what is the oldest age home you would buy?

Question

if your planning on renting the home out to tenants and not update much other than the floors and ac?

Kyle Hipp · Answer

Age is not really relevant in my opinion. My properties are built between 1875 and 1937. The age of the property does not indicate how sound the property is. Properties have been updated many times to various degrees over the years. The quality of the original build and subsequent additions and remodels dictates a ton more of the condition whether the property is 150 years old or 5 years old....

Jason Miller · Answer

The age of the home should not be a concern but the age of the upgrades and quality of the home itself. Is it functionally obsolete or will it work as a modern home.  I have a few pre 1900 homes that are great, but they have new roofs, electrical, siding, plumbing, windows etc etc.

J. Martin · Answer

@Brandon P.,

I have a Victorian (now) duplex in West Oakland that was built in 1897. But I would buy older if the deal was right. :)  (But not if I only wanted to change the floors..)

I'm sure someone on this site has older, but that's pretty old! It needs lots of work, but the price was right! I would buy 10 more of them if I could. This might be different than areas in other states, where there is lots of land, and they build a newer development down the road. Then the old housing stock becomes "substandard" and for lower-end demographics.

In SF & West Oakland, they aren't building 1800's era Victorian buildings any more, so in rehabbed condition, they sell for more than a building without that character..

Be aware of lead paint rules, asbestos, expect some rotted wood and overall repairs needed. Electrical & plumbing. Probably no insulation in walls, unless it was done later. But built out of some good wood! I'm with @Kyle Hipp partially on that note, regarding the quality of the original construction...

And it already went through the 1906 and '89 earthquakes.. So gotta be pretty solid, right?!

Matthew Schroeder · Answer

Brandon, in many parts of the country, it is very common to buy a property from 1910s, 1920s, 1930s,  and 1940s and they may be in great condition.  Of course, many will not be in great condition and will have foundation and other structural/electrical/plumbing issues.  In your case, since you are in Oakland, it is more complicated as you need to consider the safety of the structure & materials due to the Bay Area being prone to earthquakes.

Michael Delpier · Answer

This is very location driven question

In Houston, new house is a big selling/renting point. Most older entry to mid level homes are torn down due to disrepair issues.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, I would buy older if possible. Pre 1945's, the home is made of redwood (no termites), has original hardwood floors, and in an established neighborhood. All very desirable in the San Jose to San Francisco peninsula areas.

Also, there is the built in the boom or bust times. Boom time housing tends to be built fast with little amenities. Buyers did not need to be enticed. The opposite is my observation for the bust times.

Joe Fairless · Answer

@brandon p. I personally would only buy 1980 and up but that's because I don't like major projects on single family homes. There's money in any age of property if you buy it right and it's in the right neighborhood.

Steve M. · Answer

My rule of thumb is nothing older than 1980 ... At that point, I don't have to deal with asbestos and/or lead paint issues.  I'm always weary of houses built in 78/79  ....

Reality is ~ I tend to look in the 10-15 year old range ... I almost always budget for HVAC, Roof & Water Heater repairs/replacements in the first 5 years.

I plan to keep these rentals for 30-40-50 years, and therefore want relatively newer houses to keep up with me.  :)  I tend to stay away from full gut jobs now and invest in new & sprawling areas.

what is the oldest age home you would buy?

Most Popular Reply