Which kind of house is better? Victorian, Edwardian, 1960, new built

[VandFamily]

Hello Everyone,
We are looking to purchase a house within next 6 months. And are was looking for some info on architecture. We moved here from Germany about 3 years ago so the material and architecture is very different from there. So I was looking for some first hand experiences on the kinds of built and durability of houses in UK.

Online search gave me the details of the architecture like timber content in frames and description of BISF frames. Also there are different types of houses Victorian, Edwardian, 1960 built with timber frames as well as new builts. But with my low experience it is difficult to determine which type of house would be energy efficient, low maintenance and long lasting if we are buying in next 6 months.

So if someone with first has and can share experiences on what is the most energy efficient and high quality house as per UK standards or specific things to look for, I would really appreciate that.

Thank you in advance.

I

Whoops! I live in a 1960s house. It's a lot of house for the £ we paid (150sqm, new builds in our town are the same price for 100sqm) but not good at all from an energy perspective. It's not exactly ugly but it is boxy - Edwardian and older houses tend to be nicer to look at.

I live in a beautiful Georgian house with high ceilings and big windows… It’s not at all energy, efficient! And it’s very difficult to make it energy-efficient retrospectively.

You are probably best off with a new build, built by a reputable local builder rather than a large firm (eg Barratt Homes).

I moved from a 20 year old house to a 120 year old house. The differences I've noticed are:
Newer house: very energy efficient. Warm in the winter and hard to keep cool in the summer. Small, box rooms. It didn't have much character but it was a great, easy to look after family home.
Old house: costs a fortune to heat in the winter but nice and cool in the summer. I love it - it has loads of character and quirks. Larger bedrooms, loads of storage.

Live in an Edwardian property - bloody nightmare to get work done as none of the walls are straight or floors levelled! Older properties generally need more upkeep and have 'fun' quirks hah

Anything built before 1930 is unlikely to be near the top of the energy efficiency tree, so you'd need to discount Georgian, Victoria, Edwardian period properties.

I'd expect anything new (built in the last year or so) to be more energy efficient.

Judging by your approach, you'd be better off with anything newer than around 1990. But they are boxy, small rooms and boring.

They are generally easy to keep, heat and maintain which sounds like your priority.

I moved from a new build to a 1840s cottage! It’s freezing all year round ( very good in summer not so much in winter ) and the Victorians clearly didn’t have spirits levels or tape measures as every wall and window is out by an inch or two and wonky!

But I love it! Yes the new build was a doddle to look after, energy efficient and no DIY but my Victorian house has so much character and history woven into the fabric of the house and it’s walls that with with passage of time it’s has a nice feeling about it that I just didn’t get with our new build .

I also think it’s looks beautiful on the outside that I could never go back to a new build box style of house!

Mine’s 1860s Victorian. Thick stone walls, high ceilings, big rooms and big windows… but takes forever to warm up. This winter has been difficult.

New houses are best for energy efficiency ratings but they often have small rooms and no character. They are soulless. I'd rather be in a Victorian or Edwardian house with very high ceilings, corbels, picture rails and much larger rooms. The only drawback for me is they often have steep staircases.

Newer builds are definitely more energy efficient, but quality differs massively depending on who built it. You may want to do some research on the companies as certain ones get awful reviews. I can't help with which ones as I've never owned a newer house, as I'm not keen on the estates they're often situated on and the small gardens they often come with.

Out 1960s house is a lot warmer than our victorian house. But it still needs work. Ideally we'd replace all the windows, add more wall insulation and fully kit out the loft with thick insulation and board it.

1930s - very good proportioned rooms for my taste (wider than the equivalent Victorian or Edwardian size house). We have triple glazing and outside insulation and the house is warm in winter and cool in summer. I'm sure is less efficient than a new build though!

An old, solid thick stone walled house will keep in the heat better in winter and will keep the house cooler in winter.

If you are looking at a period property then do look at Historic England's website which has lots of information on retrofitting houses without destroying the character and destroying some of its value.

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/

Ours is 1930s and hasn't had an EPC because we have lived there since before they were needed but the majority up our road of the same age are D, some are E, none are B or C, so not very energy efficient.

I bought a Victorian house. It was a 'doer upper', so I had a budget to spend, making it more energy efficient.

The positives are larger rooms, more space in general, a garden with parking for several cars.

I've replaced all the exterior doors and windows. I've double insulated the loft and insulated the exterior walls of the upper floor. The size of the bed rooms made that possible.

I've added a wood burner (we're rural so few neighbours) and the house is now reasonably efficient, warm in winter and cool in summer.

The downside is it took a lot of work and several years to achieve.

This is an interesting question!

The quality varies in each category. Plus what do you need?

New builds are more future proof, my parents live in one and the door widths, general accessibility features are a good trait. Very warm, no damp etc.

But they can be stingy. On big developments you get the minimum space the developer could get away with. They are close together.

Victorian houses and Edwardian houses can have foundation issues, energy efficiency issues, but I think they are handsome.

1960s houses are boxy but they can be generous and well constructed.

The best house I ever lived in was built around the millennium by an independent developer. If I could buy anything I would buy something like that. But a mass-built house from the same period would be rubbish probably as building regs got updated a bit later I think?

The main thing is get a very comprehensive survey on anything you buy and ask also about upgrading things like insulation, windows..

with my low experience it is difficult to determine which type of house would be energy efficient, low maintenance and long lasting if we are buying in next 6 months In your shoes I'd research and select my surveyor now, in preparation, so when you find a possible purchase you can ask them to help you. Our surveyors were a big help when buying and we've had them back to check things before booking work in.

Look for a surveyor who feels engaged and responsive to your specific interests/issues, preferably via recommendations.

Your questions sound like you want an energy-efficient house so I think you need to go for modern.

They are very well insulated but hard to keep cool in summer. Try to find one that faces east or west, and has windows/doors both sides so you can have a through draught. Prevailing wind direction in the UK is east/west.

The other issue is build quality. A lot of the bigger (cheaper) estates are poorly built and intended to last only 50 years. If you want new and efficient, look for either an individual build, or a very small development. The quality should be much better.

Make sure you buy a freehold.

I think I'm just echoing what others have said. When we were last house hunting we were curious about new builds, but every one we viewed had terribly low quality fittings poorly done. They seemed like disposable houses. As if, in the same way we replace bathrooms and kitchens and tear down walls, we might as well tear down a house and start over.

Research the neighbourhood history, we looked at a house that seemed fine but the walls were odd. Turns out the row of houses had been on the cheap in 18?? to house workers building a bridge or something, the walls were collections of rubble skimmed over with plaster. The neighbourhood was expensive, highly sought after, but the houses were falling apart. We ended up buying a 1938 build that hadn't been modernised, so all internal walls in place and made of solid brick, not open plan but rooms with doors. We find the house to be v affordable re energy, and we're paying less than a lot of people, our prices actually went down a few times at the start of the energy crisis.

Also old houses with old rooves and windows won't be as energy efficient so you want to either replace these or look for one where this had been done, and you can look for houses with solar panels.

If you will want to resell in a few years, bear in mind that different types of house command a premium in different cultures so your judgement of price will be inaccurate

British people (self included) love period properties beyond all reason; Modern houses are cheaper per square meter

What I'm trying to say is that you will find it surprising which houses are more or less expensive per square metre and whilst you should get a house that meets your own preferences, you should try to be objective about the correct price to pay in the British market, as that is where you would have to re sell

1903 house here. Upkeep cost vary wildly. If your older property has been recently and well refurbished its likely going to cost you less than a 1980s house that's due a rewire and a complete overhaul. My house is cold in the winter but I love the character. I find new build estates souless and lacking privacy. My best compromise would be a new build (from a reputable builder) in a non estate location, built with some character.

When I had my guttering a fascias replaced I asked the chaps honestly how my roof was looking. They said it was solid and I have no worries, the worst they see is generally newer houses as the build quality is often poor.

The difference in price per sqm is a great point. I found it was most expensive for new builds, followed by the older, period houses. Cheapest were the 1960s/70s boxy houses, which is why we've got one! Downside of big rooms is ££ energy bills though.

So true! Just trying to fit new doors in our Edwardian house and the floors aren’t level and doorways are ‘non standard’ sizes so it’s been a right palaver.

With loft insulation, good flooring and new windows and doors, energy efficiency is OK but our Edwardian house has a fireplace in every room which might look lovely but is very draughty!

I do love the room proportions and bigger entrance halls in Edwardian properties. Victorian houses can be quite narrow and dark.