"spog" wrote in message
| SWMBO has been dragging me around showhomes again. I've tried all the
| usual objections to avoid having to stump up for a new house ('too
| expensive', 'tiny plot of land', etc) and tried the 'look how badly
| made they are' tactic.
Unfortunately some of the advantages of buying a new house (it's brand new,
can choose the kitchen and bathroom, etc) are lost as soon as they're
bought, so in effect they depreciate just like almost-new cars. There will
always be a *newer* house being built. Of course, this initial depreciation
is usually more than offset by a rising housing market - but especially in
London and the South-East of England, where many believe property is
considerably over-valued, that rising market is not assured.
Because there is a fixed (or shrinking) supply of period properties with
character, they are more likely to hold their value.
Disadvantages to a brand new house (apart from space, plot size etc):
1. There is nothing you can do to it that will increase its value quickly,
so you cannot make a profit or gain equity in a falling market. If you buy
an older house there is much greater potential for increasing its worth,
whether it's just a repainting job or full restoration.
2. The garden will not be established.
3. Estate planning covenants that prevent you having anything taller than a
blade of grass in the front garden and the like.
| I was a little surprised to see how badly finished some of the
| showhomes were (considering they are supposted to be 'show' homes -
| the name gives it a away, really) and it got me to wondering, just how
| well made are new houses?
A friend's new house (a housing association shared ownership development in
Milton Keynes) was, I thought, very well finished throughout especially
considering it would be very much built to a budget. (That was after the
sewer flooding the patio was sorted out.) But just because it was
immaculately plastered didn't stop it being immaculately-plastered