Which house-building period offers the best balance of quality and upkeep?

[MynameisnotJohn]

In my life I grew up in a 1970s house. Then have lived in various Victorian rentals, then bought a Victorian terrace, two 1930s semis, and now after divorce a 20 year old modern townhouse.
Part of the reason for choosing a modern house was the convenient layout but I was so looking forward to being able to decorate smooth clean walls and assuming the electrics and plumbing and general construction would be pretty low maintenance. I was wrong!
I have had to do lots of jobs as the house just doesn’t seem built well. The stairs creak horrendously. The walls seem to be made of cardboard backed with fluff. The electrics keep having problems and I’ve been told the outlets are part their expiry date and should be changed. The wooden balcony rotted and had to be replaced. The roof tiles keep slipping so had to do an expensive job. The shower leaked and floor rotted.
I do like the house and the small estate is attractive and well managed for a low annual fee but I am wondering if people are correct when they say new builds will only last 50 years!
My ex also bought a new build but his is only a few years old and seems absolutely fine.No issues.
I’d be interested to know what people think is the best period of house to go for when I retire. I want a well built, solid and well insulated place: I know all houses need constant maintenance but when was a period when there was a better quality of building all round? I feel it may be a well maintained 1930s semi. Often not the best layout for a single retired person though.

A PP said it but we also have to factor in the money paid.. A basic 1930s semi with 2.5 beds is always going to see less salubrious than a 5 bed arts and crafts house from the same era.

My late 1980s house is not particularly attractive, but it was built to the new (then) insulation requirements, so costs less to heat (it's a four bed detached) than the house we had before it, which was a significantly smaller three bed semi. It's also light and bright compared to older properties.

It was also built when newer developments were planned with lots of open spaces, front gardens and wide grass verges. So there's lots of green on our estate. I hate how new builds are now crammed in, and built almost on the pavement.

In every era there will have been houses built to different standards and with an older property there is the issue of maintenance.

My parents last house was on a mid 1980s development, most of the houses had issues due to poor build standards, they were all rectified by the NHBC and so dealt with properly. Those houses are now 40 years old, my parents updated the heating system every 10 to 15 years & had it serviced regularly, upgraded the insulation and had some rewiring done and replaced the windows, kitchen & bathrooms. Not everyone keeps up with the maintenance, but if they have then any home can be warm and energy efficient.

Many homes sadly have suffered from botched upgrades and poor maintenance. When my parents were looking to move the properties in the area where they were looking were 1980s built properties, but the standard was not good, with asbestos, uneven floors, age expired water systems, leaking roofs and poorly fitted windows and doors among the problems seen.

I've been fortunate with my own properties built between 2000 and 2010 (1st by Redrow and 2nd by Persimmon) & bought new by me. They seem to have been built to generally good standards, there were some minor issues with the 2nd property, such as scratched windows and kitchen units, but the builder sorted these. A problem that appeared a few years in was fixed by the NHBC and the repair was over-engineered to prevent a recurrence. To my knowledge only one other house had the same issue and there are lots of the same house type in the area. I have replaced the boiler and upgraded the bathrooms as needed. (Note Redrow and Persimmon were their own companies at the time, they have both since been bought by bigger house builders and I believe standards may have declined).

My 1930s semi detached is well built and has great sized rooms: it has a huge hallway, a morning room and a large, square kitchen, although I think that may have been galley kitchen / outhouse knocked through by previous owners. Our two reception rooms are large and the two main bedrooms are huge, with the third bedroom being a double too. It’s also very attractive with quite ornate architrave and picture rails, and funny details in the plaster around the windows. It has original lead light stained glass windows too, so much more thought was put into its aesthetic than buildings newer than this.

Well trouble is it's not really a like for like comparison; Old houses and new builds and even 1980-90s era houses just aren't built in the same places, or with the same gardens.

Mostly it's only old houses near all the stuff; the high street, pubs, station, parks.

And almost all new builds are right on the edge of town, no way to get anywhere without driving.

I wish I could pick a modern house's insulation but with high ceilings, big sash windows, a decent sized garden & 10 minutes walk to the high street, but they don't exist.

So a Victorian terrace it is for now.

Chimney needed repointing in our 1950s home, that was it re structure. Our 1960s house, we've had a few problems with the pipework and roof has been a nightmare - many repairs, ended up with a new roof two years go. Both had cavity wall insulation, double glazing - this house is bigger and cost the same heating wise as the 1950s house.

My house is late 80's.
Pro's: modern floor plan, insulated but with solid internal walls (unlike newer builds), Larger windows than newer builds, reasonable sized rooms, reasonable size garden, garage, very cheap to run.
Con's: not that pretty, tend to be on housing estates rather than individual homes.

my last house was built in 1820.
Pro's absolutely beautiful to look at, sash windows, fireplaces, high ceilings.
Con's: you sacrifice a bedroom for an upstairs bathroom, 200 years of dodgy renovations/electrics/plumbing/extensions, Sash windows are drafty, was listed so had to have permission to do anything, Fireplace and cellar + tonnes of spiders/drafty.

To take pictures of the Georgian house wins hands down, to actually live in and pay upkeep and bills on, 1980's every single day

I live in a 1860s house. Solid as a rock, beautiful stone and lovely think walls. And a decent sized garden.

Agree with this

There were well built and shoddily built houses in every era and it often depended on how expensive the house was intended to be.

Personally I dislike a lot of post 1980s houses because they tend to have lower ceilings and smaller windows than previously. Probably due to squeeze on space (higher land prices, green belt restrictions) and environmental regs. You can fix a lot of other issues like plaster and electrics (albeit costly) but you can’t fix these things really.

I agree that design is as important as the build. My area is predominantly ‘20s Arts and Crafts, some Art Deco and generally Metroland styles interspersed with Georgian, some Victorian and some much older.

The houses are well laid out, rooms in proportion to the building and typically with decent sized gardens. They are generally well built. The trend over the past 30 years has been to cram large numbers of “executive homes” onto small plots with tiny courtyard gardens, inadequate parking and too many en suite bedrooms. Its the layout and proportions of the rooms which makes them unattractive compared to the older houses which have less but much better rooms. Few people need four undersized en suite bedrooms with cupboard showers - three good sized rooms with 1-2 baths can be more flexible.

I’m not sure when this trend really took hold. I have friends living in 70s/80s houses which still have decent room layouts and plots, but overcrowding and over spec'ing certainly became common toward the end of that period.

1950's ex council bungalow. Bought fir retirement. Semi detatched.
Easy to heat and is cool in the summer.
We had new eletrics put when we bough (DS was an electrician).
Slight problem with damp on south facing wall which we havnt got to the bottom of, had roof looked at but thats all good.
Its a good layout although we did knock wall down between tiny kitchen and old sitting room.
It hss a pre exsisting one room extention which was a dining room but we use as the sitting room.

I completely agree with this. To me, a lot of these executive style homes feel really hemmed in, and are often very overlooked. Our garden is not huge (it’s medium sized) but we are not overlooked at all so you get a real feeling of space and calm out there. I also don’t understand why en suites have become so desirable - a large family bathroom and one other toilet / bathroom is enough for a family of four. We have a good sized bathroom, with a large separate shower, and a downstairs toilet. We will probably add another wet room to the property at some point for convenience. I certainly wouldn’t be sacrificing room size for extra bathrooms!

I have always had a Victorian or Edwardian house (1880s - 1914) and all have been very little problem to heat, decorate or maintain.

I wouldn't have a house built after 1960 at any price.

After spending some time repairing both, I would say modern houses are better.

Not because they last longer, but because they are much easier to repair/modify and also cheaper to do that.

They are also generally much warmer and things like electrics are up to a more recent standard (some electrics in older houses are horrifying, and horrifyingly expensive to fix).

You do find bodges on modern houses, but you also find them on older houses too.

And you are much less likely to find damp issues on modern houses.

And no abestos of course.

Idk really because if a 200 year old house is still habitable you know it's lasting that long. If a house was built two years ago you don't know so much how long it's going to last for?

I think a lot of social housing blocks built in the 50s and 60s were not meant to last until now? But I guess if you just keep replacing everything it's almost not the same building other than the foundations.

Both of my DC have recently bought their first homes, both are 1950s former council houses. Absolutely solid builds, easy to heat, good size rooms and a decent garden. The entire estates are now privately owned which is nice for first time buyers but not so good for the loss of social housing.

Not sure that anyone actually needs a house that will last 200 years though.

In modern houses I would say the house structures are mostly good. So the walls, DPC, beams, foundations etc. The things that tend to have a lighter finish are things like the floor boards, stud walls etc. But to strip them and and replace
them is easy.

@MynameisnotJohn did your surveyor not identify these problems?