BristolUK

Surprised to see nobody pick up on this as well as the other parts. I thought it was pretty much agreed that property here was much less....even 'comparable' brick v brick.

A couple of streets from here almost all the houses are made of brick. Their assessed values and asking prices when for sale don't suggest much of a price difference between those and the rest. I was quite surprised at that.

geedee

The house we sold in Scotland was built in the 1860's. All the wood (roof timbers, floor boards etc.) were original.

As for the value being in the land, that's not so around here (QC). Our municipal valuation values the house at over 10x the land, and it's a pretty big plot.

The house we rented was built mid-80's and was in good shape, although the shingles (roof tiles) were due replacing. That said, it's far cheaper to do that here than the equivalent job in the UK. I was really surprised how (relatively) cheap it was.

I was worried at first that houses here were "built with sticks", even the "brick" ones (which here consist of a brick siding only), but I'm getting used to the idea.... and agree that with regular maintenance, can last long enough to pass onto the kids.

ann m

My neighbour, who runs a framing business, will agree! He has categorically said he would not buy a home in Calgary that was built in 2005/06/07 and probably 2008 too. States many have been 'thrown' up in the rush
Not all, obviously, but many.

The large British building companies have predominantly switched to wooden framed houses anyway in the last 25 years - not much difference in construction in many ways - just the outer cladding. I don't like wooden hollow sounding walls much - but there is not the choice of solid walls here. Hey ho. But I still don't think my house is about to rot away

Judy in Calgary

Thanks, Kelly. I have found the Anyone Moved Back to the UK and regretted it? thread, as well as the relevant posts.

The poster in question lives in the Fraser Valley near Vancouver. The Vancouver area is very rainy.

JonboyE said:
JonboyE knows whereof he speaks. He lives in the same general area -- not in the same place as the poster whose posts we are discussing, but in the Greater Vancouver Area.

Rot, mould, etc., are indeed potential problems on the BC Coast.

The interesting thing is that, as other posters already have mentioned, older houses sometimes are in better shape than newer houses.

Prior to the 1970s, most buildings on the BC Coast had peaked roofs that facilitated the run off of rain water. Starting in the 1970s, flat-roofed styles, inspired by the architecture of Califorina, became popular. This did not cause an immediate problem. As long as houses were drafty, air and moisture could move in and out of them.

In the 1980s the government brought in regulations that required buildings to be better sealed and insulated than they had been in the past. They did not realise, when they did this, that they were creating a problem. Flat roofs that collected rain water, combined with well sealed buildings that did not allow moisture to escape, resulted in rot and mould.

The phenomenon was even given a name, Leaky Building Syndrome. Once the problem was identified and understood, owners of affected properties had to spend a lot of money on building remediation.

But the problem now is understood, and architects and builders know how to prevent it.

When you buy a house in Canada, it is very important to make the Offer to Purchase subject to a satisfactory building inspection. Some building inspectors are more competent than others. The Wiki article called House Inspection suggests a way of selecting an inspector. I highly recommend that you accompany the house inspector during the inspection, and use the Wiki article called House Inspection Checklist to satisfy yourself that the inspector is doing a proper inspection.

Most people would consider this to be over the top but, if it would make you more comfortable, make the Offer to Purchase subject to two separate inspections, and hire two different inspectors.

Vancouver has 100-year-old houses that do not suffer from Leaky Building Syndrome. If you buy a house on the BC Coast, get it inspected before you buy it and maintain it once you are living in it.

The same is true of any part of Canada, although other parts of the country may have other issues related to their own climates.
x

Homegrown

House Construction:

I've heard many concerns over the years about Canadian houses by Europeans regarding asphalt roof shingles. There is a very good reason
for using them and that is the freeze thaw cycles. Here in Nova Scotia we average 80 a year. In winter it will go below freezing at night and above during the day which along with the rain creates havoc with Terra cota tiles or slate.Typically quality ashphalt shingles will last for 25 years.

Wood frame construction has always been used here for several reasons.

1) It builds a warm, dry, solid house.
2) It's inexpensive relative to the alternatives.
3) With proper up-keep these houses last for centuries. In old colonial
towns like Halifax, Lunenburg, Liverpool, etc, there are hundreds of wood
frame buildings that date from the 1700's and stand as proud as the day
they were built. (St. Pauls Anglican in Halifax was built of wood in 1749)
4) The pioneers who founded NS during the mid 1700's came mainly from
New England, England, Southern Germany, and Switzerland where houses
were traditionally built of wood at that time. This along with the shipbuilding
tradition created a culture of constructing buildings with wood.
4) The local stone is granite and ironstone which is very hard and labour
intensive stuff to work. ( see line 2)
5) There were no local commercial clay deposits discovered until the mid
1800's so any brick used before that had to be imported. (see line 2)

Don't be afraid of a wood house. A properly built and maintained one will
outlive any one of us living today.

Regards,

MarkG

However, they probably weren't made from wood-chips stuck together with glue like new Canadian houses .

Our house is coming up to three years and seems fine; I don't think I'd want to buy anything newer here though, they're knocking them together in our area at a huge rate. I do sometimes wonder how long it will last, but given that similarly sized houses from the 70s currently cost at least as much I'm not convinced that a 30-year-old house would last any longer than a new one .

One thing I would add is that brick houses aren't maintenance-free either; I remember when my grandmother died my father had to do a lot of repairs to her house before he could sell it (if I remember correctly, one of the walls was in danger of collapsing, for example).

MB-Realtor

A modern house is expected to last 40 - 50 years, though several of the newest components have only been tested in the laboratory rather than by mother nature.

This "life" can be extended indefinatly by proper maintenance. You should allow 1% of the cost of your home each year for maintenance, this is a good rule of thumb amount.

A house built in 1990 will now, most probably need the roof shingles replacing (15 year life), the forced air furnace (10-25 years), Central Air (10-15 years), Hot water heater (5-15 years), etc.....

There should be no problems with a well maintained house of any age, as long as the worn components are replaced when it is economical to do so.

A house inspection is VERY important when buying any house, even a brand new one.

bazzz

He lives in White Rock! It's like a bloody desert compared to the rest of Metro Van. The smug, no-doubt perma-tanned bastard!

MB-Realtor

This is very true, composite "I" beams used in many new houses have replaced solid wood joists. They are wood chips and glue, though laboratory tested no one really knows how well they will stand-up to the rigors of the real world.

AlvicBC

Our house was built in 1905 and the old girl is going strong yet with no problems.....now I've probably cursed it for saying that.

JonboyE

I have to say that, having given up the pretense and shaved all my remaining hair off, the top of my head is now red and peeling.

Otherwise ...

Souvenir

Use a new razor blade next time.

MB-Realtor

Pre 1900 are invariably better built than todays homes. Though they often lack good insulation unless that has been recently up-graded.

I would much rather have an older home, stripped to the "bones" and then re-built than a brand new home (unless specified and supervised by myself).

iaink

Although plastics have been around (and will be around) long enough to think they will outlast an all wood alternative. Performance in a fire might not be as good thought...

Some people just dont like change / progress (whatever you want to call it).

MB-Realtor

I'm a great believer in progress, its just that I see an awful lot of crap workmanship and cheap materials & systems being used in new build homes.

I have become a tad jaded in my opinions of modern construction methods.