Poll of the Day > Who is paying this much for an almost 200 year old house??

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/429-E-Main-St-Norwich-CT-06360/157585010_zpid/

This is ridiculous. I mean $145k is a great price for a 5 Bedroom house but it was fricken built in 1850. Have any idea how much shit has happened in that time!? The asbestos years came and went in that time. Think about that.

We still had cowboys, and the Titanic didnt even get built or sink in that time. Billy The Kid wasnt even born at that time.

Alaska wasnt even a part of the U.S. when this thing was built. The U.S. didnt even exist for 100 years when it was built.

WW1 didnt even happen yet when it was built. Think about that!

9,583 square feet? That's a pretty big house!

Oh, that's the size of the lot? That's tiny.

The house is only 1,331 square feet? For 5 bedrooms?

Tremendous ghost value

what that's beautiful

I don't know the local market, but an old in good condition is generally worth more than a new house of similar size/features.

This one lacks air conditioning, but with today's ductless units A/C could be added for far less money and far less labor than 20 years ago.

captpackrat posted...

9,583 square feet? That's a pretty big house!

Oh, that's the size of the lot? That's tiny.

The house is only 1,331 square feet? For 5 bedrooms?

That's twice the size of an average lot here, and not an uncommon overall size to bedroom ratio for older homes. Today's 1600+ square foot 2 bedroom houses are very inneficient in their use of space.

also I'm used to much more expensive housing markets

If it's well-maintained, it should probably cost waaay more in that particular market. Connecticut is expensive as fuck, and 5 bedrooms is kind of ridiculous.

I'm in NJ, and you couldn't even buy my property for $145k, let alone the house sitting on it. And CT in general tends to be higher than my area is.

People who aren't poor and entitled?

DarkMinun posted...

I don't know the local market, but an old in good condition is generally worth more than a new house of similar size/features.

This one lacks air conditioning, but with today's ductless units A/C could be added for far less money and far less labor than 20 years ago.

That's twice the size of an average lot here, and not an uncommon overall size to bedroom ratio for older homes. Today's 1600+ square foot 2 bedroom houses are very inneficient in their use of space.

3*

Thats a beautiful house. Would buy

$3000 per year tax on that is insanely high. My house was well over twice that price and my annual taxes are close to $3000.

I'm a little concerned that the prior sale price was only $26.5K in 2017.

I mean around here you wouldnt get a 1 bed flat for that cheap, a 5 bed detached house is like 600k+

rjsilverthorn posted...

I'm a little concerned that the prior sale price was only $26.5K in 2017.

Even with the current price I'd suspect something catastrophically bad like major foundation issues.

faramir77 posted...

$3000 per year tax on that is insanely high. My house was well over twice that price and my annual taxes are close to $3000.

Again, Connecticut.

Connecticut really isn't a state you choose to live in if you're poor.

People who have the money, and love old houses. Like seriously, why does it matter?

grimhilde00 posted...

what that's beautiful

Yeah but the integrity of the house is my gripe. As well as the materials used.

The reason people flock to newer homes in newly built neighborhoods is because the things used are generally safer, and the pipes that have been laid down are brand spanking new. No rust and BS.

faramir77 posted...

$3000 per year tax on that is insanely high. My house was well over twice that price and my annual taxes are close to $3000.

LOL, I pay over twice that in taxes and I am on the low end for my area. People here would kill to only pay that much. And my house is in the same ballpark price-wise as that one.

Of course it is also almost twice as large with two less bedrooms.

A house like that would have cost at least twice that back in Northern Virginia

Why is the age a concern? In the UK we have thatched roof houses. The technique is older than the iron age. They're still viable houses.

https://www.placebuzz.com/property-for-sale/details/33539677?utm_source=Trovit&utm_medium=CPC&utm_campaign=t-premium

This is from the 14th century. Old houses are fine.

HornedLion posted...

but it was fricken built in 1850.

That's the appeal

HornedLion posted...

Yeah but the integrity of the house is my gripe. As well as the materials used.

The reason people flock to newer homes in newly built neighborhoods is because the things used are generally safer, and the pipes that have been laid down are brand spanking new. No rust and BS.

New homes in US/Canada are very poorly built and tend to have all sorts of quality issues in the first couple of years, with water leaks from roofs, walls and plumbing being at the top of the list.

Older homes have had all of those issues resolved decades ago, and only require regular upkeep. Because they're so old, the lifespan of any materials used is well known and repairs can be planned ahead of time. No one knows how long modern PEX plumbing is going to last.

In addition, the older homes tend to be made from more resilient materials because modern materials, which are designed to be cheap above all else, weren't invented yet. For example, 100+ year old wood-frame houses used boards as sheathing on the outside. If they get wet, they can stay wet for quite some time with very little rot or damage. New houses use OSB which can rot in a matter of weeks, and is also far more flammable.

Seems like a nice house and good neighborhood. What's wrong with it? Is it falling apart?

what, you wouldn't buy a 800 yo castle?

For where I live, a house priced at that is a fucking steal. Doesnt matter how old it is. Also price is usually tied to the land, and not the building itself.

HornedLion posted...

it was fricken built in 1850

I'll take, "Clueless remarks for $100," Alex.

The age of a house is pretty much fucking meaningless since, by itself, it doesn't tell you anything beyond the fact the house has stood for that long.

captpackrat posted...

9,583 square feet? That's a pretty big house!

Oh, that's the size of the lot? That's tiny.

The house is only 1,331 square feet? For 5 bedrooms?

Rooms in older homes tend to be smaller. Partly because people weren't as fat back then, but also practical reasons.

DarkMinun posted...

I don't know the local market, but an old in good condition is generally worth more than a new house of similar size/features.

Pretty much.

Honestly, that home looks like a bargain, especially for something in CT.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If it's well-maintained, it should probably cost waaay more in that particular market. Connecticut is expensive as fuck, and 5 bedrooms is kind of ridiculous.

This so fucking hard. It's suspiciously low.

HornedLion posted...

Yeah but the integrity of the house is my gripe. As well as the materials used.

The reason people flock to newer homes in newly built neighborhoods is because the things used are generally safer, and the pipes that have been laid down are brand spanking new. No rust and BS.

lolwut? Modern homes generally aren't built nearly as well as older homes.

faramir77 posted...

$3000 per year tax on that is insanely high. My house was well over twice that price and my annual taxes are close to $3000.

It's in CT. High taxes are kinda our thing.