As a new build, we probably couldn't afford it, the question is whether as a renovation project...
The nice thing about an old building is the relative flexibility. With a pure house value of 200k, I would expect that the components have indeed passed their peak, but not necessarily everything needs to be renewed immediately. For example, why shouldn't the gas boiler from 2005 still run for another 5 years? Do the windows from '93 really have to be replaced, or are they just no longer so nice? Do you need a freshly paved driveway, or can the car still stand just as well on the old bumpy track for a few more years? Is the mere knowledge of the 70-year-old roof reason enough to re-roof it immediately?
What I want to say is: As desirable as a complete renovation certainly is for the builders, there is nothing against continuing to use existing, intact components initially if money actually becomes tight.
Otherwise, the substance (basement, masonry, roof structure) can be quickly assessed by an expert, and if that fits, you have definitely already saved quite a bit of money with an old building in comparison, in my opinion (unless you are planning radical changes to the floor plan).