Dated Renovation

If both are battered, then neither is superior if replacement is necessary. If the current condition is one that a buyer is more likely to say "well, we can live with this for a few years until we feel like updating", then that is of value, and all things being equal, a newer reno would probably be preferred to a 1970s reno. Either an original interior or a reno'd one that is falling apart has equal value--none. One that is in great condition has more value. Can you be any more specific in your question?

I think it's safe to say that anything under 30 years old is not falling apart. I'd much rather have a dated 10 year old renovation (Granite counters and cherry cabinets) than some orange laminate from the 1970s. I think the same goes for 99% of the population.

>>I think it's safe to say that anything under 30 years old is not falling apart.<<

Think again. I've seen 5-yr-old renos that look shabby, outre, and in desperate need of updating. A lot of that depends on wear and tear--a family with lots of kids, dogs, cats, etc will probably do more damage than a couple of empty-nesters.

Also, there is the question of style--if the 10-yr-old reno includes brazil cherry veneered floors, black pearl granite and bathrooms brimming with tavertine tile then that is a definite negative. If, though, the job was done in a classic style using classic materials the shelf life will definitely be longer.

Mirrored dining room, white pickled floors, matching speckledgranite counters and floors in kitchen

Also have to look at the bones of the place. Tastes always change. You have to make sure there's something to work with.

Confronting a similar problem with a "sponsor special" renovation in an apartment we are looking at. Plain granite everywhere in the kitchen (counter and backsplash), simple tile covering the whole bathroom (floor and walls all the same with no ornamentation), etc. As much as everything is "new" we also realize that it's going to look really junky when we go to resell.

>>Confronting a similar problem with a "sponsor special" renovation in an apartment we are looking at. <<

Sponsor renos generally suck. When I was looking to buy I always preferred to see estate properties in original condition--after all, who wants to pay for crap finishes you're just going to have to rip out anyway?

Exactly. Though in fairness I've seen a few sponsor apartments with very nice renovations (check out 41 w 82st). Maybe I'm just a pickier buyer but it seems to me that the marginal benefit to doing a nicer job would outweigh the cost, since the renovation is happening anyway.

There is some value to a move-in condition apartment, even if it's not to your taste. Gives you time to save for a renovation and #1 - you can move in right away.

If you have to sell a reno that is dated, do the best you can to stage. I would take most of the stuff out, except for furniture. Paint, scrub, paint, scrub. Repair anything that jumps out at you - mildewy caulk, broken doors.

interesting point about the renovation.
When considering this factor wrt to price how does one figure it in?
Example is a 1500 sqft 2 bedroom in need of total updating due to the fact that the last update was 30yrs.+.
You can't deduct the actual cost of the renovation because it includes personal taste and elements of upgrades.
Would you consider the cost of a 'sponser' like upgrade where everything is new but basement quality?
Would you say a basic reno costs X per square foot on avarage and just deduct that in yiur price consideration?

X=?

whatever the case, inevitable renovation expense is never included in the "cheaper to own" scenarios; all of which call for owning for a good number of years in order to offset transaction costs

bascially, live in a freshly gut renovated place for 10 years (certainly if you live with family), attempt to sell said apt, and buyers will price it with a discount for a full gut (and maybe more, given the misery of being the owner during the gut)

I'd rather have a dated but quality renovation than a new but cheap renovation. IKEA kitchens and laminate floors were big red flags for me, as was any building material I recognized as being in stock at the local Home Depot. When a cheap apartment costs $500k-$1mm, poor finishes are inexcusable.

Sorry, but even the cheapest new renovations are fairly bulletproof, and look nearly perfect after 10 years. The shittiest renovation (Home Depot and laminate floors) look 100x better than some dayglo 1970s eyesore, and it more than sturdy for your needs.