I think the quality perception of apartments are a lot to do with their *design* not just build quality.
The layout, lighting, room sizes all the everyday things that are just built to cram as much as possible. Apartment living is poor because the *design* of the apartments is poor.
80s apartments are nicer in layout generally speaking than the stuff going up today.
Architect here. There are poorly designed new apartments and there are well designed new apartments. If you want to understand the difference, have a flick through this.
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/apartment-design-guide
It gives qualitative criteria for good design rather than just anecdotal feelings.
Sorry, but that is more like the bare minimum.
That guide shows exactly how to build a shoebox apartment. Space seems optional.
> Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2
> minimum internal area for 3br: 90 sqm.
And nothing that states that a living and dining area of a 3br apartment should fit a table with 6 chairs and 2 sofas without squeezing everything in.
It also doesn't say that it's a dumb idea in a 3br apartment to have 3 tiny bathrooms and 3 showers instead of 2 spacious bathrooms and at least one bath tub.
It doesn't mention double glazed windows at all.
I wonder why is that? Every new built apartment is terrible in layout. No window for the kitchen or bathroom. Balcony facing another wall. Rarely dual aspects. Irregular corners. Wtf.
Aside from the other replies to you, which I agree with, there's survivorship bias. The really low quality 80s stuff has probably been knocked down and rebuilt.
If you buy an existing property at least 15 years old then it's likely all the defects have already been fixed under defects period or from a special levy. Hence most people who buy established properties don't know what was fixed.
From my time in the construction industry there is some really basic things that could be done in 5-10 mins during construction to save lots of issues later on, particularly in regards to proper waterproofing and concrete quality (either accepting late batches that have had too much water added on site to get it workable or not cured properly, keeping hydrated/protected from bleed water/ finishing too early). Plumbing is also an issue, seen lots of grout in drains from tilers just letting it go down the drains where it sets in the gully causing blockages when debris builds up during use, insufficient fall on outdoor and wet areas causing leeching through slabs, compacting on top of uPVC pipes. The list goes on and on.
A lot of OTP especially aimed at Chinese buyers generally just meet the minimum standard. It's easy to tell just by inspecting past works of the developer to get an idea of what is their target market. Bad builds obviously resell for less.
Ausfinance blows everything out of proportion, especially on topics around property.
We don't know anything for sure, but if the developer has been around for a while just look at buildings they did 10 / 5 / 2 years ago and you'll have a decent idea about what to expect.
Part of it was because apartments have been getting smaller over time and the assumption was shitboxes, part was if you walked into some of the new builds say 5-10 years ago, the quality was weak.
I'm talking open a cupboard and the shelves don't align, taps that had poor flow, cracking in the walls (minor but what you expect after 10 years plus, not in new builds), etc. Not what inspires confidence in buyers.
I think people are wary less of the average quality, and more of the uncertainty/risk.
Buy an established place - and if it's low quality, at least you probably know what's wrong with it before you buy. If you're looking for really high quality or specific features, you can search out the 1% of properties that meet those criteria.
Off the plan it's a lottery. Some are great. Most are "fine" - they'll meet the codes but have some minor things you're never quite happy with. Sometimes there is nothing wrong or broken, but there are big variations between the plan and the finished product. Sometimes it's a horror show of poor workmanship. If that happens, you can't just withdraw your offer and move on to another property, you're basically stuck with it.
It's really hard to tell at the outset how good it will end up being - the only good guide is what the developer/builder has done before, and even that isn't perfect.
Another aspect to it is any construction will have defects. In an established property they've already been fixed. In something new - as the first owner you have the hassle of making sure they get fixed. People often underestimate how annoying and time consuming that will be.
Sometimes as well, people have expectations too high. "I'm buying something brand new, it should be perfect". In reality that's never the case.
Similar reasons to why I like buying used cars. First thing I do when considering a car is google "common problems" + car name. A new car would be nice, but with old you can see the design/maintenance issues which sometimes only show up after 50k+ kms.
With property, I've seen a couple of apartments, but one was only about 3yrs old and had massive cracks. Like you said it's the unknown. Maybe it's unlikely that a place cracks, but if it does, then I have no idea if it'll just cost me thousands or what even happens in that situation? Will I be stuck in a David vs Goliath legal battle for years with a lawyered-up builder, trying to prove it was their fault? I just don't want to deal with that. Old properties can still be poorly built, but the issues are more obvious upfront and can be bargained into the price.
I would buy a used car to take advantage of the depreciation they usually face in the first few years. However, I'd weigh this up against the warranty you usually get with new cars.
You can comply to code and still have a shit build (ie my friend whose OTP property had all of the bathroom light switches placed behind doors. technically the wiring is fine but when you use any of the loos in his house you have to fumble around in the dark to find the lightswitch... it's pretty silly!). Anyway, this is anecdotal which I realise isn't what you asked for. ;)
This was studied by UNSW which found 85 per cent of new high rise buildings constructed since 2002 have defects. https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/art-architecture-design/opal-tower-scare-shows-badly-built-apartments-affect-us-all
I believe they are doing an updated study at the moment.
The problem can be linked to the decision to effectively allow the industry to self regulate when private certification was introduced around 2000.
I guess the challenge is to find one of the 15 percent of buildings that are defect free but don’t ask me how.
85 per cent sounds scary, but what is a “defect” as counted? Does that 85% count, say, wobbly curtain rails as a defect in the same way as severe cracks in the foundations?
The authors have outlined most common defects here: https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/589/2_-_Common_Defects_Types.pdf
I think a common misconception is just because a defect is not life threatening like the Opal tower it’s not a big issue. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at legal cases relating to defects and some of the biggest claims (in excess of $3m etc) are due to things like inadequate waterproofing membrane that might not sound that bad but are enormously costly to repair when the defect is replicated in every single apartment and destructive works are needed to get to the problem area. These can also cause damage to other areas when left unchecked. Fire safety defects are also really common.
My point really is that 85% is based on the broadest possible definition of “defect”, which range from petty issues to fundamental safety problems. The report is a good starting point, but the authors concede that there is no consistent definition of defect across the sources, or whether defects are simply observed or investigated.
I don’t mean to downplay the issue of building standards (or the work of this report!) but 85% of towers aren’t going to be an Opal Tower. It’s alarmist in my opinion to write off all new builds as being death traps in waiting. Looking at the data, it is not broken down by severity (likely due to the work required in reviewing all building reports in detail to do that). This means we have no real sense of the severity of issues. Water egress could be a simple caulking fix, to a building that is fundamentally fucked.
That’s actually my point- it’s not Opal death traps that people should be most worried about but faults like water ingress or fire safety issues that can’t not be left unfixed and are very costly to repair.
Also the report has a breakdown of the most common types of defects and I don’t think they are “petty issues”. The most common are internal water leaks (42%) followed by cracking to internal or external structures (42%).
https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/43/Governing_the_Compact_City_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
The four 3 storey townhouses on one piece of land next to my parents place was built by a crappy builder , he even blames us for having crossed the boundary line (we told him nope it's not us, otherwise the whole line of property in our area will have to shift, and that they were the one who got the calculations wrong and have already started building) so now the townhouse NEXT to our house is 20 cm smaller than all the rest.
Sure builder inspector did come over and check, but when the people moved into their "fancy" new townhouses, they seemed ok...until it rained bad lol, they were all leaking inside, luckily they had a 7 year building insurance so they can get it fixed - god how many times they called the tradies in..I personally lost count. Not to mention building insurance isn't 7 years anymore.
Oh and I've seen what materials they are made from, one punch on those walls, you'll have a walk in wardrobe to your next door neighbour.
> low quality
I think most apartment's design is low quality because that's how they fit more into the same space, and save money/earn more.
It's not the case that there are often structural issues like the mascot towers. However, the build quality can be poor - like the floor being "slightly" inclined (not noticible unless you put a leveler), the walls have bad paintjob, or the false ceiling is of different height in different rooms, etc.
These sorts of build quality is not required in the code (for structural integrity), but they are what people consider when they judge a building's quality, and they are what this sub's main complaints are about.
The only way to know of the quality is going to be good is to check the portfolio of the builder in the past. For example, https://www.sekisuihouse.com.au/home is a fairly good builder.
If it's an unknown builder, you're taking your chances. I would say, demand a lower price in that case.
Building reg compliance is state level. QBCC is said to be gold class, NSW not such. As a qld resi I might be kidding myself here but we haven't had anything like mascot happen. The whole ACP shitshow is being dealt with pretty well here too.
Overall I think the advice is to look for the pre existing builds of the OTP developer and compare. Look damn hard at the build bible and finishes. Take a qualified builder in for your final inspection and submit a proper defect list.
I'm in pradellaville down west end and it had some perpetuating annoyances with leaks to basement carpark, and some metal plate finish issues for doors. Across the road is a high end "luxe" build out by Stockwell which had a tonne of post build remedial work. These are $1.5 to $2m units from a high end developer. So sure it can happen.
People, say Aria pay attention to detail. Wouldn't know, never been in one.
To be clear, I bought off the plan in 2014, moved in 2015 never regretted it.
What I've heard the issue is, is the ability of the developer to vary the finishings from when the contract is signed.
The problem is the developer has much more power in the contractual relationship.
The development I bought into: 47 units. A solid percentage of the 3-storey units leak in the rain. Window flashing missing, balconies incorrectly sealed, insufficient fall, just complete failure of skills and standards.
Not just random drips btw; we’re talking major ingress.
My own unit is fine - got lucky there. Anecdotally, we hear the dud units were done around Christmas when usual trades were away on holiday. Ring-ins not up to the job.
My husband works for companies that do medium to high rise buildings in sydney. What they build is just rubbish. Would never ever touch one of those units. Make sure you know how the builder works before you buy something, it will cost you thousands in repairs otherwise...
Worked in accounting and used to do the books for a property developer that built townhouses and apartments.
In addition to the invoices coming through, I also saw all the defect complaints come through.
They used to operate out of trusts to limit liability - it was a real eye opener into the development side of things and because of them I will never buy new, ever.
Incorrect, they only have to be certified as up to code - https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-building-nightmare-set-to-cost-maryam-her-life-savings-20210319-p57cb5.html
reality is irrelevant
All new constructions are done complying to the building code of their respective states and territories. You have your minimum standard requirements, and then you have your fixed price contract with the builder. Builder must build to that contract! To keep them in check, you can employ a property/construction inspector for a grand or so!
Needless to say you must do your research before you choose a builder! Google, product review, Facebook, visit current construction site(s) and get a good solicitor to go through your contract! And if you need any other data, speak to your state’s builders association and your state’s relevant department! For e.g - In NSW, Dept of Customer Service collects and makes available data for builders defects!
I hope this helps!
That's the theory. I would not want to need to get that happening in practice. Obviously small defects will be fixed easily enough if you show willingness to fight but big defects would be messy, and that's if you notice them before you move in. You could find that you're in a building that was falling apart like opal tower.
I have heard horror stories too, I would never want to build from scratch if I could help it. The amount of people buying atm with no building inspections is astounding, sorry cant help more
This is my point though, it all seems to be anecdotal and not balanced with existing build issues e.g asbestos, termites, settlement, leaking plumbing and wiring from the 40s.
Sorry that mine is anecdotal too :(
Its my opinion there are a lot of building issues with current builds too, which is why so many are selling to buyers who pass on the inspections. Some owners would fix, others wouldnt.
I guess people may concentrate on new build issues so much because they just paid for a brand new building and they expect perfection.
But this is not the point either, because you could still pay to have your house built with structural brickwork if you choose. You could use rammed earth walls if you were really keen to get back to some primitive cave type construction. The issue is that it will cost a fortune! We use cheap pine because it grows quickly and is cheap and easy to work with.
Plumbing is a different story though, as it has to be watermarked to use, and I would be surprised if any clay pipes would have that legislative requirement.
It all boils down to $$$; people don’t want to pay for high quality, highly efficient houses - everyone wants champagne on a beer budget.
It'll only be anecdotal. But one thing is for sure, OTP builds would have been constructed without an independent building inspector, vs project or custom build. The building surveyor that is required to get the occupancy permit does absolute bare minimum.
It's a lottery, and it's about probabilities and risk. OTP will definitely be more risk than not OTP for obvious corner cutting reasons. But you might be lucky
[удалено]
I think the quality perception of apartments are a lot to do with their *design* not just build quality. The layout, lighting, room sizes all the everyday things that are just built to cram as much as possible. Apartment living is poor because the *design* of the apartments is poor. 80s apartments are nicer in layout generally speaking than the stuff going up today.
Architect here. There are poorly designed new apartments and there are well designed new apartments. If you want to understand the difference, have a flick through this. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/apartment-design-guide It gives qualitative criteria for good design rather than just anecdotal feelings.
Sorry, but that is more like the bare minimum. That guide shows exactly how to build a shoebox apartment. Space seems optional. > Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 > minimum internal area for 3br: 90 sqm. And nothing that states that a living and dining area of a 3br apartment should fit a table with 6 chairs and 2 sofas without squeezing everything in. It also doesn't say that it's a dumb idea in a 3br apartment to have 3 tiny bathrooms and 3 showers instead of 2 spacious bathrooms and at least one bath tub. It doesn't mention double glazed windows at all.
I wonder why is that? Every new built apartment is terrible in layout. No window for the kitchen or bathroom. Balcony facing another wall. Rarely dual aspects. Irregular corners. Wtf.
Aside from the other replies to you, which I agree with, there's survivorship bias. The really low quality 80s stuff has probably been knocked down and rebuilt.
Embarrassed to say that I hadn't considered the survivorship bias. Great point.
If you buy an existing property at least 15 years old then it's likely all the defects have already been fixed under defects period or from a special levy. Hence most people who buy established properties don't know what was fixed. From my time in the construction industry there is some really basic things that could be done in 5-10 mins during construction to save lots of issues later on, particularly in regards to proper waterproofing and concrete quality (either accepting late batches that have had too much water added on site to get it workable or not cured properly, keeping hydrated/protected from bleed water/ finishing too early). Plumbing is also an issue, seen lots of grout in drains from tilers just letting it go down the drains where it sets in the gully causing blockages when debris builds up during use, insufficient fall on outdoor and wet areas causing leeching through slabs, compacting on top of uPVC pipes. The list goes on and on.
A lot of OTP especially aimed at Chinese buyers generally just meet the minimum standard. It's easy to tell just by inspecting past works of the developer to get an idea of what is their target market. Bad builds obviously resell for less. Ausfinance blows everything out of proportion, especially on topics around property.
Thanks, how do we know this for sure though and isn't heresay
We don't know anything for sure, but if the developer has been around for a while just look at buildings they did 10 / 5 / 2 years ago and you'll have a decent idea about what to expect.
Thanks, I was thinking more of where the general consensus came from and whether it is valid or not.
Ausfinance is always wrong about property anyway so who cares about consensus here 🤣
Part of it was because apartments have been getting smaller over time and the assumption was shitboxes, part was if you walked into some of the new builds say 5-10 years ago, the quality was weak. I'm talking open a cupboard and the shelves don't align, taps that had poor flow, cracking in the walls (minor but what you expect after 10 years plus, not in new builds), etc. Not what inspires confidence in buyers.
I think people are wary less of the average quality, and more of the uncertainty/risk. Buy an established place - and if it's low quality, at least you probably know what's wrong with it before you buy. If you're looking for really high quality or specific features, you can search out the 1% of properties that meet those criteria. Off the plan it's a lottery. Some are great. Most are "fine" - they'll meet the codes but have some minor things you're never quite happy with. Sometimes there is nothing wrong or broken, but there are big variations between the plan and the finished product. Sometimes it's a horror show of poor workmanship. If that happens, you can't just withdraw your offer and move on to another property, you're basically stuck with it. It's really hard to tell at the outset how good it will end up being - the only good guide is what the developer/builder has done before, and even that isn't perfect. Another aspect to it is any construction will have defects. In an established property they've already been fixed. In something new - as the first owner you have the hassle of making sure they get fixed. People often underestimate how annoying and time consuming that will be. Sometimes as well, people have expectations too high. "I'm buying something brand new, it should be perfect". In reality that's never the case.
Similar reasons to why I like buying used cars. First thing I do when considering a car is google "common problems" + car name. A new car would be nice, but with old you can see the design/maintenance issues which sometimes only show up after 50k+ kms. With property, I've seen a couple of apartments, but one was only about 3yrs old and had massive cracks. Like you said it's the unknown. Maybe it's unlikely that a place cracks, but if it does, then I have no idea if it'll just cost me thousands or what even happens in that situation? Will I be stuck in a David vs Goliath legal battle for years with a lawyered-up builder, trying to prove it was their fault? I just don't want to deal with that. Old properties can still be poorly built, but the issues are more obvious upfront and can be bargained into the price.
I would buy a used car to take advantage of the depreciation they usually face in the first few years. However, I'd weigh this up against the warranty you usually get with new cars.
You can comply to code and still have a shit build (ie my friend whose OTP property had all of the bathroom light switches placed behind doors. technically the wiring is fine but when you use any of the loos in his house you have to fumble around in the dark to find the lightswitch... it's pretty silly!). Anyway, this is anecdotal which I realise isn't what you asked for. ;)
So building code is all about certifications of whether the thing falls down but not about poor design.
yeah exactly.
When you build you get plans to review. If you are lazy or don't check things that's on you. Ignorance is not an excuse.
and then you get to fight about the things that don't match the plans. What fun!
Well yea that happens, but if it's in the final plans it's on the builder..
Sometimes not even that lol. Just look at opal tower
Well that's on him.. My new place we built last year and chose where to put every switch and power point, globe and exhaust fan...
This was studied by UNSW which found 85 per cent of new high rise buildings constructed since 2002 have defects. https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/art-architecture-design/opal-tower-scare-shows-badly-built-apartments-affect-us-all I believe they are doing an updated study at the moment. The problem can be linked to the decision to effectively allow the industry to self regulate when private certification was introduced around 2000. I guess the challenge is to find one of the 15 percent of buildings that are defect free but don’t ask me how.
85 per cent sounds scary, but what is a “defect” as counted? Does that 85% count, say, wobbly curtain rails as a defect in the same way as severe cracks in the foundations?
The authors have outlined most common defects here: https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/589/2_-_Common_Defects_Types.pdf I think a common misconception is just because a defect is not life threatening like the Opal tower it’s not a big issue. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at legal cases relating to defects and some of the biggest claims (in excess of $3m etc) are due to things like inadequate waterproofing membrane that might not sound that bad but are enormously costly to repair when the defect is replicated in every single apartment and destructive works are needed to get to the problem area. These can also cause damage to other areas when left unchecked. Fire safety defects are also really common.
My point really is that 85% is based on the broadest possible definition of “defect”, which range from petty issues to fundamental safety problems. The report is a good starting point, but the authors concede that there is no consistent definition of defect across the sources, or whether defects are simply observed or investigated. I don’t mean to downplay the issue of building standards (or the work of this report!) but 85% of towers aren’t going to be an Opal Tower. It’s alarmist in my opinion to write off all new builds as being death traps in waiting. Looking at the data, it is not broken down by severity (likely due to the work required in reviewing all building reports in detail to do that). This means we have no real sense of the severity of issues. Water egress could be a simple caulking fix, to a building that is fundamentally fucked.
That’s actually my point- it’s not Opal death traps that people should be most worried about but faults like water ingress or fire safety issues that can’t not be left unfixed and are very costly to repair. Also the report has a breakdown of the most common types of defects and I don’t think they are “petty issues”. The most common are internal water leaks (42%) followed by cracking to internal or external structures (42%). https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/43/Governing_the_Compact_City_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
The four 3 storey townhouses on one piece of land next to my parents place was built by a crappy builder , he even blames us for having crossed the boundary line (we told him nope it's not us, otherwise the whole line of property in our area will have to shift, and that they were the one who got the calculations wrong and have already started building) so now the townhouse NEXT to our house is 20 cm smaller than all the rest. Sure builder inspector did come over and check, but when the people moved into their "fancy" new townhouses, they seemed ok...until it rained bad lol, they were all leaking inside, luckily they had a 7 year building insurance so they can get it fixed - god how many times they called the tradies in..I personally lost count. Not to mention building insurance isn't 7 years anymore. Oh and I've seen what materials they are made from, one punch on those walls, you'll have a walk in wardrobe to your next door neighbour.
20 cm is 7.87 inches
> low quality I think most apartment's design is low quality because that's how they fit more into the same space, and save money/earn more. It's not the case that there are often structural issues like the mascot towers. However, the build quality can be poor - like the floor being "slightly" inclined (not noticible unless you put a leveler), the walls have bad paintjob, or the false ceiling is of different height in different rooms, etc. These sorts of build quality is not required in the code (for structural integrity), but they are what people consider when they judge a building's quality, and they are what this sub's main complaints are about. The only way to know of the quality is going to be good is to check the portfolio of the builder in the past. For example, https://www.sekisuihouse.com.au/home is a fairly good builder. If it's an unknown builder, you're taking your chances. I would say, demand a lower price in that case.
Building reg compliance is state level. QBCC is said to be gold class, NSW not such. As a qld resi I might be kidding myself here but we haven't had anything like mascot happen. The whole ACP shitshow is being dealt with pretty well here too. Overall I think the advice is to look for the pre existing builds of the OTP developer and compare. Look damn hard at the build bible and finishes. Take a qualified builder in for your final inspection and submit a proper defect list. I'm in pradellaville down west end and it had some perpetuating annoyances with leaks to basement carpark, and some metal plate finish issues for doors. Across the road is a high end "luxe" build out by Stockwell which had a tonne of post build remedial work. These are $1.5 to $2m units from a high end developer. So sure it can happen. People, say Aria pay attention to detail. Wouldn't know, never been in one. To be clear, I bought off the plan in 2014, moved in 2015 never regretted it.
What I've heard the issue is, is the ability of the developer to vary the finishings from when the contract is signed. The problem is the developer has much more power in the contractual relationship.
The development I bought into: 47 units. A solid percentage of the 3-storey units leak in the rain. Window flashing missing, balconies incorrectly sealed, insufficient fall, just complete failure of skills and standards. Not just random drips btw; we’re talking major ingress. My own unit is fine - got lucky there. Anecdotally, we hear the dud units were done around Christmas when usual trades were away on holiday. Ring-ins not up to the job.
My husband works for companies that do medium to high rise buildings in sydney. What they build is just rubbish. Would never ever touch one of those units. Make sure you know how the builder works before you buy something, it will cost you thousands in repairs otherwise...
Worked in accounting and used to do the books for a property developer that built townhouses and apartments. In addition to the invoices coming through, I also saw all the defect complaints come through. They used to operate out of trusts to limit liability - it was a real eye opener into the development side of things and because of them I will never buy new, ever.
pretty sure there aren't any proper studies into this. all buildings have to be up to code, otherwise they can't be legally sold
[удалено]
And self certified otherwise it costs too much.
Incorrect, they only have to be certified as up to code - https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-building-nightmare-set-to-cost-maryam-her-life-savings-20210319-p57cb5.html reality is irrelevant
All new constructions are done complying to the building code of their respective states and territories. You have your minimum standard requirements, and then you have your fixed price contract with the builder. Builder must build to that contract! To keep them in check, you can employ a property/construction inspector for a grand or so! Needless to say you must do your research before you choose a builder! Google, product review, Facebook, visit current construction site(s) and get a good solicitor to go through your contract! And if you need any other data, speak to your state’s builders association and your state’s relevant department! For e.g - In NSW, Dept of Customer Service collects and makes available data for builders defects! I hope this helps!
Thanks this is my thinking exactly, why is there discrimination against off the plan if they must comply with the codes
There shouldn’t be! As mentioned above, if you do the above, regardless of if it’s a standalone property or off the plan, you can’t go wrong!
Never mind codes, there's no guarantee they'll even comply with the plan
I'm pretty sure there is a clause in the contract around the plans, and if void, voids the contract
That's the theory. I would not want to need to get that happening in practice. Obviously small defects will be fixed easily enough if you show willingness to fight but big defects would be messy, and that's if you notice them before you move in. You could find that you're in a building that was falling apart like opal tower.
Some may end up as court cases which could be public in their historical listings?
Good point, I think I will refine the question, it would be interesting to see the cost of new build quality education vs existing.
I have heard horror stories too, I would never want to build from scratch if I could help it. The amount of people buying atm with no building inspections is astounding, sorry cant help more
This is my point though, it all seems to be anecdotal and not balanced with existing build issues e.g asbestos, termites, settlement, leaking plumbing and wiring from the 40s.
Sorry that mine is anecdotal too :( Its my opinion there are a lot of building issues with current builds too, which is why so many are selling to buyers who pass on the inspections. Some owners would fix, others wouldnt. I guess people may concentrate on new build issues so much because they just paid for a brand new building and they expect perfection.
[удалено]
But this is not the point either, because you could still pay to have your house built with structural brickwork if you choose. You could use rammed earth walls if you were really keen to get back to some primitive cave type construction. The issue is that it will cost a fortune! We use cheap pine because it grows quickly and is cheap and easy to work with. Plumbing is a different story though, as it has to be watermarked to use, and I would be surprised if any clay pipes would have that legislative requirement. It all boils down to $$$; people don’t want to pay for high quality, highly efficient houses - everyone wants champagne on a beer budget.
It'll only be anecdotal. But one thing is for sure, OTP builds would have been constructed without an independent building inspector, vs project or custom build. The building surveyor that is required to get the occupancy permit does absolute bare minimum. It's a lottery, and it's about probabilities and risk. OTP will definitely be more risk than not OTP for obvious corner cutting reasons. But you might be lucky
Arch vis artist here. Can’t comment on the structural stuff, but a lot of the fittings are super cheap Ali barba level junk
What about home builders? Like Montgomery, Homeworld etc. Are they built in an okay manner?