First time home buyer here. Wehave a 250k budget and looking in Mankato, MN. Every house thats pre 1950 I've seen is just not up to my standards so I've been disregarding any house that was built before then. My biggest issues I've seen are uneven wonky floors, half ass diy fixes/remodel (that jack the price up), and failing concrete/brick. I don't mind doing some renovations, but houses that old I have trust issues to put effort in. Like what problems are hiding and how many years are left before it just falls apart? Lot of this town was built on marsh so im very weary of old foundations failing.
Am I being unreasonable to disregard every house built before 1950?
byu/Chaosking383 inRealEstate
Posted by Chaosking383
32 Comments
Why would that make you unreasonable? Everyone has wants and needs in a home. Is someone telling you that you’re being unreasonable?
If that’s something you don’t want than remove them from the options go for it. It just limits your choices.
I bought a 1946 house and suspect it will outlast me but most of the housing stock where o am is 1946 or 2000s.
If you want new construction then you need to pay new construction prices.
No. Its your money, its the place you have to live, and will be your headaches.
You may have to make other trade offs but if thats very important then stick by it.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable, but you might overlook a gem that has been built and maintained properly but needs some updating.
If lots of your area is built on marsh, it’s probably the old properties that have the best lot topology.
Do you want to be validated or argued with? You state your bias/preference. Okay, so buy a house that fits what you want.
I think it is unreasonable to exclude properties based on their age. There are properties that are hundred+ years old that have been maintained that are superior to new construction. The other benefit is that older properties are generally in the better locations.
I’d take an old house before a new build any day of the week. They don’t build them like they used to.
My parents bought their house in 1954. Added on to it in 1978. When I sold the house in 2024, the original portion was in better shape than the addition. Don’t let a date scare you away from quality builds.
I was the same way when I was house hunting except I wanted something built in the past 20 years. Ended up with a house built in 1967 because I fell in love with it. Forgot to set the year built filter one day when I was browsing. It’s in pretty good shape, though I did have to replace the roof. My advice is to be really thorough with your inspections. Foundation, roof, general, termite, get the works.
pre 1950 houses are almost without exception better built than post 2000 houses. The lumber was better, they didn’t cut as many corners, and the problems have likely been dealt with. You have to be aware of the possibility of lead paint and asbestos, but a good inspection can help with that.
I consider it highly unlikely any house built since 2000 will be in any kind of worthy condition after 70 years.
Personally, I would prefer one built then or before because they were built better. But it’s totally personal preference.
Unreasonable? No. Foolish? yes.
All depends. Ironically I was avoiding any new constructions because quality isn’t what it used to be, and I dont like the pure white/grey open concepts that feel like each floor is one giant room lol.
New construction in my market is trash. Lots of cut corners and cheap materials. Especially any builds since 2017, where we have had massive fires during fire season level parts of the county. Everything was rebuilt in a rush. Soooo many issues. The historic neighborhoods are the most desirable. My house was built in 1928, I have lath and plaster walls and true dimension redwood lumber for structural members. You don’t see that anymore. It’s excellent for sound dampening. Sure, there’s been issues I’ve had to mitigate. But I’m still much happier than these home owners that bought lennar track homes that are having major mold issues.
Yes
Bro wants a steak for a mcd chz burger budget
Well, if I were looking at buying a house I would probably prefer homes built before 1950 as I love old buildings. My current home was built in 1910. I could live in a younger building but I never feel very excited by seeing a bland modern home.
If you don’t like older homes then it is reasonable to focus your search on newer homes. 1950 to present day encompasses a lot of years. There is bound to be something.
Depends on how it was built. If it is newer but built of sticks… I’d take an old brick or stone house any day. My first house was a 1890s stone farmhouse. Certainly had character. But the foot and a half thick stone walls can’t be beat. Plus the deep windowsills for the cats.
Most houses (new and old) will outlive their owners. Eventually, due diligence needs to be done for any property.
I wanted to avoid pre early 80’s just to minimize lead and asbestos risks.
It not unreasonable to establish whatever standards you wish. It could leave you unable to find a house you want in your price range but in that case you can broaden your area or redefine you standards.
All of my properties were built 50s and 60s, as that was when the major neighborhoods in my cities were built. I specifically look for OG hardwood floors under shitty carpet or vinyl that can be refinished.
I can’t deal with overpriced new builds and finding the corners that were cut by the builder to make a buck. But to each their own, opinions are like assholes…
Yes, you’re being unreasonable, but it also depends on how much the house has been maintained how new the mechanicals are. A pre-1950 home can be miles ahead in terms of construction quality and you could be doing yourself a disservice by automatically eliminating them.
But if you have the budget for a new home and that’s what you prefer, then that’s what you should do.
Consider the 1920’s. House built before the depression have a quality of construction worth a look. I think you are right to avoid the others. I would also exclude late 70’s and early 80’s. High interest rate period with boring houses.
I also am picky about years. There are tons of nice newer houses, but I wasn’t interested in anything after say, 1978.
It’s true the building materials and land might actually be superior prior to 1950 than something newer. I would avoid certain time frames, tho, such as during WW2, as a lot of materials were routing toward the war effort. 1947-49 would probably be just as good as 1950.
I would also skip times of economic hardship, like the Great Depression era. So I personally exclude 1928 thru 1946. There are exceptions to this, but that’s just my best bet. I like good quality materials and ended up with a 1964 with an add on, and some remodeling (kitchen modernizing and splitting one giant bath into 2 smaller ones) — all of it great quality remodeling work, but not necessarily to my taste. The house is brick and it will outlive us all.
While you may expect to do some updating and renovating, I can damn near guarantee you that the older homes are going to have a big advantage in the overall quality compared to new construction.
Another HUGE advantage you’re likely not considering is in most areas nearly 100% of new construction is going to be in an HOA-encumbered neighborhood unless it was a custom-build on someone’s land they already owned. Some people claim “But my HOA is great! We never have any problems.” That’s fine and dandy, but all good HOAs are just one Karen away from being one of the normal ones. They do nothing but hold property values down (many buyers specify no HOAs, so it reduces demand and therefore price) and any of the rules that supposedly make the neighborhood nice are already city ordinances anyway.
Yes
1960 is my cutoff. Anything newer than that is a hard no.
I mean Mankato has a lot of older houses that are in great condition. I personally think 1940s era was the best houses (at least in my area in Duluth) but everyone has a different comfort level and preferences. There are things to watch out for even in houses built last year. You should try to keep an open mind and do some research on the different housing eras since there are pros and cons throughout. Some people consider a 1980s house way too old. When we were looking over the Winter, we saw mostly houses built between 1920-1960 and we did make offers with different levels of aggressiveness depending on age and condition, we did not have the luxury of enough inventory to exclude any age of house though.
1920-1950 is a sweet spot for construction quality. Older than that (Victorian) turns into a money pit.