Why is rural living seen as wealthier?

[Mushroo]

Spent my afternoon perusing Rightmove and generally, rural houses are larger and cheaper than the suburbs.

An example might be:

suburb: www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/128024603#/?channel=RES_BUY

country:
www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/125772959#/?channel=RES_BUY

Both houses are the same price, but if I was invited round the second, I’d immediately think ‘wow’ and unconsciously assume the people living in the country option were posher than the first option. Even though both are the exact same price!

Why is it we inherently think of the larger, rural option as posher? Is it to do with the history where the aristocracy would have country manors, whereas city living is relatively newer? Or is it because the ‘country’ option implies they don’t need to commute?

I personally am very much a suburb person as I hate driving and love being able to walk to cafes, but this is generally seen as not as desirable as a country manor - you see it when footballers buy mansions in the middle of nowhere.

I live in Norfolk the rural towns don't have hospitals, schools or supermarkets in walking distance and very poor or non-existent public transport, you have to be able to drive. That in itself makes it an option just for those that can afford at one car. If you live in the suburbs everything is more accessible.

I live in rural Norfolk and our buses here are very few. We have a couple that take us into town in the morning then a couple that bring people home again at the end of the day.

I am not sure it is seen as wealthier in my area ( NE Scotland). Most of the rural areas score poorly on the Social Deprivation Index.
Although inner city areas may be the most deprived overall, many rural areas have poor amenities and high living costs ( food shop, fuel costs, poor council services)
A lovely house does not equal a lovely life ime.

Imo rural/semi rural areas are usually occupied by people who can't afford to buy in the town/city, and you tend to get more space in a house for your money. The only "wealthy" people living rural are those in very nice, detached houses with plenty of square ft of land. Everyone else would rather be living in town or closer to town but simply cannot afford to unless they live in a shoebox.

Generally wealthy people will a home in town and country.

I think where I live a house in a desirable village in the countryside would be a lot more than a house in the town. It depends very much on what you mean by rural/country.

We moved from London to South Norfolk and wouldn’t have been able to afford to when we were less financially secure. Fewer jobs here, less transport (main hospital 24 miles away, no buses in our village) etc. We’re not hugely wealthy by any real stretch of the imagination - mainly I worked in good jobs and then had an inheritance so we had enough to buy a small house outright, I don’t work now, but if I did want to find work I’d really struggle to find anything locally that was similar to what I did before (marketing). I think people tend to earn their money in the cities and then move out - unless you’re someone who really enjoys city life, and of course many people do.

Just looking at those pictures of the properties you linked to I would have assumed that the rural one was more expensive than the other as it looks larger, in a larger plot so I may have thought anyone living there was wealthier than the smaller property but not posher. Obviously I'm wrong and the location brings them out at the same price. I live in a rural area and I don't consider any of my neighbours posh so maybe it's just a perception that some people have about country living.

Aside from the general cost of living in the country being higher, I think it's quite clear from those pictures that the costs of running the particular property would be much higher in the country.

But generally, I think a family of two adults living rurally need to be able to run two cars, to pay for childcare (because close family isn't often actually close), be able to stock up because they can't just pop to any shop they fancy.

Location location location!
you pay a premium in desirable suburbs for access to schools, amenities, public transport, and general convenience and demand pushes up houses prices. Also, areas come and go as being “on trend”, Didsbury being very much one of them! 40yrs ago people were moving out of Didsbury terraced houses for semi’s in Trafford, now they’re equally in demand with a price tag to match.

I found this property on the Rightmove Android app and wanted you to see it: www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/130396598

This is an ex council flat in London (admittedly a very expensive and desirable area - Hampstead) but it's more expensive than either house. I don't think anyone would regard the person who owns and lives in it as 'posh'!

The Cheshire house is very good value- I'd actually suspect there's something there we aren't seeing.

It is not detached of course.

@socialmedia23 exactly! Swathes of London is million of pounds plus for very normal / small terraced houses.

To be able to live there you have to be pretty wealthy, either through earnings or inheritance.

But, if I was invited to a London house (e.g the one in outnumbered), vs a much cheaper but larger country house, my head would equate the country house as posher, and I don’t know why that is!

i live pretty near to The New Forest in the south it is very expensive and places are snapped up quickly

Posher, or just more desirable?

Realistically, the rural property is lovelier. It's desirable.

The urban property isn't as nice.

Mentally you've translated that to mean 'more expensive'. But of course it isn't.

Depends on age. If owner is an older person, he or she is likely to be fairly ordinary esp in certain gentrified areas. If that person is young and bought in the last 5 years that points to inheritance and higher earnings.

On the other hand, a large posh house in the country may indicate the family has been wealthy for generations. A lot of people who have bought homes in z2/3 London are second generation immigrants who have done well professionally for themselves but otherwise come from humble backgrounds.

I live whats called 'semi-rurally'. I could have spent twice as much on a smaller attached house with a postage stamp garden but in the catchment area for some of the best grammar schools in the country but I chose to go for a detached character house with a couple of acres of land and peace and quiet. I can get to the nice towns within a ten minute drive. For me the house and privacy was the priority, I was less bothered about location. Most people I know go for location first and want to be in walking distance of things, but I like driving and I like not having the temptation of getting a takeaway or nipping to the pub for a beer.

The house with land you linked to with lane would cost a lot more in terms of upkeep than the house in didsbury. Plus chester is hardly a metropolis, there are more jobs in Manchester and properties in nice areas that are near to public transport links to thriving economic hubs are always going to cost more.

Desirable from a British perspective maybe. My aunt from my home country snickered when I told her I bought a flat in zone 3 London (as the people she socialized with bought exclusively zone 1 flats as investment objects). They would have chosen an ex council flat in st Johns wood for 800k or a zone 2 terraced in camden over a country house. And as the pound declines in value, arguably foreign investors (and their opinions) would count for more esp with low economic growth in the UK (fewer opportunities for the local rich).

Only us that keep moving further and further out! OP a rural job is unlikely to get you that house so you would need some form of WFH or hybrid option which is associated largely with management level jobs

My rural home in Scotland with 2 acres of land, cost the same as the semi detached house we sold in the Midlands. Definitely looks like well off on the face of it. We are not!

London urban doesn't equal every city.

In most cities urban is cheaper than the rural areas surrounding. Suburban is often expensive too.

Opposite is true for London.

Two sides to it:

In wealthy rural areas they are, well, actually wealthy.

And in modest or poor rural areas, people on regular incomes are able to afford larger homes and stereotypically "wealthy" pursuits more easily.

For example, I knew quite a few horse owners growing up, and it really just came down to a high availability of fields to rent.

It's all about the location - when we bought our current house, we decided we wanted to be as central as possible in the city where we live (with the caveat of having our own drive). It's not a decision we've ever regretted - we don't really need a car at all, though we have one; as we only rarely use it, it'll probably last a long time. There is loads of cultural stuff and activities for children on our doorstep, and as DD gets older, she won't need lifts everywhere. I have the longer commute, a 10 minute cycle. The price we paid for the house reflected that; it's not as pretty as many rural options, but we don't sit outside staring at our frontage!