Bigger house bit further out or smaller one closer in? Tell me to be sensible please

[LadyBiscuit]

I am only talking about a 1/2-3/4 mile difference here but I can basically afford a big house (big enough for us now and for renting out rooms etc should I need to do so) or a smaller place closer to the centre of town (ie walking distance) with 2 fewer bedrooms.

And period vs 1960s.

Aargh - what shall I do? My heart is telling me to go for the pretty 1930s house right near the shops but my head says go for the sensible but less characterful one.

I just have never lived in a house that isn't Victorian/Edwardian and I'm worried I won't love it. But really my flat is very modern inside - you wouldn't know it was old - it's just pretty from the outside. I'm being ridiculous aren't I?

I understand completely - but I suppose it will boil down to whether you will feel comfortable living in the one you are not so keen on.
How much value do you place on property - is it a status symbol to you? Will you be happy telling people about your house?
I know not everyone feels like this about property, but having worked in property for a good number of years, I don't mind admitting that this is how I feel about property, having worked in a competitive London market.
Will the 1960s hold it's value as much if it is further out? Can you make it stunning on the inside and be happy?

Thank you. It's actually extremely well finished inside so I wouldn't need to do anything (other than possibly replace the dodgy carpet and replaster some of the swirly walls (why do people do that?). But the bathrooms and kitchen are lovely, it has built in wardrobes and very good sized rooms. It's perfect really.

I went to look at an absolute wreck today too which is 1920s but has been repossessed. It's more expensive and needs about 30k of work doing on it. It has an enormous garden which is really far too big for me to manage. But oooh the potential :o

I am not so worried about value tbh - I imagine we'll be there at least 15 years. This is our house for the future :)

If you're planning to stay that long, wouldn't you outgrow the pretty smaller one closer to town? That would be my concern.
We have always lived in period houses too, and our new one we will be moving to is 1960s with a modern extension - luckily it is quite pretty on the outside. Having lived abroad in two modern houses, I have to say I have enjoyed not having to do any/much work, and they are eminently more practical. Some of the bumpy and crooked walls in the old houses used to drive me nuts!
You can also spruce up the exteriors of 1960s so they look a lot better. I'd probably take the modern property.

Yes, I have cunningly added a J to my name, as I've just realized that I am so very identifiable to some of my friends on here. That will throw them

After all my adult life (26 years) living in various period properties, I am absolutely itching to go back to my roots and live in a lovely 60s house.

No one will ever find you now Jelllie :o

Aargh I've just found a really nice house which actually is only a bit smaller but is very pretty, in perfect condition, and not that much more expensive.

Actually the 1960s house is not ugly from the outside at all - it's been rendered and half timber clad so it's loads prettier than its twins on the street.

But for a forever house do I want practical or a bit of both? So hard ...

Hmm. Interesting dilemma. We moved from a victorian terraced house that we absolutely loved (but was really just toooo small) to a "substantial" 1925 semi (a pretty souless box) that needed work doing - and which could definitely have been the "forever" home. After 2.5 years and plenty of stress and expense - we sold it - and are now back in victoriana! We are in a modest 3 bed victorian semi with 2 kids - and we are loving it. This house will do us for a fair few years if not forever. We have the option to extend the kitchen if it really does feel too small in a few years time. I don't think I have helped you very much here, it is a difficult decision to make. Perhaps you need to spend time looking at a fair few houses from different eras before you finally decide. Location is key, of course!

I don't think you should be sensible.

I think you should be joyfully daft and smile every time you see your impractical house.

Grendels Mum _ I think you're right. I want to fall in love with my house. I have found one that I have fallen in love with on paper. I hope it delivers in the flesh/mortar and that it's still on the market. I want to stay up all night to call the estate agents first thing. I need to buy a house that makes my pulse quicken

Good luck - let us know if it does!
I do agree that ideally you should fall in love with your house, but wouldn't having an impractical house just wind you up over 15 years? I have had a few stunning but not entirely practical houses, which was okay when it was just myself and DH, because it was easier to move. But is it sensible when one has children to consider?
< adjusts sensible cap and realizes she just sounded like her mother >

What about the practical things like commuting to work and schools? Nearby shops etc.

If it is for fifteen years definitely get the one that makes you feel good when you come home. What did the agent say?

We faced a similar dilema - but our 60's house was much bigger, rooms are well proportioned - big windows, so lots of light, detached, big garden...we didn't like the outside much but after we've rendered it, replaced the windows & doors - it will look fabulous!

I am just back - I loved the house - it is fabulous and, just as importantly, my DS did too. I loved it so much I cried (luckily out of sight of the EA :o)

It's right by a very good school and 5 mins from the shops. And it's detached and has off-street parking.

Am going to call the estate agent first thing tomorrow and make an offer. Wish me luck!

then it is the one! good luck.

great! Play it coolish with estate agent though. They are very good at exploiting your fears. goodluck

Is 5.5% below asking price a sensible starting point? I know there is someone else who is very keen but his place has only just gone on the market and I am about to exchange. But I would hate to lose it for the sake of 10k or so. It's stupid to offer asking price isn't it?

I have been looking for months and have seen about 20 houses - this is the first one that I've actually wanted to move to (am relocating so I think I really do have to love it - I am very apprehensive about the move)

last place I bought I asked the estate agent what the sellers actually wanted and offered that (about 20k under the asking price) but then I had bought two previous places through this agent and knew he was pretty straight. No harm in having a conversation with the agent about where the sellers are coming from (how anxious to move etc) but thinking through before what you would offer depending on answers. Having said that, if you know that this is the house you want, if you have looked at enough others/the area, and if this is the long term house for you then I wouldn't risk losing it to be honest.

yes, start below the asking price and take your time to move your bid. They will sweat more than you. from my own experience best to remember that there is ALWAYS another house. It is your market!

Well I've got it at 3% below asking price which is pretty good as it was cheap really anyway (having looked at lots of houses in the area). I am very pleased :)

Thanks for the advice. And I know I wouldn't be feeling anywhere near as excited if I had bought the bigger house in the middle of nowhere :)

Great great news! Congrats!

Fantastic. Just fantastic. Meant to be.