To think that a flat in a good area is better than a house in a bad one?

[Readr]

A friend is thinking of buying property and has the money (with a mortgage) to get either a flat in a relatively good area, or a house in a sh*tty one (drugs, high crime and anti-social behaviour, several generations unemployed kind of bad area). I get it that with a flat you are forever tied to service charges and lease, while a house is freehold, but still, in this situation AIBU to think that a flat in a better area would be a better choice?

@Readr

Thanks again for the input. She is single with no children and is in her 50s. Doesn't much like DIY and def. not gardening. The question is more about this: if she buys a flat, there is always leasehold to pay, and yearly service charges, and these could skyrocket and you can't do anything about it (and in this case you can't sell it either, for the very reason). A house is a freehold, but being scared to go outside, or of break-ins, or your car being damaged is a big negative.

I'd still go with the flat - if the house in a bad area has a log of drug users it would be scary.

@Readr

Thanks again for the input. She is single with no children and is in her 50s. Doesn't much like DIY and def. not gardening. The question is more about this: if she buys a flat, there is always leasehold to pay, and yearly service charges, and these could skyrocket and you can't do anything about it (and in this case you can't sell it either, for the very reason). A house is a freehold, but being scared to go outside, or of break-ins, or your car being damaged is a big negative.

Is she looking at a specific flat, or is she generally looking around the area and knows her budget means a flat? Because while the service charge escalation can be an issue with some flats, for others future increases are set at a maximum percentage in the lease or linked to inflation. I’ve lived in my flat for 12 years, and the freeholder can’t increase my ground rent until I’ve been here at least 25 under the terms of the lease. I also own a BTL flat with a lease of over 900 years - unless I outlive Montezuma, I won’t have to worry about it running down.

@Staffy1

Neither, find a house in a nicer cheaper area further afield.

Why is when, if the question is ‘Would you choose A or B?’, someone always pipes up with ‘C!’?

Thanks everyone! So it seems that given her circumstances (no kids, doesn't like gardening), the flat would be a better option, but with a careful eye on the conditions of the lease.

@WomanStanleyWoman, she is not looking at a specific flat right now, she is trying to figure out whether she should look at flats or houses depending on the above dilemma.

Better area. "Location, Location, Location" is a saying for a reason.

Always prioritise area over property.

@WomanStanleyWoman, because they are clearly not happy with A or B and maybe haven’t thought of C.

I live in a flat in a nice area. It's worked out well because it's safer, has better amenities and transport links, and better schools.

I live in a flat in a lovely area - couldn’t afford a house in the same area but am happy - although being leasehold does have its downsides ie £3,000 pa maintenance!

@IckyPeas

Buy the best house in the worst area

I reckon it would be better to go the other way. If you buy the worst house in the best street, you can always add value to the house/property but you can't make the street any better, as in the OP's OP of drugs, high crime and anti-social behaviour, several generations unemployed kind of bad area.

she is not looking at a specific flat right now, she is trying to figure out whether she should look at flats or houses depending on the above dilemma.

So, she should look at both, and other options too.
It is very rarely only one option or only a completely contrasting option. pp is right about casting the net wider. I wouldn't buy a house on a 'saying'.

@IckyPeas

Buy the best house in the worst area

Totally the wrong way around 😆

@tillyandmilly

I live in a flat in a lovely area - couldn’t afford a house in the same area but am happy - although being leasehold does have its downsides ie £3,000 pa maintenance!

@tillyandmilly, that sounds an awful lot.

@IckyPeas

Buy the best house in the worst area

You should always buy the worst house in best area.

For me, location is everything . Not necessarily area. I’d take a flat on a street with a nice atmosphere over a beautiful house in a place that looks depressing. I’m more impressed with flats, generally, though. Houses often seem gloomy and drafty unless new.

Buy in bridesmaid suburbs. The ones immediately adjacent to the good area.
Or buy one road back from a main road, max 10 mins walk to services.
Property developers secret formula.

Hey, maybe if everyone bought a house in a bad/deprived area, then those areas would gradually become up and coming, then priced out the market, extreme I know, but it's worked in London.
Notting hill was a shit area 40ish years ago, look at it now. Brick lane, Spiralfields, Hackney, Bethnal green Stoke Newington, people left those areas in droves, as soon as they were able to, again around 30 to 40 years back. Same is happening in forest gate, poplar now all up and coming.
So maybe not a bad idea to take a gamble.
Oh, and I was born and bred in one of the above area's from early 60s , so do know personally how things massively changed.

Thanks again, everyone, for the input!

I'm amused now at the idea Ickypeas spent her life buying up the best houses in the shittest areas and, while her beautiful gardens were flytipped and her car stolen, wondered where she'd gone wrong.

I'd prefer more space.

Everyone has different priorities. Personally I hate flats, I need outside space and greenery and feel like I'm suffocating if it isn't there.

The only flat I've owned was a maisonette with a 70' garden

But other people are nervy of rowdy neighbours. Each to their own.

It depends on how much time you spend at home vs how much you would spend in nearby areas. I would always take the bigger/nicer house in a worse area as I'm disabled and rarely able to go out.

However if your home is basically just where you sleep, while you are out and about all day then a nicer area will give you a bigger benefit.

What sort of lifestyle do you have?

The best house you can afford in the best area is the way to make money when you know you may need to move 2-3 times to get the property of your dreams. But if your dream house is in a shit area and you don’t mind then go for it.

If your friend is 50 and is single with no children, not into gardening and not into DIY then why buy a house? You mean to get on the property ladder? It would make sense to buy a flat then in a decent area. And like other posters have mentioned, it would depend on their lifestyle needs. Are they wanted to have a fresh start in life, move closer to family, etc.

We have a flat in a nice area (no kids, hate gardening).

We own a share of the freehold so we set the service charge for the building (it’s just us and upstairs flat) so we’re not at the mercy of a management company. Always worth checking the terms of the lease.