Old houses in the US come with a lot of costs. They're usually poorly insulated, need to be brought up to code when renovations are performed, can have electrical and plumbing systems that need to be replaced in their entirety, and sometimes are just hard to insure in general (insurers can cancel your homeowners policy on any home in Florida over 40 years old at their discretion when your policy comes up for renewal). House has lead and asbestos? Remediation can be costly depending on your jurisdiction's requirements. This is less of a concern in highly desirable areas, as well to do buyers will buy for the land alone, demolish the property, and build new.

Disclosure: I renovate homes as a hobby, and occasionally demo those beyond repair. Most recent project was an older duplex in Naperville, IL torn down to replace with a modern three flat.

'Old' houses in the US are different than old houses in the UK. Old in the US usually means 1930s/40s/50s and the majority of that housing stock was poorly constructed leading to the problems that @toomuchtodo alluded to. In the few places where we truly have old houses (19th century) - the North East and central parts of some cities - they do, usually, command a premium.

Usually when I've seen 19th century homes for sale at premium prices, it's because they're of a desirable architecture in old-money neighborhoods and have been well maintained for their entire existence. I think it might be a bit of a survivorship bias.

Look at the HVAC system (typically boilers/hydronics of various vintages). If they're in good shape, it's likely the rest of the home as been similarly kept up, as that's one of the more expensive systems in such a home to keep in working order.

I think that's mainly only known to savvy people, other that perhaps general stuff about energy efficiency, which can go both ways in terms of gas versus electric or whatever. All things being equal in terms of cost, the average person still prefers the modern architecture of big kitchens, big windows, master bathrooms, walk-in closets, etc. It helps to sell your house if you add these things.

Is this the case outside of London?

Prices for older homes in more historic cities are high, even in the USA. But that's because commuting in Boston or DC is a fucking nightmare and most new development is occurring pretty far from the city centers. (though, not nearly to the degree of London)

When you get to places like Nashville, it's still possible to build a new home 15 minutes from downtown. Plus, fly-over cities tend to have satellite "office districts"* in the suburbs. So there's really no benefit to dealing with an older house, so, unless they are particularly charming, old homes come at relative discounts to new ones.

* Basically a town, usually off of a major highway, that is made up entirely of large office complexes designed for commuting by car from nearby suburbia.

It is the case everywhere in the UK. Old mill towns in the North, especially the Peak District, have housing made from granite, a lot of these were built during the height of the industrial revolution, they're absolute tanks compared to modern flat packs.

Erm, the characteristic stone in the Peak District is sandstone, but yes. My last house was built in the 1760s and I describe it as the heaviest object I have ever owned.

Yeah you're right, this is the characteristic rock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gritstone

Aberdeen is somewhere in The North ;-)

> Is this the case outside of London?

My impression in the UK is buying a new house is something you do when you start out if you can't afford an old house yet.

Here are some considerations:

- Modern homes tend to have large kitchens, bathrooms, and bedrooms, and open common areas. People may prefer this over the misc-rooms approach that's more common in older places.

- Old homes in the US may not have 3-pronged outlets

- Old homes may have faucets that don't stick out far enough to get your hands under. Ones in the UK may have separate faucets for hot and cold. (Is the intent to fill the basin? Rapidly move your hands between the two?) You're more likely to have touchy shower temp controls

The intent is to fill the basin.

The intent is not to die of waterborne infection.

What's the risk of that? Never heard of that happening to anyone in my experience of living my whole life the USA with single faucet sinks.

Short video by Tom Scott on the subject for those interested.

https://youtu.be/HfHgUu_8KgA

tldw; Older homes in the UK had a water storage tank in the roof space that fed the water heating tank. This couldn't be classified as drinking water so wasn't allowed to be combined with the safe mains water that fed the cold tap. These days modern houses mostly use combi-boilers with no storage tank, so mostly both hot and cold are drinkable and it's not an issue. But preferences still lean towards the separate taps.

That may be a perk of having had an aristocratic ruling class, the first industrial revolution, and global empire (not being sarcastic- I'm a big Hidden Houses of Wales fan, would love to renovate an old castle). The UK was historically wealthy and has amazing old houses. In the US every decade has had significantly better housing stock with increasing standards of living, so its much less appealing to get an older house in 95% of the country. Especially anything 40s - 70s you get smallish rooms, low ceilings and questionable "vintage" building practices like I'm dealing with now (aluminum wiring, poor insulation, etc).

Polybutylene piping, asbestos and lead paint everywhere, ungrounded electrical outlets, leaky doors and windows...

Americans build shoddy wooden shacks that barely last a generation, you have to remember.

Non-American homes are all well built estates that last for a thousand years and need no improvements. Asia and Africa are full of particularly well built estates.

Seriously...All homes must be maintained or they will deteriorate.

America has ready access to a building material that many of these places don't: softwood. Softwood really just does not cut it if you're trying to build something that lasts hundreds to thousands of years. So they don't build for that.

Yeah and higher ceilings, bigger windows, nice wooden floors, ornate decorations etc. Turn of the century apartments are the nicest and most expensive.

I've heard that usually the price of the land goes up faster than the price of the building goes down.

But I guess if the building is unique or listed or has high enough build quality that it won't be knocked down in the foreseeable future, then maybe the building's price goes up to.

You've heard correct because the building is depreciating/deteriorating about as fast as it's nominal $ value is inflating, so it's about a wash and the nominal $ stays flat long term. But the land is scarce and appreciates along with inflation AND productive use of housing. (peoples' same inflation-adjusted consumption of housing ends up using less and less land, like condos, and so the land appreciates even faster than inflation until population growth stalls.)

A house in the US that's still standing from the period 1870 to 1950 probably:

- is balloon-framed

- has zero insulation

- might have knob and tube wiring kicking around

- probably has a dirt basement

- will be an absolute bitch to bring up to modern building codes if you want to do anything to it.

- has coats and coats of lead paint

- has asbestos everywhere

Things you're much more likely to get in a new house:

* Central A/C

* Fire safety (can't put a price on your family's safety)

* Attached garages

* High ceilings

* High capacity electrical circuits (Victorian homes weren't built for modern gadgets)

* Swimming pools

* More bathrooms

* Larger windows

* Better insulation

* Tighter seals to stop bugs and pests creeping in

* Better lighting

Most older properties in the UK have walls made of solid stone - which is pretty resilient in a fire.

Also, at least where I live, it hardly ever gets above 25C and if your house has thick solid stone walls the inside doesn't get too warm so no real need for AC either.

Edit: I'm 55 - I've never lived in a property that wasn't at least 100 years old and some were closer to 300 years old.

Edit: I would agree that heating in some older properties can be a challenge, but my parents told my that having to chip ice out of the bath before getting washed was character building.... ;-)

If the house even still exists and is in a desirable part of town in a desirable city, then yes it will certainly commend a premium. Though often as much for its location as for any other reason.

But consider also that in 1900, the population of the US was less than a quarter of what it is now, and also that the number of people per household is much less. Also, a lot (probably most) houses that existed in 1900 don't even exist any more. So in reality there are relatively few houses that old that are still available today.

People do pay a premium for older houses in the US, but only when they are located in a desirable location, which they often are.

Ab old house in the middle of nowhere, no matter how "well built" isn't going to command such a premium.

I assume this is because in the UK old houses don't have proper HVAC and neither do new ones. In the U.S., at least the new ones do.