Victorian detached houses.

[mikees]

cranford10 said:

Welshbeef said:

The problems are roofs can be easily over £100k on slates alone/it's cheaper to demolish and build a new house in its place if work is stacking up.

If you live in Downton Abbey !

I had 6 bed detached Victorian and quote was £17,000 about 2 years ago. Gas & electric was £600 pm in the Winter and we were still freezing ! Everyone else loved that house except those of us who lived in it




Now have 4 bed , 1965 built that costs £110 pm gas etc and we are lovely &'warm

600 fm! I think my 250pm is a lot dor my 1923 6 bed house

[MUDGUTZ]

blade7 said:

Are they generally a money pit to run and maintain, and always a work in progress ?

No. source: I own & live in a converted Church built in the Victorian era. If you want a nice safe life have a Barratt home and a Vauxhall Zafira.

[Uggers]

sealtt said:

The most important difference is the ceiling height.

Definitly, it's brilliant

[sealtt]

Conversely our 2008 new build 4-bed detached cost £800pcm in gas and electric during winter!! We now live in a 1930s 4 bed detached and it's less than £300!

To be fair the new build was probably double the floor space, but still, I'd take the figures with a pinch of salt. Your usage will make the most difference to overall energy costs.

[blade7]

hyphen said:

As the house has been standing before most of us were born, and will be standing long after we are gone, subject to a surveyors all clear, I wouldn't worry.

Is it in need of a bit/full modernisation, or is it already done up?

It needs around £30k spending on it, that is reflected in the price though.

[Andehh]

Uggers said:

All symptoms of inadequate maintenance over 100 years. The very fact that most of them are still standing and been lived in despite this lack of care is testament to the fact they are very well made. Don't do any maintenance to a modern econobox for 100 years and see how much of it is still there.

.

Says who that a modern house wouldn't outlast a Victorian Box? Zero maintenance/up keep will kill off anything sooner, but a Victorian House would die off far quicker. How can you suggest otherwise?

Single glazed vs double & freezing in winters?
PVC Doors/Frames vs wooden ones & the rot they suffer?
Zero foundations vs trenched foundations?
''Over engineered'' vs ''correctly'' engineered?
Damp/Rot/Wood Worm?

What about building, plumbing, gas, electrical regulations!?

''Most are still standing'' yet nigh on everyone here has warned to get a full structural survey? Within a few posts re-roofing the damn thing has been suggested & repeatedly discussed as well as re-pointing? Hell, one poster even admitted half is house moving based on the seasons of the year. A quirk? yes. A good story? yes. Ideal in 5,10,15,20 years? No.

I love this fairy tail idea that British Workers were somehow more dedicated, educated & caring about building houses 150 years ago compared to how they are now.


edit: Removed being antagonistic!

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 14th December 09:37

[jason61c]

Andehh said:

Such a load of bks. Says who that a modern house wouldn't outlast a Victorian Box? Zero maintenance/up keep will kill off anything sooner, but a Victorian House would die off far quicker. How can you suggest otherwise?

Single glazed vs double & freezing in winters?
PVC Doors/Frames vs wooden ones & the rot they suffer?
Zero foundations vs trenched foundations?
''Over engineered'' vs ''correctly'' engineered?
Damp/Rot/Wood Worm?

What about building, plumbing, gas, electrical regulations!?

''Most are still standing'' yet nigh on everyone here has warned to get a full structural survey? Within a few posts re-roofing the damn thing has been suggested & repeatedly discussed as well as re-pointing? Hell, one poster even admitted half is house moving based on the seasons of the year. A quirk? yes. A good story? yes. Ideal in 5,10,15,20 years? No.

I love this fairy tail idea that British Workers were somehow more dedicated, educated & caring about building houses 150 years ago compared to how they are now.

Building materials were of a higher quality. Price building one. Softwood hidden timbers in new builds, lower material quality, all to aid and speed construction.... I know which i'd take.

[hyphen]

Andehh said:

Such a load of bks. Says who that a modern house wouldn't outlast a Victorian Box? Zero maintenance/up keep will kill off anything sooner, but a Victorian House would die off far quicker. How can you suggest otherwise?

Single glazed vs double & freezing in winters?
PVC Doors/Frames vs wooden ones & the rot they suffer?
Zero foundations vs trenched foundations?
Damp/Rot/Wood Worm?
What about building, plumbing, gas, electrical regulations!?

''Most are still standing'' yet nigh on everyone here has warned to get a full structural survey? Within a few posts re-roofing the damn thing has been suggested & repeatedly discussed as well as re-pointing? Hell, one poster even admitted half is house moving based on the seasons of the year. A quirk? yes. A good story? yes. Ideal in 5,10,15,20 years? No.

I love this fairy tail idea that British Workers were somehow more dedicated, educated & caring about building houses 150 years ago compared to how they are now.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 14th December 08:40

The new house fans like yourself, keep comparing a old house when it was built, to a new house today. Why so black and white? An old house will have been upgraded over the years. Also we are discussing the normal small detached type the OP is looking to buy, not the huge mansions, so no £100k roofs (outside of Mr Welsh's imagination!).

Majority of old houses will be up to date in recent regulations in plumbing (will be copper not plastic), gas and electricals. When you say building regs, we had a period recently before part E where developers maximised profits and put out houses where you could hear a pin drop from one side to another. Lathe & Plaster on the other hand are equivalent to double acoustic plasterboard according to conversion regs iirc.

Windows and doors can be changed if needed, wooden ones have a life of many years- its only failure to maintain that will rot them, as I am sure you know, wood is very repairable and enviro friendlier. (new upvc guarantee will be only 10 years right?) Single glazed can be double glazed/secondary glazed.

Damp, rot, woodworm can happen if new owners are stupid and seal up the house inadequately.Can be resolved.

Foundations? As its been standing a 100 years, any movement is mainly in the past. Pretty sure Watchdog like programmes often have the woes of new build owners.

Structural survey- that is just standard on any house. New or old.

Those who are claiming thousands a month on heating, could have spent the hundreds on insulating. But they didn't and instead chose to pay far higher bills then needed. Insulation is cheap and an easy DIY.

Each to their own, comes down to a lot of things some of which are a higher priority such as the location etc but old houses do have a 'charm' which many new can't replicate.

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 14th December 09:04

[Matt_N]

sealtt said:

Conversely our 2008 new build 4-bed detached cost £800pcm in gas and electric during winter!! We now live in a 1930s 4 bed detached and it's less than £300!

Are you a family of reptiles?

£800pm is insane!

[Andehh]

Yeah, I'll wind my neck in a bit, but I still disagree with the notion that a new build would fare worse over 100 years compared to a Victorian Era house, with similar levels of upkeep is still wrong. Fundamental issues such as I previously pointed out instantly make it a mute point (single glazed, wooden frames etc) . A new build will have less ''over engineering'' but it will have been 'correctly engineered' which itself will have a healthy degree of safety margin in there.

I come from a family of old house aficionados and have grown up in & around Victorian/Edwardian houses. The sheer scale of some jobs that can be needed are always eye watering - Wooden Windows, single glazing and various damp sources etc. That's before you start involving listed buildings & conservation areas.

I still feel that the 'newer' the house the better built it will be, just down to lessons learnt over the years & tighter regulations to offset the profit driven nature of things. I also prefer 'correctly' engineered over 'over engineered' any day. Over engineering is inevitable a catch all phase for making it up as you go along & erring on the side of 'more' which isn't always a good idea.


For what it's worth; I would probably go for an older house over a new build, but I love to tinker/modernise & make a mess of things which is painful in a new build which is already ''finished''.

Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 14th December 10:28

[Boosted LS1]

The floor boards in my victorian house are over 1" thick and nailed down with nails that have an axe type head. My daughter's 'new build' has thin cheap floor boards that creak in every room because they're flexing all the time. Also, some of the bricks in my house seem to be rock hard, goodness knows why. My roof's tiled, rosemary tiles. It's the only house on the street with tiles and eaves. The rest have slate. If I need a tile I go to the reclaims yard where there are thousands of them.

Sometimes I wonder if I could live in a newer house, I could if it had some character. This house has it in bucket loads.

[rampageturke]

MDMA . said:

Concrete st box -

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/prop...

Victorian detached -

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...

Hard choice!

southport or soho

[okgo]

Fitzrovia.

[skinnyman]

Do what I did and buy a 70's build, worst of both worlds.

[sealtt]

Matt_N said:

Are you a family of reptiles?

£800pm is insane!

Ha, I think the main problems were that it was full concrete construction (as in concrete floors upstairs, ground floor and basement level), which meant the UFH needed to be on all the time or else the temperature would drop like a stone, so it was working hard to maintain our 24 degrees I expect. There were loads of halogen spotlights, probably 60+. So all lit up for 14 hours (quite a dark house even when sunny) you could be talking 50kwh on lighting alone every day. It also had a lot of floor to ceiling windows which radiated cold during the winter, living room was probably 30% glass and master bedroom not much less and both North facing, whole house was shaded by trees so you didn't get sun light warming it either. It was about 4500sqft, which is quite a lot for 4 beds, so a big space to light & heat. I'd never buy a place like that myself, but I got a good deal renting it so stayed there for 18 months whilst house hunting. But just goes to show even a very high spec new buld can still cost an absolute fortune in running costs, even when compared to grand Victorian places with pools!

[sealtt]

Boosted LS1 said:

The floor boards in my victorian house are over 1" thick and nailed down with nails that have an axe type head. My daughter's 'new build' has thin cheap floor boards that creak in every room because they're flexing all the time. Also, some of the bricks in my house seem to be rock hard, goodness knows why. My roof's tiled, rosemary tiles. It's the only house on the street with tiles and eaves. The rest have slate. If I need a tile I go to the reclaims yard where there are thousands of them.

Sometimes I wonder if I could live in a newer house, I could if it had some character. This house has it in bucket loads.

This is a really big difference I have noticed, older houses have far more solid floors. I've been to many recently built houses (sub 10 years of age) and even in fairly expensive houses I've noticed the floors upstairs are squeaky and have a hollowness to their feel, whereas the floors in older houses tend to be properly bolted together and feel very strong, much stronger than those in £ equivalent new builds.

[sealtt]

Uggers said:

Definitly, it's brilliant

Very nice!

[j3gme]

It's a lifestyle choice ..... having 13ft ceilings up and down it takes a few BTU to warm up but it's well worth it!

[sealtt]

j3gme said:

It's a lifestyle choice ..... having 13ft ceilings up and down it takes a few BTU to warm up but it's well worth it!

I like that a lot! There are some absolutely stunning victorian villas around here, huge, but most of them have been converted into flats over the years. Seems a shame, but at least they are still kept up together and being used.

[snowandrocks]

sealtt said:

Ha, I think the main problems were that it was full concrete construction (as in concrete floors upstairs, ground floor and basement level), which meant the UFH needed to be on all the time or else the temperature would drop like a stone, so it was working hard to maintain our 24 degrees I expect. There were loads of halogen spotlights, probably 60+. So all lit up for 14 hours (quite a dark house even when sunny) you could be talking 50kwh on lighting alone every day. It also had a lot of floor to ceiling windows which radiated cold during the winter, living room was probably 30% glass and master bedroom not much less and both North facing, whole house was shaded by trees so you didn't get sun light warming it either. It was about 4500sqft, which is quite a lot for 4 beds, so a big space to light & heat. I'd never buy a place like that myself, but I got a good deal renting it so stayed there for 18 months whilst house hunting. But just goes to show even a very high spec new buld can still cost an absolute fortune in running costs, even when compared to grand Victorian places with pools!

I think the 24C constant temperature might have had something to do with it! Christ - our thermostat is set at 20C all year round and that's enough for shorts and t shirts most of the time!

Were you wandering around in bikinis/speedos or something?!

We've got friends with a large Victorian manse and they keep the thermostat at a cosy 16C!