Houses, new for old? I don't understand.

[wildcat45]

Hi,

I recently went back to a town where I spent a small part of my childhood.

(For anyone who knows the area, Stamford in Lincolnshire, the part of town bordered by New Cross Road, Alexandra Road, Kings Road and Emlyns Street.)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=52.657795,-0.4790...

The streets there are mainly large victorian/Edwardian terraced homes. Not back to back decayed places, quite nice. Which is why I am so puzzled.

I found a few of the hosues round there had been demolished and rebuilt. Not extended, or changed, but mid terrace homes flattned, and a new build put in place. I don't know if the area is a conservation area, but the new builds have been made to fit in perfectly with the terraced houses the join onto.

In one road, it appeared a whole block of houses had been levelled, to be replaced by an identcial number of new homes.



As I say, most of the houses are around the 100 year old mark, most look to be done up to a good standard. What you might expect from a vicotrian/edwardian home, new roof, double glazing, garage at the back.

Had the homes not been so new, and had I not been away from there for 20 years or so, I'd have assumed it had something to do with World War II bomb damage repair.

Building new for old with no gain in the size of the property seems odd. A very expensive way of getting a house that can't be worth that much more than the 100 year old good condition period features etc hosue next door.

Can anyone explain please.

Dan

[wildcat45]

I find that surprising.

One of my houses is a 1901 property. It has a DPC which I guess was put in around 20 years ago. When you're talking about several hundred grand's worth of building, a few thousand for a DPC seems cheap.

So is it expensive to demolish and rebuild? I guess the real expense is the land?

[Engineer1]

Old terrace houses can be built in such a way that although they are fine the foundations aren't deep enough, the walls are solid the damp course can be poor, the roof can be shot, wiring may be old gas supplies insufficient etc. A housing association or council may well find it is better to rebuild to current regs than keep trying to resolve any issues with old housing stock especially if they are going for a greener housing stock.

[mk1fan]

wildcat45 said:

When you're talking about several hundred grand's worth of building,

Your last comment was more accurate. The actual building is a small proportion of the purchase price or value. Most of the value is the land hence the differences in prices across the country.

As for why a mid-terrace house was demolished there could be a number of reasons. Fire damage, localised unstable sub-soil or accidental damage.

[TheEnd]

I worked just round the corner from there, doing some site surveys for the college on Drift road.

The ground was that horrible yellow clay and quite wet in spots, so maybe subsidence was an issue

[wildcat45]

Yes, I remember as a kid the soil wasn't that good. What I do remember was that my parents brough the house becasue - although in need of renovation, it was spot on structurally.

[V8NRG]

Wildcat45

That whole area is a conservation area covering all the victorian teraces. All the way from East street, north to Alexandra road.

I looked in to buying one not long ago.