3 ms·
> while the home may be slightly larger than those in the past it’s 30+ years old. Pardon my naiveté, but is this a common bar? I didn't grow up poor and I'm _
by wutbrodo 8y ago
> while the home may be slightly larger than those in the past it’s 30+ years old.
Pardon my naiveté, but is this a common bar? I didn't grow up poor and I'm _definitely_ not poor now, but I don't think I've ever lived in a house that was less than 30 years old. I didn't even realize that was desirable; my impression was that the stereotype of new construction is "classless, soulless cookie-cutter Levittown" (not saying that I agree with this notion, just that it was my understanding of how the property market treats housing).
Am I mistaken here? Or is this perhaps different between cities vs more rural areas, or suburbs? I've only ever lived in big cities.
- freeone3000 8y agoSuburbs built in the 1970s have the same problems as houses built today - rapid, low-quality construction, cheap materials, etc. They're temporary buildings. (Levittown, in fact, was built in the 50s!) At the very least, a new house is further from it's expiry date than an older house. You'll probably find better construction where land costs more (downtown cities) or pre-1950s buildings, but these are quite rare. EDIT: As a reminder of the endless progression of time, a 30-year-old house would have been built in 1988.