Will you have more repairs and maintenance? Yes. Will you have a better built house than current ones? Yes
BubbaJMc on
Depends on 500 variables.
gksozae on
Not where I’m from. Seattle has TONS of very desirable homes built from the 1920s-1970s. They’re desirable because their proximity to Downtown and large city lots are desirable for families, regardless of what drawbacks the features of the home present.
FlickasMom on
Too old for what? (asking from backyard of 110-year-old house)
young-elderberry on
Personally, I’d say if the Romex has a ground wire and the plumbing isn’t galvanized, it’s fine, but that’s me.
Stand_With_Students on
I’ve owned four houses – built in 1964, 1970, 1937 and current one in 1950. They’ve all been well maintained and all are very well built. So, no, to me, 1989 is not too old.
Temporary_Grab_7111 on
It’s old enough to party.
BBG1308 on
When it comes to homes, “too old” is a subjective thing.
What are your priorities in selecting a home? Does this home tick all the deal-breaker boxes?
IMO 1989 is young for a home. But I live in a large urban city where most of the homes were built in the 30s, 40s and 50s. And they were built with really great timber and workmanship. I know a lot of people who would think a 1989 home is too young and has unappealing style and wasn’t built to last.
I also know a lot of people who live in younger suburbs where houses are newer, have bigger rooms, more rooms, modern floor plans, are more equipped for modern tech/electronics, have multi-car garages, etc.
“Too old” or “too young” is totally subjective. If you like the style of the house and it’s in a location and condition which you can live with…age is kind of a moot point.
redditanswermyquesti on
Hahahhaaa this is the most hilarious post today. All around america people can’t buy any year home
Low_Refrigerator4891 on
How dare you.
HearYourTune on
No, I’m thinking you meant 1898.
TemperatePirate on
I’ve never owned a home that young.
Philip964 on
Never owned a house built after 1958. I like wonderful neighborhoods, it’s not the house, it’s where it is.
Bitter-Art7631 on
Mine’s 220 years old. Too old for what?
Brewski_29 on
I mean I’ll take it and you can have mine from 1927
Tamberav on
Sounds like it is too new to me.
madogvelkor on
Mine is from 1870, so no.
YhslawVolta on
Im sitting on my couch in my house built in 1750. Is 1750 considered too old?
v0ta_p0r_m0ta on
I’m sorry everyone! 😅😅😅 thanks for the input 🙏🏽
chillPenguin17 on
I’d actually say it’s in the sweet spot where you don’t really have old home problems, but was built before quality really went to shit. I’m in a 1987 split level home, nothing fancy but it’s been pretty solid
badtux99 on
If in California the question is whether it was built to the post Loma Prieta earthquake standards. If so you’re good. If not you need to have it evaluated by a structural engineer to know whether it will collapse in an earthquake
Unless you are in Sacramento. We are the one area of California that doesn’t get earthquakes.
Hungry-Job-3198 on
Just wait for someone from Europe to reply here saying their house is from 1685 or something lol
23 Comments
Too old for what
Will you have more repairs and maintenance? Yes. Will you have a better built house than current ones? Yes
Depends on 500 variables.
Not where I’m from. Seattle has TONS of very desirable homes built from the 1920s-1970s. They’re desirable because their proximity to Downtown and large city lots are desirable for families, regardless of what drawbacks the features of the home present.
Too old for what? (asking from backyard of 110-year-old house)
Personally, I’d say if the Romex has a ground wire and the plumbing isn’t galvanized, it’s fine, but that’s me.
I’ve owned four houses – built in 1964, 1970, 1937 and current one in 1950. They’ve all been well maintained and all are very well built. So, no, to me, 1989 is not too old.
It’s old enough to party.
When it comes to homes, “too old” is a subjective thing.
What are your priorities in selecting a home? Does this home tick all the deal-breaker boxes?
IMO 1989 is young for a home. But I live in a large urban city where most of the homes were built in the 30s, 40s and 50s. And they were built with really great timber and workmanship. I know a lot of people who would think a 1989 home is too young and has unappealing style and wasn’t built to last.
I also know a lot of people who live in younger suburbs where houses are newer, have bigger rooms, more rooms, modern floor plans, are more equipped for modern tech/electronics, have multi-car garages, etc.
“Too old” or “too young” is totally subjective. If you like the style of the house and it’s in a location and condition which you can live with…age is kind of a moot point.
Hahahhaaa this is the most hilarious post today. All around america people can’t buy any year home
How dare you.
No, I’m thinking you meant 1898.
I’ve never owned a home that young.
Never owned a house built after 1958. I like wonderful neighborhoods, it’s not the house, it’s where it is.
Mine’s 220 years old. Too old for what?
I mean I’ll take it and you can have mine from 1927
Sounds like it is too new to me.
Mine is from 1870, so no.
Im sitting on my couch in my house built in 1750. Is 1750 considered too old?
I’m sorry everyone! 😅😅😅 thanks for the input 🙏🏽
I’d actually say it’s in the sweet spot where you don’t really have old home problems, but was built before quality really went to shit. I’m in a 1987 split level home, nothing fancy but it’s been pretty solid
If in California the question is whether it was built to the post Loma Prieta earthquake standards. If so you’re good. If not you need to have it evaluated by a structural engineer to know whether it will collapse in an earthquake
Unless you are in Sacramento. We are the one area of California that doesn’t get earthquakes.
Just wait for someone from Europe to reply here saying their house is from 1685 or something lol