Property buying - what have you compromised on?

[QueenRunningGeekMum]

Dh and I are looking to buy our 'family home' iyswim. We have a deadline of wanting to move this summer, so plenty of time yet.

The one we looked at yesterday was perfect in all ways except one. It had the good location, plot size, garden, house size, potential to extend and add value, and came in about 25,000k under our top budget. I completely fell in love with it and was fully expecting DH to do so as well.

But the exception was that it was not a period property - it was a 1960s build - and that is apparently enough to send DH running. DH does not want to compromise on his 'ideal property' list.

Now I know that the house has to be just right for both of us so this one glitch means we won't be buying this house. But I would like to hear if any MNetters have compromised on anything from their 'ideal property' list and whether you have overcome it or come to regret it?

Garden size and orientation. Definitely not compromising on 'period'

TBH, the orientation is the only thing i would change (and about the only thing i can't )

Thanks Sharkbite, I wouldn't compromise on orientation and that's why we didn't buy another 'perfect' property!

Currently have an east facing garden, really want a south one.

no green/leafy outlook from the windows (it's a large flat, not house) which I've previously got used to. At least it's a wide street and the place is light. Shame, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to find perfection. My last place had fantastic garden squaer views and location, but it had a screwed up plumbing (impossible to change, one bathroom on noisy macerator) and this practical stuff really does get on your nerves on daily basis. Also didn't have enough storage, old place.
But I agree that it's hard to compromise on how the whole building/house looks if you prefer certain period! I'd not go for modern, which means usually lower ceilings and bland allround.

Our current house we had to compromise on Period as we just didn't have the money - which is one reason why it's so important to DH now.

How do you find out about noisy boilers etc before you live in a house?

In the end, we compromised on garden size and period - for the sake of having a detached house which we absolutely wanted. There were some lovely houses with huge gardens but all semi-detached. The only way we could afford detached was to buy a more modern property which all seem to have tiny gardens. Modern has benefits - no dodgy plumbing/gas and those double glazed windows are definitely a lot less draughty than sash windows!! (not to mention the noise insulation). And no wondering what is going to go wrong with the property next ...

My first house I compromised on state of repair. That wasn't a good decision.

DH compromised on his second and got a house that he didn't like the style of very much and that wasn't in a very pretty village, but luckily he married me and I moved in and I do like it and we had kids and the village turned out to have a very good school.

With our next house we are fully expecting to have to compromise on something and we have decided between us what we will and what we won't compromise on. Eg it doesn't have to be lovely and period though we would prefer that, but it mustn't be an ugly newbuild. Or, we will compromise on the granny annexe we really want but there HAS to be the possibility of a downstairs bedroom.

I think you need to have a talk about what you will and won't compromise on, so you don't get disappointed again and waste your and everyone else's time. I mean it's not like he couldn't tell from the specs it was 1960s!

was location and garden and room size for me
ended up getting a ex council house, could have bought a 10 year old house for a bit more money in the same area but was compromising on bedroom and garden size which i didnt want to do
so have a massive garden as the house is end terrace (with space to extend if needed as the previous owners had plans drawn up and permission given but they ended up divorcing before the work started) and 2 decent size bedrooms

Tunip tbf to DH we went to see this one without any details - had only just come on market and the estate agent said it was a 'pretty' 1960s so we thought we'd give it a try.

We have our list of essentials and desirables - and DH has just spent 15 minutes trying to persuade me that orientation of garden doesn't matter! We are both being fairly stubborn as we are both wanting the next house to be perfect - but I am wondering if we'll have to start reassessing our priorities soon! Maybe we're asking for too much on our budget!

Chips sounds like my list, presume you are happy there? Plans to extend?

Me: Detail - plastic windows, many original features lost (but we are putting them back, slowly).
DH: Location - we are further into town than he would ideally have liked.

I am very much into my period properties but I would consider a good 60s house if it offered everything else. They are roomy and on good sized plots.

I live in a group of 6 houses built 16 years ago - when we moved here all the original owners had wanted period property but ended up buying brand new.

Our house is worth about £350,000 and has loads of space and 2 ensuites, big kitchen etc. For that amount round here you could get a very pretty 3 bed cottage but it would certainly have a tiny kitchen and possibly a downstairs bathroom or one bedroom accessed through another.

We compromised garden size.it's not exactly tiny but not the size I wanted.

Thebest was it worth the compromise though?

Queen, do you HAVE to move this summer?
The predictions for the housing market are pretty poor in most areas so you might be better off hanging on if you can.

I would compromise on a lot before period, personally.

Tunip - why bother to hang on if they want to move? There's no reason to believe that things are going to get better anytime soon. If they are moving to a bigger place, for sure, if prices keep falling, the difference between what they sell for and what they buy for may be less in the future, which means less debt, on the other hand, if you are moving to a home you are sure you will stick in, long term mortgages can be had cheaply at the moment, meaning that you know your outgoings and can plan well (so long as job isn't likely to force move or a relationship break up is on the cards).

"The predictions for the housing market are pretty poor in most areas so you might be better off hanging on if you can."

A dangerous game to play!

When I bought my flat (during the boom) a friend said to me, prices are bound to come down soon, you should wait 6 months.

Had I done that I would never have been able to afford a flat! My flat more than doubled in value before coming down.

Property is a long-term game. IMO if you can afford to buy, you should.

My parents bought at the height of a boom, and the market dropped almost immediately after. It was the best part of a decade before it regained its value.

So, was it a bad buy? Well no, not really, considering it cost them just shy of £20K, and these days it's worth about £650K!

Whether waiting is a dangerous game or not depends what is going on in the property market in your area. Equally, buying has turned out to be a dangerous game for many as they are now stuck in negative equity. It really depends. If OP does not have a factor like job or schools forcing her hand, WHEN you move can be another dimension for compromise, just like location or period or size.

But it's an unknown. Yes the market may well continue to go down. Or it may slowly rise.

We just don't know.

If you can afford to buy now, you shouldn't put it off in the hope that the market will drop further IMO.

Dh compromised on parking when he bought where we live now. When I moved on it was location& a garden over size compared to us all moving to mine.

We are now prepared to be cramped rather than move as we wouldn't get a big enough house without losing garden, location and period.

Negative equity only matters if you are actually planning to sell the place. If not, then it makes no difference. Long term (barring total collapse of the economy, which I must admit is looking more likely!) then based on past experience, property prices will rise over time, and it's a good investment.

And even selling at a loss doesn't matter if you're putting the money back into bricks and mortar - you're not actually losing money, only moving your investment from one place to another.

The only time negative equity actually matters is if you want to take your money out of the property market. Then if you sell at a loss you are justified in looking at it as a bad investment.

There's a lot of screwy thinking over this. A friend of mine is stubbornly holding onto her home, in an area she's really not keen on, because if she sold now she'd "lose" about £70K. But that's crazy! If she sells and reinvests in another house, she's just moving her investment from one place to another and she'll get to live in an area she actually likes (costs of moving aside of course, but they happen whether you're in negative equity or not).

But 'period' - what does that mean exactly? To your DH I mean?

I'd never buy a modern house because a. I like period properties and b. the build quality - there is no comparison. But yes, I would most definitely consider a nice- looking 60s house, because the build quality is (just about) still there. On top of that, it's likely to have larger rooms and be on a larger plot than e.g. a Victorian property. Once you're in, it's your furniture etc which will give the house its ambience. Get your DH to consider all thus before he rejects it - especially as (as you have discovered) you will pay significantly less if you do compromise in this area.

So, get your DH to explain what 'period' means to him. Does he want a Victorian townhouse with fireplaces and Belfast sinks in place? A cottagey old farmhouse with low ceilings and beams? (just moved from one of those- 1780s, dark as a ditch even in the middle of summer - never again!) Or does he just NOT want a c. 1980-2012 box with cardboard walls and rooms the size of rabbit hutches?

If the latter, definitely step back a bit and start considering houses right up to the 1960s. You can get a lot more house for your money and NOT lose that feeling of solidity and charm - yes even in a 60s place!

I don't want to derail OP's thread.

For us, time is something we are compromising on because we wanted to move a few years ago but we felt things were overpriced and it was clear the market was beginning to fall in our area. If we move this year we are going to be able to afford something much closer to our dream house than what we could have got two years ago.

Thing is "60s" is a period.
A 50 yr old house is hardly a new build is it ?
I think the longer you look, the more you'll come to realise there is no "perfect" property. The amount of boxes you have ticked in your OP, sounds pretty positive to me - particularly coming in that much under budget.
You know, the prettiest rose covered cottage tends to equal little, and often dark rooms. I have a large Victorian house - looks lovely with it's high ceilings etc., but it is a very cold house to heat / live in. You could go on and on - everything ha good points and things you might not consider to be a 'positive'. Only you as a couple can know how important any particular aspect is.

Thanks for all the feedback!

As for when we move, nothing is forcing our hand, but as the property will hopefully be the one we live in for many years it will be an investment whenever we buy.

DH has said he'd consider 1960s if it's pretty, basically doesn't want the 1980s onwards boxes, but also doesn't want low ceilings and beams. I think he hasn't seen enough properties (I've seen a lot on my own) and so doesn't want to commit so early in the search. I'm a bit further on iyswim and so am ready to offer on properties that are nearly perfect.