-date styling -- none of which by definition are lasting
attributes. It's like a slower version of the problem that a new car
loses value the second you drive it out of the lot whereas an antique
car increases in value with proper upkeep.

Unless the new house is in some wacky area and there was a wacky buyer
who overpaid, or unless the entire market is taking a downturn, new
houses and old houses go up in value at roughly the same rate.
Otherwise, an old house would be way more expensive than a new house -
and they're not.


*In some areas, some are.
Many 100 year old houses are worth a lot more than a lot of equivalent
sized 30 year old houses - but location has a lot to do with it too.
The old houses on "snob hill" will always bring a higher price than
most suburban homes - and quite often more than new "infill" houses in
the same neighbourhood.

Agreed, but it is not an ever increasing function in value. The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R