To buy a one bed more centrally rather than a two bed further out?

[BackInTheGame]

Hi all, I am currently trying to buy my first flat in London and struggling a bit (who isn't?!). I have worked out that I can afford either a smallish one bed flat near the zone 2/3 border or a more spacious two bed flat on the zone 3/4 border and don't know which to go for.

I have always rented in zones 1 and 2 and that is where all my friends live (and where I work) so I'm a bit nervous to suddenly move further out to an area I don't know and quite far away from any of my friends. On the other hand, it would mean I had much more disposable cash if I could rent out the second room of a two bed. I very much like my own space however and am pretty sure I wouldn't want to live with a stranger (it seems none of my friends would want to rent off me as they can afford more central places to rent/are happy where they are).

I guess this is a more of a WWYD? Live more centrally but on your own and with no help with mortgage, or live further out in somewhere more spacious but probably with a stranger lodger?

I am late twenties and single if that makes a difference. I think if I was in a LTR and buying with my partner I would definitely go for more spacious and further out. Thanks all!

What area is the best long term investment?

If you have a dc the second bedroom will come in handy

I would go for two beds but not rent one out unless I needed the money.

The joy of coming home to a place to call your own however Hobbit sized and shut the door and wander about wearing what you want and scoffing when you like is preferable imo to having to ask nicely 10 times a month if the lodger wouldn't mind cleaning the shower after using it and not leaving their key in the front door overnight.

Bigger, definitely. You can always go to the different parts of London to visit your friends.

You're single, you're in your twenties, you live in London.

One bed centrally, for sure.

I'd go for the two bed if you're planning on moving up the ladder at some point. When you come to sell it, you'll have a bigger pool of interest as it'll fit into more groups (young couples/sharers/people with a child). We have a one bed and haven't been able to shift it for years. It rents out fine but it's proved really difficult to sell so we've had to save up another deposit to get a house.

Onj bed centrally defo

I'd go for the two bed further out. You'd still be pretty close to central London anyway. Oh to have a bit of a garden and an extra room (and I'm in a northern town). Make the most of it! x

Just in case you've got property fatigue post your budget so we can all suggest nice places in zone 1/2 that you might have missed or discounted.

I would go for Central but that's because I'm downsizing and looking at Central - you're on your way up, maybe in the next couple of years a ltr or a baby - and the 2 bed gives you masses of options.

Go for central London living. We live in a 2 bed in zone 1 and many friends have chosen to live further out (zone 3/4) in bigger houses, but even though their travel time is not too long into central London they tend to become homebodies and focused on their immediate neighbourhoods. I wouldn't want to share my home with a lodger unless I absolutely had to, I love being able to be as messy as I like and wander through the flat wearing whatever/as little as I like!

Definitely bigger. Why live in a glorified cupboard for the sake of a few tube stops?

One bed central.

No question.

Centre

One bed central. We lived in a zone 2 rabbit hutch for years and it was great to be able to nip out and be in Soho or at the theatre in 20 mins.

Hmm, our flat is in zone 3 and it's not out in the sticks - where are your friends? Forest Hill/Sydenham/Honor Oak might be a good idea, 20 mins to the centre and "affordable" (ha!). So if that's a good location for you then I'd vote for 2 bed further out!

Two-bed in zone 3/4. Otherwise you will just have to move again when/if you are in a LTR/ have children. Moving = money (stamp duty) and big hassle.

Plus zone 3 is hardly the ends of the earth. Don't you all go out in central London anyway? So you're talking another 10/15 mins on the tube?

Plus, if necessary, sharing doesn't have to mean a lodger you have no relationship with. Think of it more as a house-share with a potential friend, but one where YOU set all the house rules.

Bree is right, it does depend. We chose our tiny flat because it was about 200 feet from a zone 2/3 tube station on two lines, across from a big park, and in a grungy but interesting area. Where you could get the wilder ingredients in Ottolenghi recipes for tuppence in any grocery shop. Or a sheep's head.

Central. Location, location, location. Outer reaches are more vulnerable to the property boom collapsing/steadying.

Your 1 bed value will hold and probably increase, so if you change your mind you just need to meet the stamp duty and moving costs down the road.

One bed central. Don't put yourself in position of sharing unless you know you'll be happy with that. I hated it and loved it when got a place on my own. Still secretly hanker after it now have OH and Step kids.

I wouldn't be happy to share my home with anyone other than my immediate family, so I couldn't stomach the idea of a lodger.

Is there no possibility at all that you could afford the 2 bed without a lodger?

I would want the 2 bed if I could possible afford it because experience has taught me that you very often will fill the space you have available, so at least to start with buy what looks to be a little bigger than you think you need (within reason, of course).

If the 2 bed really was beyond my means I would have to go for the 1 bed centrally (good position anyway).

There are a few other considerations to keep in mind though. You may well be buying the flats using the leasehold system, which is still pretty common in this country. How long is the lease you will be buying into? This will affect resale value in the future unless you can afford to extend it.

Also, what are the service charges like? How are they applied? I am sort of imagining that the Central London service charge could be more expensive than the 2 bed flat further out? Worth checking and considering though as it could make a difference.

Just my thoughts.

I have actually had the exact dilemma. I could have had a 1 bed box in zone 2 or a 3 bed semi in zone 4. I chose the 3 bed semi in zone 4. (I don't have DCs).

It's difficult because it does mean that you are further out. But how old are you? I'm 27 and I don't think I need to be so central any more. I work in the city and the train takes 20 mins to get there so I can go out in London whenever I want anyway. last train is at gone midnight so it's never actually caused me a problem. I see my friends just as much as I ever did.

I personally think that a one bed box is uncomfortable and impractical for any sort of lifestyle change that you may wish to have at any point. Also, what a load of crap above about these one beds being better in terms of property price stability. I live in zone 4 for gods sake - people will always need to commute to London so I'm hardly going to find that my property is unsaleable or of a ridiculously lower value any time soon. In fact, I'd say prospects are actually better - currently London Bridge is being completely rebuilt, which should reduce the time it takes for trains to get to London from my area, thereby increasing the desirability and the price.

One bed, central. Def.

I wouldn't want to move out to a further zone further from my friends alone or with an unknown lodger. Unless you have a very close friend already lined up to take the second bedroom as a lodger then stay central.

If you meet somebody and want to move in together you can either rent your place out (that's what I did) or sell it. Make sure you don't buy somewhere that will lose value in a few years (ie. a newbuild) as it's probably not going to be a long-term investment but instead a 'step on the ladder' to use that horrible cliché.

Dingdongdonna makes good points too.

Property in the outer zones is generally better value. You can often get a fair bit more for your money but you are still within a reasonably easy commute of the City or the West End (though the travel costs will be higher).

You could possibly consider a house of some kind a bit further out. You would usually own the freehold of those so you would not be hit by service charges every month. You would be more in control and not beholden to a landlord or managing agent of any type (IMHO). Whilst we no longer live in a flat, we do have long experience of owning them because we still have a couple which are tenanted out.

We did live in a 2 bed flat in zone 2 (Isle of Dogs) between 1991 and 1996, which was the first property we jointly owned. Looking back, we could have got a lot more for our money elsewhere (and not that much further away either). Our next property purchase was out of London when our eldest daughter was a year old and the flat was suddenly much less suitable (too small, and upstairs without a lift). We paid virtually the same money for a three bedroom detached house in a nice village as we had for our flat a few years earlier. So much better value for money.

I moved to zone 3 from zone 1, when I was thirty (wanted to buy) downsides are the journey home, plus sides are the extra rooms and own place means can have people over to stay. Have a look at how often you go out in central London, and how much you will when settle down. Good luck and enjoy your first own home xx

I would go for the 2 bed to give greater flexibility. You don't have to rent the second room, but it would come in handy if you need the money.

If/when you have children the second bedroom would be very useful too.

Central is all very well, until you are stuck in a flat which is too small for your needs.