DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**marketheal** · 05-05-2011, 06:36 AM

My experience (in Australia) has been the opposite of this. A 40 year old house is likely to have had any serious faults that were going to arise arise and been dealt with (or not, and be obvious) while a new house has yet to go through that process. Also, and again this is the Australian perspective, tradesmen are much more rushed and less skilled than they were 40 years ago. I see a lot of quite young houses falling to pieces because of poor workmanship.

Quite apart from those issues, a premium is paid for a new house, which depreciates, while an older house has already done its depreciation so you're going to get much better overall capital gain from an older house.

Agreed. Except here, there's little depreciation from a new house. Size and location drive the price, age is relatively irrelevant.

My house is ~ 100 years old. Mostly fine.

05-05-2011, 06:36 AM	#6
marketheal Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 488 Senior Member	My experience (in Australia) has been the opposite of this. A 40 year old house is likely to have had any serious faults that were going to arise arise and been dealt with (or not, and be obvious) while a new house has yet to go through that process. Also, and again this is the Australian perspective, tradesmen are much more rushed and less skilled than they were 40 years ago. I see a lot of quite young houses falling to pieces because of poor workmanship. Quite apart from those issues, a premium is paid for a new house, which depreciates, while an older house has already done its depreciation so you're going to get much better overall capital gain from an older house. Agreed. Except here, there's little depreciation from a new house. Size and location drive the price, age is relatively irrelevant. My house is ~ 100 years old. Mostly fine.
	Quote