Topic: Housing

[whaddaiknow]

I did that in Sudbury. Bought a lot from a builder who was in the subdivision and had someone else come in and build the house. You can`t do that down here 

Not that I know of. Unless you buy an older house, tear it down and put a new one in its place, I haven't heard of anyone actually doing it in the recent years. Definitely not with Mattamy I would never want to deal with them again.

[pi314]

I know my Aunt/Uncle also had a time with Sundial, to the point where Sundial tried to ban them from visiting the site since they were picking up on so many things done wrong/not to spec. They had a tough time getting small changes done, but it's probably well set to appreciate since it's on a massive pie shaped lot backing a school. Interestingly enough they didn't set the house back further to take advantage of the space for extra parking.

I was young when my parents built their house, but it's a large, simple house. Well suited for a family of 5 or more, but other than Granite and quality countertops, the rest of the finishings are basic.

Is 2000 really an older home though whaddaiknow? To me older would be 1980s or so.

One advantage with new is they're better insulated, so heating costs and stuff are much more manageable.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Well, as I always say, there's a reason they're so much cheaper than the competition. They sure do sell lots of houses based on price, though 

How many families do YOU think can afford a $1M house? In the area I am in (middle class, not high-end posh area for the richies), Phoenix wants $750 for a 3-bedroom home. That's built to a price point. You absolutely cannot buy a new quality home for that kind of money. So people have to compromise... or buy older better built houses as I did.

I disagree, I have seen lots of older houses that were absolute krap. Its not hard to find a builder that you can change the spec on the important materials. Bad builders have been around for a long time. And there are good ones out there today.

With an older home, you can find a good home inspector and with some patience, you can find yourself a real gem.
With a new house, it is always a gamble (unless you oversee every step of construction yourself). You commit before the foundation is poured, and it's a leap of faith if you simply go by the builder's reputation.

New construction not far from me
http://uniformdevelopments.com/new-homes/kanata-richardson-ridge/laurentian/

1,600sq.ft home starting at $521,000.

Even if you find a good builder, are you going to call Mattamy and say I'll take the lot and have someone else build my house there?

I did that in Sudbury. Bought a lot from a builder who was in the subdivision and had someone else come in and build the house. You can`t do that down here 

In small towns you should be able to do that , I know you do that around here

[Snowman]

Well, as I always say, there's a reason they're so much cheaper than the competition. They sure do sell lots of houses based on price, though 

How many families do YOU think can afford a $1M house? In the area I am in (middle class, not high-end posh area for the richies), Phoenix wants $750 for a 3-bedroom home. That's built to a price point. You absolutely cannot buy a new quality home for that kind of money. So people have to compromise... or buy older better built houses as I did.

I disagree, I have seen lots of older houses that were absolute krap. Its not hard to find a builder that you can change the spec on the important materials. Bad builders have been around for a long time. And there are good ones out there today.

With an older home, you can find a good home inspector and with some patience, you can find yourself a real gem.
With a new house, it is always a gamble (unless you oversee every step of construction yourself). You commit before the foundation is poured, and it's a leap of faith if you simply go by the builder's reputation.

New construction not far from me
http://uniformdevelopments.com/new-homes/kanata-richardson-ridge/laurentian/

1,600sq.ft home starting at $521,000.

Even if you find a good builder, are you going to call Mattamy and say I'll take the lot and have someone else build my house there?

I did that in Sudbury. Bought a lot from a builder who was in the subdivision and had someone else come in and build the house. You can`t do that down here 

In small towns you should be able to do that , I know you do that around here

Sudbury has a population of 160,000, I do not consider that a small town  . I have been looking in many areas in Southern Ontario for lots to build our retirement home on. Some are located in areas under development and there is no requirement to use the builder on site. I have a builder already selected and he will build where I tell him to 

[pi314]

2011 Census rates Sudbury the 28th largest CMA, below Moncton NB of all places so clearly you have a different definition of small  . It should be noted however that's classified as "Large Urban" so you may be right, but all cities in Canada are small 

[whaddaiknow]

Sudbury has a population of 160,000, I do not consider that a small town  . I have been looking in many areas in Southern Ontario for lots to build our retirement home on. Some are located in areas under development and there is no requirement to use the builder on site. I have a builder already selected and he will build where I tell him to 

That changes everything and definitely the way to go if you want a well built house.

[whaddaiknow]

Is 2000 really an older home though whaddaiknow? To me older would be 1980s or so.

It's a 1995 house. It was 15 years old when I bought it in 2010.

[Triple Bob]

Tract

Thank f*ck for that!

 

[quadzilla]

Oh, I agree with you. I was just saying that big builders (like Mattamy) cater to building homes as cheaply as they can and slapping them up. It's the only way they can build hundreds of homes a year. Everyone needs to get into the market but again QUALITY doesn't always have to be really expensive. Big builders are often cutting corners here and there (say $300 here or there) so it sounds like no big deal right? Multiply that my 1000 homes a year and you get your answer. Big builders will cut corners on the smallest of things and you'll ask why but it's because of the volume.

I know its not the same thing (but is)....When the Sony PS3 launched they didn't include the HDMI cable and everybody got pissed saying, its only a few bucks those cheap bastards. I would just say.....But how much money did they save every year?

[tenpenny]

To me, an older house is 75 to 100 years old, an OLD house is 200, like the one I grew up in. 




Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[Northernridge]

In this thread there are posts saying modern builders can build good quality, durable houses but few do and it's mostly the customer's fault. There are also a stream of posts stating older houses are better built. Any actual experts here? Is this really true...are older houses better on whole? I find this very hard to believe with modern building codes, materials and technologies.

[johngenx]

I think a well built new home is amazing.  But, yeah, there's a lot of crap - where in the late 60's to mid 80's,  a lot of stuff (here anyway) is pretty well made.  I looked at a lot of 1970-1980 built homes and most were really well done.

[ArticSteve]

Is this really true...are older houses better on whole? I find this very hard to believe with modern building codes, materials and technologies.

Visually, the century old stuff is great, but technically they're crap particularly the foundation and the entire basements including drainage.  I had a well constructed 30s house in TO, but it was loaded with Asbestos.

Turning point in construction began around 2000 when engineered floor joices became more common along with better building wrap, better spray foam, hot water concrete floors, better engineered stone, plastic piping for water ..... the list is long. 

[tenpenny]

In this thread there are posts saying modern builders can build good quality, durable houses but few do and it's mostly the customer's fault. There are also a stream of posts stating older houses are better built. Any actual experts here? Is this really true...are older houses better on whole? I find this very hard to believe with modern building codes, materials and technologies.

In about 1970, we lived in Belleville, watched the builders building houses around us.  They were crap.

Even worse, they were crap with aluminum wiring.


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[mmret]

Its an interesting problem...as VMan says just like in every era there will be good builders and bad builders (for the time) but surely technology marches on and on average you should expect constructions to improve over time.

Also as for the houses that are today 40 or 60 years old, it could simply be survivorship bias. The badly constructed ones might have already been torn down or at least extensively gutted and redone, leaving only the strong to survive.

Seems like two problems
1. People don't care about construction, they care about superficial finishes. The infatuation of flash over substance seems to be visible in many areas.

2. Even if people do care about construction, most people don't have the expertise or the ability to know whether a house is built well or poorly. Also most stuff is hidden - so how can you even tell? Seems a bit dodgey for what is in all likelihood the largest purchase you'll ever make!



Another thought, maybe building codes should have different "grades". The standard grade where you get a basic, safe house, and then two or three uplevel grades with better construction, wiring, insulation, etc.

A builder would have to certify which grade they built the house to and this would be part of the paperwork with the house (along with blueprints and whatnot...how come blueprints don't come with a house anyway?). This way you can at least create some differentiation in the market, while at the same time people who don't care to pay for it don't have to.

You could even have a "per category" grade, ie: foundation Standard, wiring uplevel, plumbing platinum level, etc.

[tpl]

^^^  there sort of are different grades.  R2000 used to be one.  LEED is one now.   Not quite what you are talking about I suppose.

[evil_twin]

Its an interesting problem...as VMan says just like in every era there will be good builders and bad builders (for the time) but surely technology marches on and on average you should expect constructions to improve over time.

Also as for the houses that are today 40 or 60 years old, it could simply be survivorship bias. The badly constructed ones might have already been torn down or at least extensively gutted and redone, leaving only the strong to survive.

Seems like two problems
1. People don't care about construction, they care about superficial finishes. The infatuation of flash over substance seems to be visible in many areas.

2. Even if people do care about construction, most people don't have the expertise or the ability to know whether a house is built well or poorly. Also most stuff is hidden - so how can you even tell? Seems a bit dodgey for what is in all likelihood the largest purchase you'll ever make!

Agree with this (and Vman's general defense of new home builders).

A lot of new construction is simply feeding what the consumer wants: granite counters, white cabinets, stone veneer fronts.   It's certainly possible to build a new home that is miles better than anything built 20 years ago (let alone 100 years ago!).   Just happens that most buyers asking (and paying) for that quality are the few buying the more premium lots in new areas or total custom builds on new and existing lots.   

The argument that most buyers can't afford a better built home is silly.   They can.   They just choose to pick the nicer finishes at the expense of other components of a home.   

Personally I prefer resale homes as I just don't like the compacted feeling of 99% of new build areas.   Even the "premium" lots are generally only 50-55" and give the impression of a never ending sea of houses to me.   But that said, if I DID ever buy a new build I'd only do it while working with the home builder at every step of the design and build.     Seems to me the major benefit of buying new is getting to pick out all details to suit you and your family.   

[whaddaiknow]

I am not arguing the fact that the current building code, technology and quality of materials is much better today than even 20-30 years ago.
And, as many of you say, if you can pick the builder and oversee the construction process, you will very likely end up with an excellent quality home.

My argument was more around my real-life experience. I got married and we wanted to buy a house close to my in-laws and close to work. That severely limits the options. You either buy new or an older home. Mattamy was the ONLY thing available at the time in the area we were looking at. They bought this big peace of land by the Palladium that was under development. There was another once in Kanata Lakes but it was totally out of our price range. So we bit the bullet.

My biggest problem with them was not the quality of the building materials but the quality of work itself. There was huge shortage of trades and they were hiring anyone willing to pick up a hammer. It was truly appalling. Sloppy workmanship throughout.

At one point, I was at the site and saw, in the house across from mine, that they put the insulation and water barrier that was filled with rain water - literally tons and tons of rain water inside the wall frames. I took pictures and when I met the future owners, I told them I have evidence of this and they should act on it. They had major problems with mold, among other things.

The engineered floor joist - while I understand they are cheaper to make and stronger, it allowed the builders to put them at 19" on centre instead of 16" for solid joists. The floor deflection was so bad, it didn't allow for ceramic floor to be installed after we moved in. Also, I have been told (hearsay, I know, but I believe it) fire crews would not go into a burning house with engineers joists because fire eats them so quickly, the whole structure collapses in no time.

In my house they didn't let the varnish on my maple stairs cure (40 steps, no less) and boot prints were all over the stairs when I moved in. They forgot to put in the rough-in at my next door neighbours and had to install it after they'd moved in. We all had new-borns at the time (there were like 15 kids under 2 on our tiny street). This is the type of quality I am talking about.

After 3 years there, the house appreciated by more than $100k, and we had had enough by then. We moved and couldn't be happier in our "new" old home.

[evil_twin]

My argument was more around my real-life experience. I got married and we wanted to buy a house close to my in-laws and close to work. That severely limits the options. You either buy new or an older home. Mattamy was the ONLY thing available at the time in the area we were looking at. They bought this big peace of land by the Palladium that was under development. There was another once in Kanata Lakes but it was totally out of our price range. So we bit the bullet.

Right, and I can't argue you that (I know nothing of the Kanata real estate market).   Depending on your stipulations (close to work/in-laws) it's possible you won't find any quality new homes in your budget and in your desired area.   Or at least without investing the time and effort to acquire a lot and tender a home builder yourself.   Which may or may not be an option depending if there are even any lots available for purchase.

But really this is eventually true of basically all urban areas.   Pretty hard to buy a new build in downtown TO.    Same will eventually apply to any urban area until it reaches the cycle of teardowns and redevelopment in the core (though usually more multi-unit dwellings and only VERY premium new homes in the most desirable areas).    You either live further from your work and downtown or you go the resale route.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

In 1975, the average size of a house in Canada was 1,050 square feet. Fast forward to 2010 and new homes being built almost doubled to an average of 1,950 square feet. This increase in house size is accompanied by a decrease in the average number of people living in a household. In 1971, it was 3.5; by 2006, that number fell by a full person to 2.5.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/mortgages/our-love-affair-with-home-ownership-might-be-doomed/article4179012/

Canadian families have grown much smaller, while house sizes have exploded. Much of the added space is unusable, as in these enormous foyers that most modern two story house plans now incorporate. Bedroom are far larger, as are bathrooms. In order to deliver the size customers are after, something has to give, and in a lot of cases, it's quality.

A lot of these houses are white elephants. Heating costs are high, as is maintenance. Re-roofing a 1000ft³ bungalo is one thing, but re-roofing someone's 3000ft³ "dream" house with multiple rooflines is going to run much closer to $8-10k in most places.