Location v character

[lecce]

Which is more important to you? We currently have a lovely Victorian- semi with loads of period features and if I could stretch it and move it I would but I can't.

Today I viewed a lovely three-bed detached Victorian house. It has bags of character but needs a fair bit of work doing to it. The area is good but not great and it is fairly near the top of our budget.

Then I viewed a nice but fairly bland 1930's house. It has no period features really and is not massive. It is in very good, if dull, condition. It is right at the top of our budget and is in a wonderful location.

I just don't know what to do - neither does dh. Can people who have loved living in an inner-city (sort of) period home be happy living in a bland house in a (lovely) villiage location?

I would go for location too, as long as the house met your key criteria of light, space, garden.

Location. No contest.

location isn't of much help is there is NO space in your house/flat, but if it's a good size practical brick house (personally would NOT go for concrete even if huge) in better location than yes, location wins. I would not settle for a small one bed in London even in the very top locations anymore, as it's just not worth it. The older you get the more you appreciate space.

Another vote for village location.

I've lived in a town, and much prefer the countryside. I personally find it a much nicer, safer place to be raising my children. The freedom my children get now compared to what they could have had in the suburban area we were living in, is second to none.

I also think people bring their own character to their homes and I don't buy into this myth that Victorian homes just have character because they're Victorian. Sure, they're pretty homes but so many of them are bog standard, replica houses. Character is what makes something 'distinctive or individual' (according to my dictionary at least!) but half my friends who live in these Victorian houses with lots of 'character' all have the same basic layout (Living room at front, dining room behind, galley kitchen at rear), same tiled hallway, similar big feature fireplaces in the living room, similar cornicing on the ceilings. Most of the time these houses are decorated in a range of creams, beiges and browns. This is the very antithesis of character, It's almost identikit homes!

So yes, you can add character - you can make your house 'distinctive and inidividual' and interesting yourself. It may not have the prettiness of a Victorian home but you certainly can give it character. Location however, you cannot change.

Sorry, hijacking again. Poor Elephant. Victim of the post-war planners. It was done with good intentions I suppose. Let's hope the current lot of 'improvements' are more successful. Such a shame that so much of the original housing and community was destroyed to make way for the estates they're now demolishing. I think Hammersmith flyover etc is almost as hideous as Elephant but because most of the Victorian housing stock survived it hasn't been as catastrophic for the area. Still makes me angry though. The BBC programme on the destruction of Deptford (Secret History of Our Streets) really upset me. And it upsets me every time I drive into the centre of London on the Westway, convenient as it is, practically over the heads of people living below.

I agree, ogre.

Lifting an old thread, as I worry about my dilemma. I currently live in "up and coming" bit in SE London, a period house, and thinking of moving to 60's (bland) house further away in a leafy suburbia. Mainly for better schools. I am dreading to be tucked away from the buzz for my own convenience, but I think that schools are more important and DC will have less temptations to battle than if we stay in SE London.
Does that sound right?

I vote location.

Almost bought the most gorgeous period house. It was perfect in every way (apart from the subsidence). However it was on a busy road and one of the least desirable roads in the town.

I am now very happily living in a more modern house in the best location.

location.

and remember that 'character' often means 'big repair bills' and 'big energy bills'

I think if the location is right, a bland unloved 60's/70's/modern house can be made stunning - think log burner, huge bi-fold doors, open plan spaces. That would be my option anyway and we presently live in an old place.

Post the house or similar and maybe we can fling some ideas at you?

I thought the OP sounded familiar then realised this is my old thread!

We bought neither of those houses and are now happily settled in a (different) semi-rural location. The house was built in 1991 but was an individual build by the previous owners, so not boxy or bland and on a street with mainly period properties. We feel it has the best of both worlds - modern/convenient stuff like en-suite, great lay-out, lovely wooden double -glazing, and loads of character because it's a one-off. The only downside I can think of is that the ceilings are a lot lower and 6"3 DH has had to modify his 'throwing' and swinging of ds2 after a few near misses .

I agree with the poster who mentioned needing different things at different times in your life. We are appreciating the huge amount of walks around here and don't back to the city (30 mins away) very often at all. I don't miss it, or my lovely old home, at all. So, I would say 'yes' to considering something different- I am glad we decided to deviate from our original brief.