Opinions on buying new or used homes in the Houston area?

[texasdiver]

Thanks everyone for providing so much useful advice on my other thread on family neighborhoods. That thread generated a long list of notes and links of places to explore and research as we proceed down this path of maybe moving to Houston.

My next question involves buying new or used. Before moving to Texas I lived most of my life in older established east and west coast cities where most everyone buys older established homes in older neighborhoods because that's mostly what's out there. Here in Texas there seems to be a fairly heavy bias towards new construction in new neighborhoods. Not just the Houston area but everywhere in Texas. It's almost as if housing is another disposible commodity.

When we moved to the Waco area 4 years ago we bought a new house that was a spec house in an established neighborhood where the large trees were preserved. So I've got at least 20 large oak trees on my 6/10 acre lot even though the house was new. But I think that is a pretty rare thing. I think we were also lucky to get a fairly quality home that was made with quite a bit of detail and care by a very small local builder who is semi-retired and only does one or two houses at a time. So we have no complaints about the construction.

What I have learned from buying both new and used houses over the years is that there are extaordinary expenses that come with buying new that go way way beyond what you first expect. Sprinker systems, fencing, patios/decks, landscaping, interior finishing (closets, towel bars, window blinds etc etc.) Over the past 4 years I've probably sunk close to $40 grand into this house when I add everything I've ever bought and put into it and I've done everything myself.

At the same time I've been reading up on the state of real estate law in Texas and am horrified at how tilted the laws are towards the builders.

Buyers of new homes seem to have almost no rights and are totally at the mercy of the builder if they get a lemon. And the number of stores and complaints about most of the large builders that you find at the hobb.org site is enough to make your hair stand up in fright and horror.

It would seem to me that if a house is a lemon or has major structural problems, it will be MUCH MUCH easier for a good construction engineer to discover them on a 5-10 year old house than a newly constructed one. As any problems that are hidden will begin to reveal themselves in that time frame. So it might well be less risky to buy used rather than new. On top of that, the law seems to make it easier to go after a private seller than a builder in the event of fraud or undisclosed problems.

In addition, I really like large trees and mature landscapes. So for me it seems like a no-brainer to be looking for older construction rather than new construction. But I'm curious what the rest of you think. I see the pros and cons as follows:

New Home Pros:

Up-to-date wiring and networking for computers/home theater

Latest construction materials

More up-to-date finishings

Clean

New Home Cons:

Large investment needed to finish it out (sprinklers, landscaping, fences, window blinds etc.)

Immature landscaping will take years to fill out

Construction problems may be hidden and take years to reveal

Flooding/drainage issues may not yet be apparent

You don't really know how the neighborhood will finish out and what the final result will be in terms of traffic, demographics etc.

More expensive

Used Home Pros:

Someone else already made all the investments in finishing out the place.

Landcaping is mature

Hopefully major construction problems have had time to reveal themselves

You know how the neighborhood will look when finished because it is finished

You know what the neighbors will be like and the neighborhood character

Used home cons:

Furnishings may be dated or in need of replacement (carpets, appliances)

May be less energy efficient (appliances and construction)

Possible hidden problems (mold, termites etc.)

On balance, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Buying a used home in an established neighborhood seems like the much better investment, even if you're only buying a 2-3 year old home in a newer development.

Comments?

[mumbles]

Latest construction materials, is that a good thing?

I looked at an old home with peeling paint on the trim around the roofline. It wasn't rotted, just needed a paint job. I look at 5 year old homes that have hardiplank, but wood trim that is rotted? Do they make wood different now or is it just the way they paint it?

Carpet and appliances needing replacement is good, you get what you want instead of some cheap builder crap.

I have heard of new homes having major mold problems, leaky windows etc. Do a search for new home nightmares.

How old is old? What year did they switch to the really crappy siding?

I vote go for the neighborhood with full grown trees.

[Dan the Man]

Do they make wood different now or is it just the way they paint it?

Many older homes use old-growth wood, which has a tighter grain. The lumber that is harvested now has a grain that is less dense. Therefore it is more suscepitble to rot and termites, if not treated or finished properly. I would definitely advocate buying an older home. The construction quality of most spec houses is very poor, and state laws are tailored to make it virtually impossible to sue homebuilders for defects resulting from poor construction quality.

If you decide to build a new home, I would recommend hiring an architect with a significant amount of experience. The up-front cost will be higher, but better construction quality will save you headaches down the road. More importantly, good construction will protect your investment over the long run, and it will add to your resale value.

[KatieDidIt]

Go Old.

I've lived in both now. While the new home is sleak, clean and glamorous,it still doesn't have the charm of the older homes. Old homes just feel more solid and have so much character. The older neighborhoods seem to have a lot more pride in their homes, and most people that live there have forgone the "I wanna have it all" home for location.

Also, the burden of providing trees for privacy in the new subdivision will be on YOU. Your cheap neighbors will put in a Disney Land pool, summer kitchens and outdoor TVs with surround sound, and one or two palm trees.

One last thing, older homes will reflect your style more. You can keep tweaking and changing things, removing a wall without fear the darn thing will fall down. I love that about them.

[texasdiver]

As you can probably tell from my first post, I naturally lean more towards older houses. However, my experience is in places like Portland and Washington DC where most all the houses you ever look at are older houses and many if not most are pre-WWII houses. I lived in 5 different houses in Portland and they were all built before 1930.

Because of the explosive growth in Houston over the past 50 years, it seems that the situation in Houston is somewhat different. In Houston what people consider an older house is one built in the 80s or 90s. Well, maybe not central Houston, but certainly in the burbs that is the case.

I'm not a builder or architect so I really don't know these things. But when did construction start getting really crappy? I assume it was a slow evolution. But is there some rule of thumb about this? Some cutoff date or decade before which you could depend on solid old-growth lumber construction etc etc? Because I've seen a lot of houses built in the 70s of crappy plywood sheathing and that sort of thing that look like absolute junk.

Also, are there climate issues that tends to age houses differently in Houston? I would guess that wood houses probably age much faster in hot wet Houstin than in say, hot dry Phoenix.

[jm1fd]

I'm not a builder or architect so I really don't know these things. But when did construction start getting really crappy? I assume it was a slow evolution. But is there some rule of thumb about this? Some cutoff date or decade before which you could depend on solid old-growth lumber construction etc etc? Because I've seen a lot of houses built in the 70s of crappy plywood sheathing and that sort of thing that look like absolute junk.

I was told by a contractor that I used that during WWII lots of slab homes were built without or with inadequate rebar (!!) because of the steel shortage. The crew would put the rebar down for the inspector to see, then yank it all up, pour the slab, and put the rebar down at the next site.

After WWII there was a big housing boom, and I would think quality would've suffered then since they were trying to build stuff as fast as they could. My house was built in the mid 50s....some corners were cut, such as cheap interior doors, and not a large amout of trim work....on the other hand the lumber used appears to be of pretty good quality.

In the 70s you've got aluminum wiring....although most of those houses have probably either burned down or been rewired by now.

There was also a big construction boom during the early 80s, and I've seen the crap they turned out then firsthand.

Having said all that, I'm not sure you can point to a specific time in history and just say everything is junk. I suspect that both quality houses AND junk have been built as far back as you care to look, and that will continue to be the case going forward.

[millennica]

I prefer older houses. Of course, having lived in 4 houses and owned 3, all old (some ancient) given today's understanding of what might be considered old, I am definitely biased. Growing up I lived in my family home in Massachusetts built in the late 1860s by my great great grandparents (a house my son currently owns). The first home I owned was a 12 room Victorian in Boston built in the 1880s. The second home that I owned (still own, but currently rent) built in 1890 is a 10 room semi-detached twin located in West Philadelphia. My current home is the newest: a 7 room ranch in the SF Bay Area built in 1961.

I agree that old houses are well-built. When my house in Boston was being remodeled, a carpenter who was cutting out some studs to make a closet in the bedroom, broke his saw blade. He was taken by the fact that all of the studs were cedar and the moulding even in the non-formal rooms was fruit wood. The parquet floors were held in place by wooden pegs, the original walls had plaster the contained horsehair which according to the contractor helped the plaster adhere and gave the walls a smooth look, the formal rooms had walnut wainscoting and beautiful mantles with mirror inserts framed the 5 fireplaces in the house, along with other craftsman like touches. The contractor working on the house (this was in the late 70s) noted that it was next to impossible to obtain the quality of workmanship that existed in the house.

Although the house in Philadelphia is not as elegant as the one in Boston was, it still has many elements from the period that give it character.

I am not sure exactly when using newer construction materials became widespread, but in the SF Bay Area where I live there is a trend toward using every bit of available land to build new developments which to me seem poorly and hastily built. I agree that in addition to being of better quality, older homes usually have more character than newer ones. When I look to purchase a house, I prefer those built when hardwood floors were the norm before wall-to-wall carpet became the acceptable standard. According to one wood floor installer I spoke with, the change from hardwood floors to wall-to-wall carpet occurred in the late 60s to early 70s, a trend he said was hastened when the FHA and VA started approving homes for these loans without the standard hardwood floors. I'm not sure if this is true. Does anyone know if this is the case.

[musicman]

According to one wood floor installer I spoke with, the change from hardwood floors to wall-to-wall carpet occurred in the late 60s to early 70s, a trend he said was hastened when the FHA and VA started approving homes for these loans without the standard hardwood floors. I'm not sure if this is true. Does anyone know if this is the case.

I've never heard this but it is an interesting theory. i made the assumption that wood prices were increasing more than synthetic materials i.e. carpet and hence the switch. in the 60's window casings disappeared as did wood floors.

[mumbles]

I suspect that a junk house built out of old quality wood might be more substansial than a new, quality house built out of new junk wood. It's really hard to replace the framing. Even harder to find anyone interested in doing quality work.

Having said all that, I'm not sure you can point to a specific time in history and just say everything is junk. I suspect that both quality houses AND junk have been built as far back as you care to look, and that will continue to be the case going forward.

[Guest danax]

I agree that in addition to being of better quality, older homes usually have more character than newer ones. When I look to purchase a house, I prefer those built when hardwood floors were the norm before wall-to-wall carpet became the acceptable standard. According to one wood floor installer I spoke with, the change from hardwood floors to wall-to-wall carpet occurred in the late 60s to early 70s, a trend he said was hastened when the FHA and VA started approving homes for these loans without the standard hardwood floors. I'm not sure if this is true. Does anyone know if this is the case.

I think some of the newer construction technologies are superior, like slabs, ventilation and energy savings, and who really can say if the craftsmanship has been lost. There were cheap homes built in the past too but craftsmanship was more of a necessity then. The closer I examine my 100 year old house, the more sloppiness I see, which can safely be called "character" now. The problem is a new house owner today doesn't want that type of "character", they expect near perfection, like the machine-made car they bought. No question that wood is far inferior now.

As for wood floors; I always assumed that it was just a fashion switch. Wall to wall carpet was THE way to go from the 60s and 70s and wood just seemed old fashioned. My parents were born in the 30s and they're classic cases of that way of thinking. The wave of popularity of old home restoration and the realization that carpets are essentially highly unclean surfaces seem to have brought the wood floor back from the dead.

[millennica]

As for wood floors; I always assumed that it was just a fashion switch. Wall to wall carpet was THE way to go from the 60s and 70s and wood just seemed old fashioned. My parents were born in the 30s and they're classic cases of that way of thinking. The wave of popularity of old home restoration and the realization that carpets are essentially highly unclean surfaces seem to have brought the wood floor back from the dead.

Until I spoke with the wood installer I also thought the change from hardwood floors to wall-to-call carpet was a fashion switch, but after my conversation with him, I considered the possibility that FHA/VA decision could also have played a part in the change. I think that within any generation individuals' tastes/preferences vary considerably, with some people rejecting the old-fashioned in favor of the new and modern and some holding on to the old-fashioned and traditional. Although born later than your parents, I am old enough to have to have lived through changing fashions in houses. But, despite their modern bathrooms, kitchens and other modern amenities, I have never been attracted to newer houses, but have always preferred older houses with their quirks, perhaps because of my own quirky and non-conformist nature. I'm not sure why, but my son also shares my taste in houses and when he was ready to buy his own house, purchased an 80 year old house that he remodeled rather than a new one.

[texas911]

I'd say it depends on which neighborhood you finally choose. If in the loop, I don't see anything wrong with living in a nice pre WWII bungalow. But if you're moving to the burbs, getting a new house is very appealing. If you pick the right neighborhood, you even get the lates technology like ATT Uverse.

[MasterShake]

I think a lot of it just plain has to do with cost, and the perceived "what you get for the money". Most people want the best (and biggest) they can get, but for the least amount of cost -- which is basically what all of the current mass-builders are selling. Most new mass-produced houses are built as cheaply as possible, but often designed to look like they have value, and most buyers don't really care. They just don't want to have to pay too much.

Aside from some of the newer technologies available (insulation and energy efficiency, etc.), all of the posts above would seem to apply to someone who actually cares about quality, and who has the ability to appreciate it, and is willing to pay a little more for the quality. But of course, most people are more concerned about the initial price, without regard to the long-term costs or what will actually last over time. Using the carpet example above, it is much less expensive to go with the cheap builder installed carpet, than opt for an upgrade to a good hard-wood (or even a cheaper laminate wood) floor. This is probably part of the reason why it is so difficult to find good quality these days.

[Guest danax]

I'm not sure why, but my son also shares my taste in houses and when he was ready to buy his own house, purchased an 80 year old house that he remodeled rather than a new one.

Way to go, Dad. I think seeing a restoration from start to finish can permanently improve one's perception of old houses.

I think my son's experiences in my old house, in it's currently and perpetually unrestored, torn-up condition, has caused the opposite effect. I figure he's headed straight for the burbs ....

[millennica]

Way to go, Dad. I think seeing a restoration from start to finish can permanently improve one's perception of old houses.

I think my son's experiences in my old house, in it's currently and perpetually unrestored, torn-up condition, has caused the opposite effect. I figure he's headed straight for the burbs ....

Appreciate the support, but I'm not a dad. I believe my son's interest in older houses stems from his experiences as a child. Because we lived in a Boston neighborhood that had been developed in the 1880s, more than 85% of the houses had been built prior to the 1930s. Since most of our close family members and friends also lived in older New England houses, that's basically what he knew. In our case, the years my spouse and I spent restoring our 12 Boston Victorian gave our son the opportunity to observe and participate in that process. I agree that sometimes the experience of restoring an older house can have the opposite effect, as it appears to have had in your son's case. However, in my son's case, the experience of restoring an old house seems to have taken hold. After spending a short period working as an engineer, which he loathed, he studied for Masters Degree in architecture and currently works as an architect, specializing in older homes and transforming churches and schools that have been closed and are being converted to other uses, mainly apartments/condos.

[musicman]

I think my son's experiences in my old house, in it's currently and perpetually unrestored, torn-up condition, has caused the opposite effect. I figure he's headed straight for the burbs ....

LOL

[texasdiver]

I think my son's experiences in my old house, in it's currently and perpetually unrestored, torn-up condition, has caused the opposite effect. I figure he's headed straight for the burbs ....

Heh, yeah. Actually my wife has already informed me that she'll divorce me if I find some old beater house to rip apart and work on while we're living in it. She has no patience for that sort of thing what so ever.

Her idea of remodeling is going on vacation and coming back home to find the contractors are all done with whatever project and the house is spic and span.

Myself, I'd probably be living in the old house that is continually in a state of remodel if I had my druthers. As it is, I have to do my project work out in the yard. She doesn't mind if I'm constantly messing around with the landscaping.

[rtrip]

It's worth noting that houses built in Houston in the last two years, if they are built to code, are of significantly better quality than those previous. The foundations must be engineered better and they have to have 110mph windstorm ratings among other improvements.

I'm building a new house now have been getting it inspected in stages privately. My inspector has lived in Houston all of his life and said the quality of houses in Houston varied greatly as there were basically no code for most of what we know as Houston for a number of years. For example in Meyerland an insane number of foundations had failed (I believe over half) because they poured them as cheaply as possible without any engineering. Keep in mind these are all single story ranch houses! Now even post tension slabs are high quality as they are engineered with strict, new guidelines.

Even the wood has to be higher grade, I think grade 3 is the worst you can use for framing. I was pleased to see a lot of grade 2, and even some grade 1 wood used in mine; as well as high quality engineered floor joists.

So as long as you get your new home inspected regularly, it should be of high quality with the conveniences that modern houses enjoy.

Edited June 9, 2007 by rtrip

[musicman]

It's worth noting that houses built in Houston in the last two years, if they are built to code, are of significantly better quality than those previous.

i just don't know how to respond to this. i know a framer who would sure have a response.

[Dan the Man]

It's worth noting that houses built in Houston in the last two years, if they are built to code, are of significantly better quality than those previous.

I disagree. Building codes typically deal with life-safety issues, not durability of materials.

[RedScare]

rtrip probably meant to say sturdiness, as opposed to quality. Houses built to current code have been engineered to withstand 110 mph wind gusts. It may still have crappy fixtures and apartment grade carpet, but it won't blow down as quickly as the houses built in the 80s and 90s.

The question of quality can be hard to answer. Some building products are a huge improvement over previous construction techniques. Others are merely more economical. Drywall may be the standard now, but try to punch your fist through 3/4 inch shiplap with a 1/4 inch drywall cover. There is also a big question of the useful life of some materials. For those who move every 3 to 5 years, I suppose useful life only needs to be 7 years. The only surefire way to ensure quality construction is to have the house designed and built yourself....and bring lots of cash.

[TheNiche]

The only surefire way to ensure quality construction is to have the house designed and built yourself....and bring lots of cash.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[sifuwong]

It seems to me that during the past 5-7 yrs, the quality of homes being built is most likely not as good as homes built like 10-15 yrs ago. They are cranking them out nowdays. However, it also depends on the builder. With that being said, i can't recommend my builder(First Texas Homes) because of poor quality and workmanship. I bought a new home from them just over 2.5 yrs ago and now the bathroom sink has cracks near the drain. I was told that the drain was probably tightened too much causing the sink to crack by the builder or whoever their contractor was. Also, the carpets in my living room, hallway,and den are wavy now. I was also told by many that the carpets were most likely not stretched properly when being laid. The walls scratch so easily leaving marks.

The previous house that i lived in which was already 7 yrs old at the time didn't have any problems until after i lived in it for 12 years. The sink started to crack around then.I never had any carpet problems especially being wavy or bumpy. I have learned my lesson that you get what you pay for when it comes to selecting a builder.

[mumbles]

Then you have to sell your ready to fall apart home to someone else and get less money for it. Labor costs just as much to install crappy siding, shingles and windows as it does to install quality products. The extra cost for the homeowner would not be that much, better to have it done right the first time. It would really cut into the builders profits though cause every dollar they save is multiplied times hundreds of homes.

There is also a big question of the useful life of some materials. For those who move every 3 to 5 years, I suppose useful life only needs to be 7 years.

[RedScare]

Then you have to sell your ready to fall apart home to someone else and get less money for it. Labor costs just as much to install crappy siding, shingles and windows as it does to install quality products. The extra cost for the homeowner would not be that much, better to have it done right the first time. It would really cut into the builders profits though cause every dollar they save is multiplied times hundreds of homes.

What you have just described is the evolving concept of quality versus value in a couple of sentences. Perhaps 100 years ago, quality and value were interchangeable. A house was built to last for 100 years or more. Since the family intended to live in it for decades, and even pass it on to their children, a house built with quality wormanship and materials was also considered to have value for the price paid.

As the 20th Century continued, families began to move more often. Homes were bought for more immediate needs, as opposed to a lifetime. Attitudes toward quality also changed, as quantity or size became more important. A house built to last 100 years became a needless extravagance for many families. By using materials designed to last only 40 years, the cost savings could make the house larger for the same price. This trend has continued to this day. Buyers are impressed by the sheer size of a home, as well as the cosmetic finishes in it, while ignoring the structural integrity of the home. While looking to buy a new home in the Woodlands in 1998, I asked to look at some of the houses under construction. I saw that the stud spacing was 24 inches. I asked what it would take to have 16 inch spacing. The salesman looked at me like I was crazy. He finally got a price to do that, which of couse, made the house no longer a bargain. It took weeks before I finally convinced him that I would never buy a house with 24 inch studs.

There is a small trend toward buying smaller, but better built homes, with better design. But, it is a very small group. Even most of the people that read this forum and demand quality built homes will eventually succumb to the bigger is better theory. It is so ingrained in the American psyche that only the determined will succeed. Besides, people still move too often to make that a primary concern.

[TJones]

Red, I am with you on that, I would not even consider buying a house that didn't have 16in spacing on the framing. That knowledge alone makes me leary of anything in the Woodlands now. I guarantee you won't get away with that in Houston, the inspectors will ding you bigtime.

[TheNiche]

What you have just described is the evolving concept of quality versus value in a couple of sentences. Perhaps 100 years ago, quality and value were interchangeable. A house was built to last for 100 years or more. Since the family intended to live in it for decades, and even pass it on to their children, a house built with quality wormanship and materials was also considered to have value for the price paid.

As the 20th Century continued, families began to move more often. Homes were bought for more immediate needs, as opposed to a lifetime. Attitudes toward quality also changed, as quantity or size became more important. A house built to last 100 years became a needless extravagance for many families. By using materials designed to last only 40 years, the cost savings could make the house larger for the same price. This trend has continued to this day. Buyers are impressed by the sheer size of a home, as well as the cosmetic finishes in it, while ignoring the structural integrity of the home. While looking to buy a new home in the Woodlands in 1998, I asked to look at some of the houses under construction. I saw that the stud spacing was 24 inches. I asked what it would take to have 16 inch spacing. The salesman looked at me like I was crazy. He finally got a price to do that, which of couse, made the house no longer a bargain. It took weeks before I finally convinced him that I would never buy a house with 24 inch studs.

There is a small trend toward buying smaller, but better built homes, with better design. But, it is a very small group. Even most of the people that read this forum and demand quality built homes will eventually succumb to the bigger is better theory. It is so ingrained in the American psyche that only the determined will succeed. Besides, people still move too often to make that a primary concern.

Personally, I think that a big part of it is that mainstream society has become increasingly ignorant of matters related to the industrial arts. Even if they thought to tour another of the same builder's construction sites, most probably wouldn't know enough to figure out whether something shady was going on. ...and for those like yourself that actually wanted to get an idea of the price difference, even fewer people would have a sense of the consequences of shoddy workmanship.

Edited July 21, 2007 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

Personally, I think that a big part of it is that mainstream society has become increasingly ignorant of matters related to the industrial arts. Even if they thought to tour another of the same builder's construction sites, most probably wouldn't know enough to figure out whether something shady was going on. ...and for those like yourself that actually wanted to get an idea of the price difference, even fewer people would have a sense of the consequences of shoddy workmanship.

I agree, and it is a strange situation. The internet has given the masses a wealth of resources to educate themselves, yet it seems fewer people than ever know anything about the nuts and bolts of life. Even my knowledge of stud spacing and other construction techniques came from growing up with a fascination with construction, more than research on the net. But, fewer people seem to know the basics, just as fewer people know the basics of working on a car (TJ excepted), light home repair, or survival during disasters.

I suppose this comes from the increase in disposable income. Actually using your hands to build or repair something is so beneath us. Some of it could be attributed to more complex systems, such as automobile engines, but certainly not all. When I get strange looks when I tell people I mow my own grass, or built my own backyard deck, it speaks volumes. The mere thought of sweating at manual labor gives some people the hives. It reminds me of the old story of toughness, that "I used to walk to school 5 miles in the snow...uphill...both ways!" Nowadays, people brag about how LITTLE tolerance they have. How many people do you know that brag about leaving before a hurricane, not because of the storm, but because they don't want to be without air conditioning?