hi, are 1960 stucco houses ok, watertight?
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | hi looking at buying one , just wondering can they have issues ? Im a painter and if successful will use elsatomeric paint on it , but it was built 60 years ago so if prone to leaking the damage would have already been done , just looking for advice and opinions on what they are like , thankyou :) daz1968 - 2021-02-19 07:07:00 |
| 2 | We looked at buying one a few years ago. I liked the look (was painted a dark grey) and at the open home thought it would be fine, but we paid for an inspection and made the offer conditional on the usual checks. Was an eye opener. Owners had done renovations and upgraded/replaced some windows which had been done badly so water was getting into the walls. Wooden frame was treated timber so not as bad as early 2000s leaky buildings.. but not good. Bunch of stuff came up.. all fixable but enough red flags (including house footprint not matching council drawings due to new/changed decks) that we walked away. gblack - 2021-02-19 07:45:00 |
| 3 | Anything of that age is reaching its use-by date and will need some serious maintenance in the next few years. masturbidder - 2021-02-19 08:12:00 |
| 4 | my experience of owning 2 was ok, cracks easily fixed and painted over, but both places had decent eaves, the only problems with moisture was because there was no insulation, and current one had a leaking roof for years (fixed now). sossie1 - 2021-02-19 08:22:00 |
| 5 | masturbidder wrote:
That depends on what maintenance has been done. Leaky homes are more of a 1990s and early 2000s problem than 1960s. All homes have the potential to have weather tightness issues. A builder’s inspection by a suitably qualified builder is recommended. Edited by committed at 10:30 am, Fri 19 Feb committed - 2021-02-19 10:29:00 |
| 6 | All the 60's houses in my area are stucco over brick or block which will be no different to buying a non stucco brick/block house. The late 50's house I grew up in though, was stucco over fibre cement board. nzmax - 2021-02-19 16:47:00 |
| 7 | gblack wrote:
Why on earth would that be a red flag? Mostly deck extensions/changes etc. don't require the intervention of council. tony9 - 2021-02-19 20:24:00 |
| 8 | tony9 wrote:
This was a few years ago and don't have report in front of me, but from memory the issue was the deck was several different heights (nicely stepped down with built in lights and pagoda so it looked good). If the deck is under some height (1m?) Then it was Ok, but anything over some height was supposed to have council approval. Basically the council plan showed the outline of the house didn't match the most recent aerial photographs or the building inspection. Most of this was a carport that had been added on, a small standalone shed and the deck which at least in part needed consent. Parts had also been built upto the neighbours boundary so may have also been an issue. All fixable; I figured worse case we could have just dismantled anything that was not right and got consents but the place no longer seemed like an easy bargain and getting finance approved was going to be harder. Luckily after seeing the building report, we went back to another house which we had seen earlier and really liked, but had assumed we could not afford. Managed to pick up the nicer place at auction after quick scramble to get finance sorted. The place we brought literally doubled in value within a couple of years so all worked out well. gblack - 2021-02-20 09:53:00 |
| 9 | @8 Small standalone sheds don't necessarily need council approval. shanreagh - 2021-02-20 11:04:00 |
| 10 | I would rest easier with a 60's stucco house than a 90's early 2000's stucco home. hll1974 - 2021-02-20 19:10:00 |
| 11 | The 1950s saw some really solid homes built and I defy anyone to say our weatherboard home is past use by date. It is a solid as any heart native timber house can be and surprisingly the weather boards have 'treated' stamped on the back, so no rotting at all. bryshaw - 2021-02-20 21:09:00 |
| 12 | bryshaw wrote:
but on the other side of the coin is they are cold inefficient pigs of houses. everyone complains about high price of electricity and fuel, yet build inefficient houses that cost a lot to heat and cool. its friggen weird. tweake - 2021-02-21 12:40:00 |
| 13 | Our family home was a 60s stucco house, never leaked, was dry as a bone. We now have a polystyrene cavity clad house, built in 2009 and it is dry as a bone as well. A big improvement on the houses built in the late 90s, early 2000s. rak1 - 2021-02-25 11:34:00 |
| 14 | I live in a stucco home on a reasonable section and have always loved the look of them. The biggest disadvantage they have is that they are difficult to insulate well. Mine has a lot of character partly from being renovated inside and extended. If the roof is flat that may also present difficulties. But I still love it and with the right heating can be warm enough in winter and definitely cooler in summer. Originally they didn't have double glazing but can be retrofitted though we chose not to. Definitely pluses and minuses and may depend on what is important to you in a home. I really dislike plastic fantastics and the crowdedness of modern estates and subdivisions. That may not matter to others and even be a plus if you have children and want close community and less expensive smart modern kitchens etc even if they dont last so long. hesian - 2021-02-26 16:18:00 |
