New Construction vs Old Construction

You pretty much nailed it.

Yesteryear's construction was done with better quality materials by skilled artisans.

Today's construction is crap slapped together largely by unskilled illegals who are rushed through the project by contractors with absurd timetables.

prefer new.. every "old" apartment i've had i could hear my upstairs neighbors footsteps/dropping things/etc to an extent even when rugged and that green glue stuff doesn't help much... makes you insane after a while. of course you can strip entire floor board but most LL's wouldn't bother and dyi = $$$$$

energy costs through the roof in "old." Can hear nearby breathing in "old." WD in basement (or across the street) in "old."

Lower bills, quiet, W/D in-unit, bigger windows = better to me.

in new construction you cant hear your neighbors ?? really ? It must be that super dense drywall used between apartments.

better for maintenance = old
better for quality of life = new
cost s#*%&tload to redo the illegals' work = new

i am seeing rusted out balconies on places that are less then 10 yrs old. then look at stuff from the 60's and it's still there.

with the expiration of the tax abatement and the cost of repairs, you'll see what will happen in 5-10 yrs. all new will be worth much less then old.

The real question is, why were you walking around Newark and how did you live to describe it???

My unit is all but soundproof, and built in 2009. My neighbors BLAST hip-hop at Saturn Rocket levels, and once I close my door I don't hear it. I can't hear cars outside through the double paned windows.

Maybe not all places, but a LOT quieter than the various pre-war places I have lived.

I never hear my neighbors, and they claim they never hear our kids in our +100-year-old bldg. I can't even hear the kids if we're in our BR and they're in theirs.

The old buildings built for luxury seem to be quieter than the converted brownstones and tenement buildings. They do vary. The post war buildings with the new windows are an improvement. I don't think it is old vs new, it seems to depend on each specific building imo.

in New I can't hear anyone around me at all, nor the traffic. electrical is new, pipes are new, boilers are new maintenance lower. in Old maintenance is much higher - don't believe the monthlies, there are assesments all the time.

I have worked in many of each. Newer construction pales into comparison to older buildings. I cannot believe have many calls I get from people who purchased a brand new apartment and two years later need a lot of work done. It is a shame. There are some new conversions that are made well but most not so much

"I have worked in many of each. Newer construction pales into comparison to older buildings. I cannot believe have many calls I get from people who purchased a brand new apartment and two years later need a lot of work done. It is a shame."

Exactly.

And if the workmanship on the "finishes" like floors and cabinets is shoddy, I worry about how shoddily the more important stuff (structural) was done.

"I never hear my neighbors, and they claim they never hear our kids in our 100-year-old bldg. I can't even hear the kids if we're in our BR and they're in theirs."

Exactly as in my building.

Ours is solid masonary 6" walls, ceilings, even interior walls. It's a bitch to hang a picture, but it's completely quiet. We also have double pane windows.

Of course there's no central A/C, window units blast away all summer, so it's NOT quiet then.

And when the radiator bangs in the winter, it's not quiet then. But it is blessedly warm for free.

Life is full of trade-offs.

I don't like modern, because most of them are just vanilla shoe-boxes that could be in Boise. Pre-War feels more like NY to me.

Somebody que Bownstoner to do a "pre-war versus new" article.

If the radiator is banging, then there is air trapped in the system. Get a radiator key and bleed the system, or have your landlord/superintendent do it

I think a lot of the comparisons are slanted.

There is plenty bad both old and new, and plenty good.

First off, a lot of the old construction that survived survived did so because it was the better construction. But I've been in plenty of tenement walkups that have noise issues on top of the "Everything is old" factor.

Yes, lots of crap new, because it is easier to do. Ship stuff in from China. Build it quick. You get what you pay for.

But great new is great. I've been in buildings built in the last few years where it is nearly impossible to hear neighbors unless they are specifically banging on your wall. And the newer amenities can be fantastic, and even renovations won't get them in old buildings. The massive walls of windows (and ones that work very well), the layouts suited for modern living, the upgraded appliances that fit right in.

Yes, I did old prewar charm. But there is a lot to like about good new stuff.

So, it boils down to this... if you have the money to not have to buy the bottom of the barrel... you can certainly make a good case for new... and you can make the case for "charm" of the prewar.

> Newer construction pales into comparison to older buildings

Again, folks cherry picking examples. My apartment quality is light years ahead of my old building. Part of that is, I'm in a $$$ new building, and I used to be in a crappy old building. There are versions of good and bad in old and new.

Its the folks who try to skimp and buy cheap new apartments and expect them to be just like $$$ good apartments.

If you think new apartments are all like that, you've only been in the cheap ones...

How about conversions? Is that the best of both worlds with prewar build but advantages of modern constructions?

Somewhereelse,

I would love to know which building you moved into. I have had to rip out bathrooms and complete wood floors in apartments that were much more than 1 million dollars. I am not talking about inexpensive buildings I am talking about very expensive buildings. Perhaps the other building you were in was not built well but I see it everyday and the newer buildings are not made as well.

Matsui,

It is not the best of both worlds, same problems as the new buildings

There is no comparison between old and new. Walk on Riverside Drive and then go look at the Trump buildings on Riverside boulevard. The buildings on RSD are works of art designed by architects whose goal was not the financial bottom line, but was to build something beautiful that would stand the test of time, and they succeeded. As far as inside, I have seen walls torn down to combo apts and they are plaster over cinder block (I am speaking about buildings built before 1920). The buildings built between 1920 and 1941 might be the same, but I do not have any first hand knowledge.Yes, the new are more efficient as far as energy but for me, it is not something I consider. Now I have never been inside 15CPW and I am sure that it is extremely well built and stunning inside but it is the exception.
Tommy2Tone, I assume you are looking at Newark for investment purposes and not to live there. If you are considering moving there, look at a section of Newark called Forest Hill where there are absolutely amazing old homes, 5,000 sqf at less than 175 a foot.Amazing.

"I would love to know which building you moved into. I have had to rip out bathrooms and complete wood floors in apartments that were much more than 1 million dollars. I am not talking about inexpensive buildings I am talking about very expensive buildings."

Sorry, but in NYC $1 million is not "very expensive."

If you're paying only a million, expect shoddy workmanship. You can expect quality only when you start paying EIGHT figures.

I think somewhereelse has it right. There are good and bad examples in both "new" and "old" construction. However, it seems that all of the major horror stories that you hear about these days are new developments that endlessly cut corners. Developers that you've never heard of, that you probably won't hear of again, have little to lose in the long run. They build as cheaply as possible then are long gone by the time that the problems start creeping up a few years after completion. Even these boards have a bunch of these kinds of stories, the same you find in other publications. That's not to say that "old" buildings don't have their share of problems, but it's usually because the building hasn't been well-maintained rather than poor quality construction. Generally speaking, older buildings seem to be better built. As a buyer, I'd rather buy into a building that's stood the test of time rather than a "new" building that's a big question mark.

New Construction is better over-all. Technology and standards have improved. Those worshiping at the alter of Pre-war are focusing on a few select high end well maintained buildings and even those have issues. Remember these buildings are now 70,80 ,90 or 100 years old. You can always point to a bad builder but if you were to provide a quality builder a choice between today's materials vs yesterday's the choice is obvious.

needsadvice >>>And when the radiator bangs in the winter, it's not quiet then. But it is blessedly warm for free.

Nothing in America is free. You are still paying in one way or another. I presume you dont pay any maintenance charges?

Radiators work because a furnace is being heated by oil ,gas or coal producing heat, and odds are if it's an old building that heat is not being produced efficiently or economically, so not only is it not free it drives up the cost of maintenance.

There is a third category "post war pre 2000". You get ugly exterior, low ceilings, and shoddy construction.

New construction post 2000 tends to have higher ceilings but some of the exteriors are already looking out of place - if you like them at all. Construction quality is uneven.

Most pre-wars need to have been updated for plumbing and electrical. Bathrooms are smallish and can be expanded in many cases. With these updates, they are great due to high ceilings and generally beautiful exteriors. Then their is survival bias - any bad ones probably got torn down already.

I have to agree on post ~2000 construction. Seems the standards hit the lowest in the between 1950s-1970's. As far as pre WW II. Those updated bathrooms are basically optics, look behind the walls and there's a different story. A building is a lot like a ship that doesn't move, and there aren't many pre WWII vessels that are still sea-worthy. There's a foundation, roof, boiler, plumbing etc that in all likelihood is in some state of disrepair. Oh and if you have gargoyles or some special exterior, while nice to look at can be expensive to maintain.

--How about conversions? Is that the best of both worlds with prewar build but advantages of modern constructions?--

All the conversions I've seen have basically kept the shell of the building but ripped out everything else, rebuilding the insides with the same shoddy crap found in most new construction. Think paper-thin walls, junky veneered floors, zero 'old world charm'.

Also, new construction buildings tend to have problems with 'sick building syndrome'. Thanks, but I'll stick with prewar.

I don't know.

Again, right in this forum, I keep hearing complaints and horror stories about "luxury" high-rise buildings that went up post-2001. And these are $1M+ apartments.

Apparently you need to spend $10M+ to get the same quality of workmanship as you get in prewar.

Not exactly. More that in the last few years of the bubble we saw builders with little experience or pride in product. Most of these were the last to get started and completed.

You cannot compare brownstones that have been divided to prewar buildings that were built as multiple dwellings. The former were built for single family use and soundproofing was not much of a concern between rooms. They just were not intended to have several families crammed inside.

The old buildings that were specifically constructed with multiple use in mind have exceptional soundproofing--thick, solid brick/concrete walls and floors. New construction pales in comparison to solidly-built prewar with regards to soundproofing--gypsum and sheet-rock simply don't get the job done. So yeah, you'll hear your neighbors sneeze, cough, and flush toilets.

Squid >>All the conversions I've seen have basically kept the shell of the building but ripped out everything else, rebuilding the insides with the same shoddy crap found in most new construction.

Surely they didnt rip out the ceilings too?

this person is talking about multi-family homes in Newark

Everyone is right!

There are great, well-built old buildings. Classic pre-war co-ops tend to be pretty sturdy. Then again, they also tend to be old.... and have all the problems that can go with that. If you don't know what I mean, think 2 inch fresh water pipes filled with the sludge-of-the-ages, so that the drinking water flows through an opening only 1/2 inch wide...all the plumbing needs to be replaced (top 5th ave coop, current issue). And some are just falling down.

On the other hand, many (not all) new builds are terrible, or have major issues. I live in a high-end new conversion, where the sponsor set out to do a terrific job. But we are plagued with major leaks, and numerous smaller issues due to poor design and construction. We are in litigation with the sponsor. This is not uncommon.

As ever, do your own careful research into the building, BEFORE you make your illiquid, highly-leveraged, single-asset-class, portfolio-concentrating, high-fee, bet on New York City real estate.

"You cannot compare brownstones that have been divided to prewar buildings that were built as multiple dwellings. The former were built for single family use and soundproofing was not much of a concern between rooms. They just were not intended to have several families crammed inside.

The old buildings that were specifically constructed with multiple use in mind have exceptional soundproofing--thick, solid brick/concrete walls and floors. New construction pales in comparison to solidly-built prewar with regards to soundproofing--gypsum and sheet-rock simply don't get the job done. So yeah, you'll hear your neighbors sneeze, cough, and flush toilets."

****

BINGO!!!

I've lived in both -- brownstone apartments and prewar co-op buildings -- and this is absolutely right. I could hear normal-volume conversations that my upstairs and downstairs neighbors were having all the time in the brownstone. But the co-op is as quiet as a tomb.

Nycmatt,

I wrote much more then 1 million not a million. I am talking about 2.5 and more.

"I think somewhereelse has it right. There are good and bad examples in both "new" and "old" construction. However, it seems that all of the major horror stories that you hear about these days are new developments that endlessly cut corners. Developers that you've never heard of, that you probably won't hear of again, have little to lose in the long run. They build as cheaply as possible then are long gone by the time that the problems start creeping up a few years after completion. Even these boards have a bunch of these kinds of stories, the same you find in other publications. That's not to say that "old" buildings don't have their share of problems, but it's usually because the building hasn't been well-maintained rather than poor quality construction. Generally speaking, older buildings seem to be better built. As a buyer, I'd rather buy into a building that's stood the test of time rather than a "new" building that's a big question mark."

Well said...

We went through some building booms, and lots of folks when cheap. But good construction is good construction.

Except for the one part...

"Generally speaking, older buildings seem to be better built"

I think we forget about the old buildings that didn't last the test of time... so you have an unfair sample. And we also forget what cheap old construction looks like. Still lots of awful walk up row houses uptown. Think of the 4-5 story ones on Lex in the 60s.

Many were knocked down to build better buildings...

"I think we forget about the old buildings that didn't last the test of time... so you have an unfair sample. And we also forget what cheap old construction looks like. Still lots of awful walk up row houses uptown. Think of the 4-5 story ones on Lex in the 60s."

Or just about everything in Williamsburg.

"
Bill7284
The old buildings built for luxury seem to be quieter than the converted brownstones and tenement buildings"

That.

And I agree that 15 CPW or the TWC are probably nicer than 99.99% of old construction buildings in Manhattan, and just about any 100+ YO tenement in Hells Kitchen is worse than 95% of new condos in Harlem or Williamsburg or LIC.

jason10006; I couldn't agree more. That is why my two preferences now are Edwardian buildings complete with the timeless features and the floor to ceiling windowed exposed kitchen layouts. Diverse, I know.

I do think my converted 1911 office building to rental was sturdier than my hell's kitchen walk ups or my harlem brownstone, foh shoh.

I like open kitchens no matter when the building was built. I always, and in all cases, hate clutered multi-room pre-war layouts. The fewer common rooms the better, for my taste. I would take a 750 SF "great room" over 750 SF divided btw LR, DR, Kitchen, and breakfast nook.

I think the key is finding a space (regardless of age) that the architect and builder cared about. All three incarnations of the building I live in -- the 19th century version, the 1970 rehab, and now the 2011 renovation/expansion of our unit -- were done by notable architects and good builders. I feel like there are pluses and minuses of each era, but all three have integrity.

The pre-war construction is definitely a plus. In our unit, you can hear and feel (especially in winter) where the 19th c. brick structure ends and the 1970 cinder block structure begins. Our bed is up against a cinder block wall (drywall on top of cinder block with no exterior coating) that extends past the neighboring building, and it is FREEZING in winter.

The plus of 70s construction is true central air and electric/plumbing that easily supports washers and dryers..... but the all-electric apartment idea was maybe not the best, though it does make building insurance considerably cheaper. We fortunately ended up with parquet floors where each piece is tongue and groove and not the typical awful fake floors of the 70s.

The plus of current 2011 construction is the energy efficiency. My god, the level of insulation we had to have in our addition -- and the required R values of the windows and doors we put in -- were almost insane, but result in a near-hermetic seal. We really needed to be careful when selecting materials, though. There's a lot of crap out there.

jeremyfg >>. I live in a high-end new conversion, where the sponsor set out to do a terrific job. But we are plagued with major leaks, and numerous smaller issues due to poor design and construction. We are in litigation with the sponsor.

Are you at 1200 Fifth Avenue? That was certainly one example of a conversion not being best of both worlds and there were numerous issues and the buyers are suing the sponsors.