|
Some people just don't trust older houses. They like newer houses because, in theory, there are fewer surprises and the technology is more modern and more straightforward. The financial world reinforces this predisposition: in California, anyway, you can't get a regular homeowner's insurance package for an older home. You have to buy a special, and more expensive policy.
Old homes are cool, but a lot of people are a little cowed by them, even if they've been retrofitted with modern systems. They're just not sure everything's "safe." And to a lot of people 100 years old is less desirable than 10 years old; sounds creakier, potentially faulty, even though the home is probably sounder even now than most modern homes.
Here's an analogy. I would love to own an old car called a Checker; they're the original old-time taxicab, and they stopped making them in '82. You can get civilian Checkers, fully restored with new engines and in great working order, for $20K. And they're loaded with character, powerful, give decent gas mileage, and have leg room to burn. But given a choice, your average person would rather have a used Lexus than an older restored car like a Checker. Perceived as safer, longer lasting, and "more like what everyone else has."
Personally, I would buy an older home, but I would have a _long_ list of questions. I lived in SF Victorians, and have vivid memories of primitive plumbing, rat-gnawed bare wiring, swapping fuses in the basement in pitch darkness, and even bees in the walls. Most of these are non-issues for new homes. Not that they don't have their _own_ issues.
|