On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 12:21Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour



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

Â*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. Â*The
belief that an old house just gets "better" with age is nothing more
than a belief. Â*The frame doesn't get stronger, the roof tighter,
etc. Â*Everything ages and nothing lasts forever.

R

No-one said it necessarily gets better. It MAY become more desireable
in the eys of some who have the money to not worry about costs.

You're not addressing the point I was addressing. Everyone knows
there are people who will buy stuff if it is simply the most expensive
thing out there, figuring it just _has_ to be better or why would the
people be asking that price. That's not the point Blueman brought up
that I took issue with.

He said, "One great advantage of vintage houses vs. new ones is that
my house only gets better and more valuable with age". You've agreed
about the not getting better, now we're just down to the more
valuable.

They may become "comparatively" better as newer homes are "cheapened"
with the price relating more to "features" than "quality"

A house with lime plaster walls and solid wood framing, t&G subfloor,
etc will ALWAYS be a "better built" home than a house built with tin
studs, aspenite subfloor and roof decking, drywall walls, and paper
product sheating.

There are the usual fluctuations in desirability of any house as it
ages and that goes to price. An old house will not be on an ever-
increasing upward trend, leaving the newer houses' value in the dust.
It does not work that way.

In my neck of the woods they knocked down a house from 1693. Knocked
it down! They couldn't give it away, and believe me, they tried.
People didn't w

R
And in our neighbourhood there have been several (smaller) homes (on
1/2 acre lots) built in the 1960s, sold for very close to half a
million, and bulldozed to put in a new "McMansion".