Used home vs New home

stefanovich

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

I had a QS do the sums on a 2000 square foot, 2 story.

An A rated is approx 50k dearer to build than a B rated.
Higher air tightness
More insulation
Modern heating

How many years to get back the 50K on energy costs? 100?

Wildly Boaring

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well you can't build a B rated house, so that's a bit of a pointless comparison.

Was trying to compare apples with apples about 6 months ago.

Take your point. Mine was to show one reason why new builds dearer. Building them has got 50k dearer lately

sydthebeat

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Was trying to compare apples with apples about 6 months ago.

Take your point. Mine was to show one reason why new builds dearer. Building them has got 50k dearer lately

To be fair, the reason they have gotten dearer over the last couple of years hasn't been much down to regulation, but has absolutely been down to labour costs skyrocketing due to lack of trades.

To go from a B1 to an A3 is quite minimal, and a small window upgrade could get you over that line.

But to go from say a B3 to A2, with the installation of a HP, MHRV, and additional technologies and upgrades, plus labour on top, then yes its quite possible.

However, B3 houses are 10 years ago

Maurice Yeltsin

Dolbhad wrote: »

I grew up in a council estate and my parents are still there. Different in 80’s as most of the parents in the estate worked but on low incomes or work in trade so had bouts of unemployment. Never had any issues. Our estate has expanded over the years and the types in social houses in last 15 years had changed dramatically and had really made me wary as huge issues with fights, parties, music level, rubbish and childrens’ behaviour.

.

This.

The social housing thresholds are so restrictive that a couple who both work simply don't qualify, meaning the standard of many tenants will be less than that of the days when a third of the population lived in social housing, when everyone seemed to qualify for it. If the government really cared about creating a "social mix" as they drone on about they'd increase the threshold to include all young working couples under, say, 80k, with some sort of incentive, perhaps 10 year long tax breaks, to encourage them to buy their own home so as to vacate the council property for the next generation. Fully council estates open to all couples on low to middle joint incomes, banning the selling off of council homes, with incentives to move out for the next generation once they have saved a deposit by way of paying affordable rents for a few years, makes way more sense than budget black holes like the state buying Part V housing, HAP schemes etc etc etc.

Qrt

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

This.

The social housing thresholds are so restrictive that a couple who both work simply don't qualify, meaning the standard of many tenants will be less than that of the days when a third of the population lived in social housing, when everyone seemed to qualify for it. If the government really cared about creating a "social mix" as they drone on about they'd increase the threshold to include all young working couples under, say, 80k, with some sort of incentive, perhaps 10 year long tax breaks, to encourage them to buy their own home so as to vacate the council property for the next generation. Fully council estates open to all couples on low to middle joint incomes, banning the selling off of council homes, with incentives to move out for the next generation once they have saved a deposit by way of paying affordable rents for a few years, makes way more sense than budget black holes like the state buying Part V housing, HAP schemes etc etc etc.

Sadly this whole concept is in direct opposition to the centrist/neoliberal governmental model.

lalababa

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There's as much risk of dodgy neighbours in new houses as existing ones, though. Maybe even more, given that new estates now must have X% social housing.

Do they? Thought that was done away with? OR developer (ie house buyer🙄) could pay a levy to have no social housing. Am genuine here🙂

Sleeper12

lalababa wrote: »

Do they? Thought that was done away with? OR developer (ie house buyer��) could pay a levy to have no social housing. Am genuine here��

There is a percentage must go to SH. It was 10 percent but I think it was increased to 15 percent not too long ago.


The council, at their discretion, can decide to accept a developers offer of housing in a different estate. In the more expensive estates around Dublin DCC prefer to accept the offer of cheaper houses in another estate rather than pay over half a million on a social home. In new housing developments where the units aren't too expensive, I'd guess below 350,000, the council will usually buy in that estate.

Dolbhad

beauf wrote: »

HTB?

Sorry HTB was help to buy - I just shortened it

Mad_maxx

lalababa wrote: »

Do they? Thought that was done away with? OR developer (ie house buyer��) could pay a levy to have no social housing. Am genuine here��

Quite the opposite, the drive for more social housing amongst new developments has intensified, hopefully the recent collapse in the SF vote will put the brakes on this ideologically motivated policy, Eoin o Broin was a major voice in making such demands

Maurice Yeltsin

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is a percentage must go to SH. It was 10 percent but I think it was increased to 15 percent not too long ago.


The council, at their discretion, can decide to accept a developers offer of housing in a different estate. In the more expensive estates around Dublin DCC prefer to accept the offer of cheaper houses in another estate rather than pay over half a million on a social home. In new housing developments where the units aren't too expensive, I'd guess below 350,000, the council will usually buy in that estate.

Why instead of buying houses for circa 350,000 do the councils instead request the 10 percent is made up by the developer building lower spec homes on council owned land. The cost price to build a 3 bed in Ballymun under a similar scheme was something like 150,000- instead of buying one part V home the council can get 2.5 of them for the same price!!! And that's for a house, surely a 3 bed flat would be even less again (yes. I am saying build more Ballymuns. Cheap and quick. Services, facilities and type of housing make no difference to tenant behavior.)

Whoever oversees this wastage should be put on trial, seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY_cWGmfOrg

Dolbhad

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

This.

The social housing thresholds are so restrictive that a couple who both work simply don't qualify, meaning the standard of many tenants will be less than that of the days when a third of the population lived in social housing, when everyone seemed to qualify for it. If the government really cared about creating a "social mix" as they drone on about they'd increase the threshold to include all young working couples under, say, 80k, with some sort of incentive, perhaps 10 year long tax breaks, to encourage them to buy their own home so as to vacate the council property for the next generation. Fully council estates open to all couples on low to middle joint incomes, banning the selling off of council homes, with incentives to move out for the next generation once they have saved a deposit by way of paying affordable rents for a few years, makes way more sense than budget black holes like the state buying Part V housing, HAP schemes etc etc etc.

I completely agree with this.

Also I do believe its costing the state more to fund houses this way and to bid on the open market. They are biggest owner of land in the state. They can build it they want do. These schemes currently are not getting the volume they need and are costing more this way. But the estates would need to have a greater mix than those currently.

But is the cost of building a new build with current regulations a turn off? I do think lack of experience tradesmen is an issue.

riclad

The government and the council own land and sites all over dublin.
If the council builds a house or pays a builder its built to a high
spec re sound and energy insulation ,
i think it cost 250k to build 1 3bed house for dublin city council .
i do,nt think that includes the cost of the land.
in dublin city centre there,s 100,s of empty council flats ,
maybe those blocks will be knocked down in the future or
they do not have the funds to carry out repairs on them.
About 12 years ago ,all the blocks in ballymun were demolished ,
1000,s of new high spec apartments and houses were built to replace them .
Each apartment has 2 bedrooms at least .

awec

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They aren't that much bigger or superior to justify the prices in my opinion. Obviously some think it is worth it. Changing the old houses to be open plan isn't that expensive. Upgrading the insulation isn't either. Could easily buy an older house and bring it to the same spec for a lot less than the premium of a new build.
The point remains some people are willing to pay more for a new build and location certainly isn't the only criteria.

I don't think I believe that this is true.

You could buy an old build and certainly modernise it and have a lovely house, but I don't think you could get the exact same specs as a brand new build with the same BER rating done on the cheap.

Ray Palmer

What do you think you couldn't do to modern standards? External insulation on an older house will make it air tight and brinking it to a higher insulation value than a modern build. While expensive it is still affordable when comparing price differences. After that normal upgrades like windows,plumbing, wiring and windows still easy to cover.

Lumen

Ray Palmer wrote: »

External insulation on an older house will make it air tight...

I don't think this is the case. For instance, if you have suspended timber floors, you'll still need to ventilate, insulate and air tight them. Equally, if you have unclosed cavities.

sydthebeat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What do you think you couldn't do to modern standards? External insulation on an older house will make it air tight and brinking it to a higher insulation value than a modern build. While expensive it is still affordable when comparing price differences. After that normal upgrades like windows,plumbing, wiring and windows still easy to cover.

any remedial work which attempts to bring older housing stock to contemporary levels will absolutely cost more pro rata than if it had been done at the time of the original build.

EWI is all fine and well, but is it going to be good enough to allow you to assume a thermal bridge factor of 0.08 which current regs suggest?

are you going to be able to make your build air tight to a level of 3 m3/m2/yr minimum in order for a MHRV to be viable, for less cost than if it had have been done at the start?? no your not.

SozBbz

Was listening to someone on Newstalk about this previously. She said she thinks a lot of people are ill equipped to negotiate these days for some reason and that therefore they are attracted to new builds as they have a pricetag.

Personally I've bought once before (2nd hand) and am looking to buy 2nd hand again, although possibly a much older property this time around. We're looking at a 1920s bungalow/cottage which has been somewhat modernised, but not to a great standard. Its in a great area and on a big site (huge back garden, south facing. My dad remarked that we'd nearly want a pet donkey to keep the grass in check!) which you just could not get for a new build in South Dublin these days.

We're willing to tolerate a less than perfect house in the short term, and modernise over time. In return we'd be getting a massive site (we could knock and rebuild, but I like the house and don't wish to), a great location and character/curb appeal that we just wouldn't get in a new build.

We're only thinking like this as it would be the forever home. We would live with it for 5ish years, save some money and then do a big job retrofitting the original house, taking down the existing extension and replacing it with something sympathetic to the original house but wiht modern standards and a better layout. The long term dream is potentially pretty special and we can put up with imperfect in the short term if we know we're working towards the dream.

Obviously we've to actually secure the house, have the survey not reveal anything horrific, for any of the above to come true. But if this house falls through, we'll be on the lookout for something similar.

SirGerryAdams

How long does a house last? Like...say for example rooves, walls, wiring. Does all that last forever?

beauf

Depends on wear and tear and weathering really no?

SozBbz

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

How long does a house last? Like...say for example rooves, walls, wiring. Does all that last forever?

How long is a piece of string? Some are better built than others, and also houses require constant maintenance. A well built, well looked after house could last many hundreds of years.

Obviously thingss like wiring will need to be redone periodically but again maintenance v's neglect will dictate this to an extent. The advent of new technology may spur some people on to make improvements that are not strictly necessary.

SirGerryAdams

Personally when I go to owning a home I hopefully will build a new house. I want it to be laid out the way I want it and I want it future proofed for technology. I also want to know where every wire and what every circuit is doing etc.

Ray Palmer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What do you think you couldn't do to modern standards? External insulation on an older house will make it air tight and brinking it to a higher insulation value than a modern build. While expensive it is still affordable when comparing price differences. After that normal upgrades like windows,plumbing, wiring and windows still easy to cover.

any remedial work which attempts to bring older housing stock to contemporary levels will absolutely cost more pro rata than if it had been done at the time of the original build.

EWI is all fine and well, but is it going to be good enough to allow you to assume a thermal bridge factor of 0.08 which current regs suggest?

are you going to be able to make your build air tight to a level of 3 m3/m2/yr minimum in order for a MHRV to be viable, for less cost than if it had have been done at the start?? no your not.

You seem to be confusing cost of building with cost to a person buying a house and doing work on it.
I am specifically talking about the price difference between an new and an old build. When there is a 100k-200k difference between 2 houses the same size that buys a lot of upgrades. Doesn't really matter about cost of building as you aren't building and therefore not paying that way. External insulation encased the entire building so no cold bridging. The existing thermal value of the walls plus the insulation is greater than modern building regs so better.

Want a better boiler and solar panels? Still plenty of money to do this given the price difference. The new build would want to be comparable and consider the hassle but there is obviously a premium people are willing to pay. I wouldn't and would rather save the money.
The example I gave included space that can't be used as bedrooms so the sqm is very misleading.

beauf

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Personally when I go to owning a home I hopefully will build a new house. I want it to be laid out the way I want it and I want it future proofed for technology. I also want to know where every wire and what every circuit is doing etc.

Good luck getting the builders and tradesmen to accommodate that.

Torture.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Good luck getting the builders and tradesmen to accommodate that.

Torture.

Which part of his post are you referring to, looks pretty reasonable to me.

beauf

Zain Nervous Musketeer wrote: »

Which part of his post are you referring to, looks pretty reasonable to me.

if very difficult to find a builder/trademans who does things correctly and to a high standard, and follow plans, designs as given.

https://passivehouseplus.ie/news/government/unpublished-seai-report-showed-systemic-building-control-failure

Ray Palmer

Zain Nervous Musketeer wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

Good luck getting the builders and tradesmen to accommodate that.

Torture.

Which part of his post are you referring to, looks pretty reasonable to me.

Well looking for a tradesman with the ability to see into the future is pretty unreasonable. You can't future proof anything. Expecting a diagram of circuits is also unrealistic. Even in a new build. Kind of possible but you will pay more for more strict requirements and they will probably inaccurate. Ask for an extra socket somewhere the price is the installation plus price to update diagrams and drawings. People change their minds all the way through builds especially if not familiar with doing it

GreeBo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well looking for a tradesman with the ability to see into the future is pretty unreasonable. You can't future proof anything. Expecting a diagram of circuits is also unrealistic. Even in a new build. Kind of possible but you will pay more for more strict requirements and they will probably inaccurate. Ask for an extra socket somewhere the price is the installation plus price to update diagrams and drawings. People change their minds all the way through builds especially if not familiar with doing it

The plans will show plumbing and wiring... if they don't start firing people.

GreeBo

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

How long does a house last? Like...say for example rooves, walls, wiring. Does all that last forever?

My house is over 80 years old and structurally the only issues are where purple have ignored maintenance overtb the years.
Ignore a leaky gutter and you get damp and rot
Ignore a fat roof and you will get the same

Wiring and plumbing needs to be updated as these things break down over time... less so with modern materials but i heave electric cables for example that are perished... gun barrel pipes that are rusting.

The asbestos cement flue is still as good as the day it was cast though!

FutureGuy

Take Limerick as an example.

New builds for small 3-bed semi-detached houses are 285k (Annacotty and Mungret). That'll be 300k soon enough. 4-bed semis are hitting 330k. We went to see a showhouse and there was already a crack in the walls.

We are bidding on 30-40-year-old houses that have already been modernised. They are built fantastically well, have room for expansion and can be brought up to B BER quite easily.

Near to everything too. Some of the estates in Limerick are in the middle of nowhere near the motorway. Not for me.

sydthebeat

GreeBo wrote: »

The plans will show plumbing and wiring... if they don't start firing people.

plumbing and electric "diagrams" are indicative and schematic only.

for example.
https://www.jerusalemhouseministries.net/image/plumbing-layout-drawing-for-a-house

and similar for electrics:
http://educamaisvoce.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/electricity-house-wiring-electrical-wiring-residential-circuit-diagram-wiring-diagram-residential-house-wiring-diagrams-house-wiring-diagram-house-electrical-wiring-diagram-pdf.jpg

They are never hardly ever shown on full to scale plans at domestic level.

and even of they were, you can be pretty much guaranteed that the electrician and plumber will wire and pipe differently