> Ask a Question > Fix It Forum > "Old" necessarily bad?
Login | Register

"Old" necessarily bad?

Posted by Bob on June 5th, 1998 01:48 PM

My wife & I are, well, I'm more worried. We have been house hunting our selected areas for 5-6 months, so we feel we know what's reasonable and what's not. Long story short, we found a place in a historic-like area (just so this is not the only one), happens to be 110 years old. House maintenance was not done throughout the years, as a result, it's not in the best shape. Our offer was accepted and, so far, I feel we are not over paying (area, etc DO count for a lot of this). We pretty much think we know what we're up against... in terms of $$ in to fix, update, but electrical is done, as is water supply throughout... roof and drains are my biggest concern. The roof is plain gonna cost to rip off and replace. The drains scare me a bit as we already know the septic tank is either not draining into the street sewer and soaking into the ground, or is draining, but VERY slowly. Can't do a rodding or more than a peer into the hole (seller is being more than a bit of a jerk!). Almost willing to accept this as a could be $200 rod job, at worst, could be a $2k ugly job. Is the mere fact that this pace is old necessarily mean it's maybe bad? Back then, I'm sure code didn't specify lumber sizes for roof members, etc... I don't want to do a total home gut and re-do, just fix, update, and keep in good repair. Anyone have any thoughts that I should bale or get a good night's sleep?

Was this post helpful? Yes: or No:

Topic Follow-ups:

About  | FAQ  | Contact  | Sitemap  | Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use  | Help

© 2016 Renovate Your World LLC