Which style of houses would you buy

[katza]

Would you buy this style which is a 1930 mock tudor 1)
img.findaproperty.com/watesresidential/dulwich/m212239651.pdf?v=3 or this style of house 2) images.portalimages.com/harveywheeler/sales/details/002a0599285.pdf and finally this style of house 3) media.primelocation.com/WRGR/WRDS/WRDS7238086/BROCH_01.PDF

We normally buy period houses with period features but there are very few properties available at the moment. Do you class the above houses as period?

Just had a quick look and the styles are OK although TBH I wouldn't pay over £1.5million for a semi detached house (the first and third ones) and, with the second one, the rooms seem a bit small for a house that's over £2m !

However, saying that, those prices are out of my range so I've always imagined properties in that 'over £1m' price bracket to be a bit more striking than those were. They were just a bit dull really.

I wouldn't buy any of those if I had that kind of money. Depressingly we can't even afford something a tenth of that

The only one of these I would even vaguely consider if I had that kind of money is No 2. I'd call that period, and I love the large feature window.

What period is it? Looks art nouveau/faintly arts and crafts to me so I'm guessing Edwardian?

I certainly wouldn't be spending that kind of money on anything semi, unless they were a LOT more characterful than 1 and 3.

Gosh, your money doesn't go far in that location, does it?

However, if that's what your choice is, I think they're all rather nice, but number 2 looks comfy and cosy.

Number two has the most charm (alothough A LOT of wood!). I'd certainly plump for that if I were in your shoes.

Others aren't great TBH...

Yes this is London for you. We cant afford those prices either but just interested in people views on the properties frontage. I think number 2 is quite nice as well, I think it was built around 1920. What about property 1, is the mock tudor frontage interesting or just dull as mentioned by Nobert?

The prices are insane. You surely must be in love with a house to spend that kind of money. I'd keep looking.

I really don't like all the wood floor / white wall look throughout them all - have they been 'developed' by the same people per chance ?

I personally find mock Tudor very unappealing and automatically dismiss anything similar if it crops up on my searches.

Agree re the prices. If I hadn't seen it was Dulwich I'd have expected 350-500k for those houses - and a good chunk of that is only because of the fittings etc. If I had 1.5m to spend on a house like that I'd be buying elsewhere and paying myself 40k a year from investing the remainder...

I really like no. 2 on the outside, but all the period character has been stripped from the inside. No. 1 is the most interesting looking on the inside. I think no. 3 looks quite nasty from the outside.

But I'd probably be thinking more about exact location, outlook, garden, road-noise, space, lay out etc etc. And price!!! (2 is a lot more expensive)

all three the kitchens are awful, sorry but they look like cheap wood replicas but probably cost a fortune to install.

Not keen on any of the houses on the inside but outside they look ok -1930 style semis

this I like it is modern

The houses above are trying to be modern in the 1930 setting and went wrong somewhow, though it can be done well

I know Dulwich very well and might possibly choose the Eastlands Crescent house as it is in a slightly nicer location afaiac.

Wasn't that modern house on Grand Designs?

I agree with others that the second on your list looks the best - it's the most attractive from the outside and has more character inside. The others seem to have had any character stripped out - where are the fireplaces etc? They also look over-extended (first looks ok from the front, although unexceptional, but look at the back!). If you like period properties I imagine 1 and 3 will leave you feeling a bit cold really.

Agree with Mintyy - no.1 is better location and looks more interesting inside - what is going on with the stairs?

OP, just interested in why are you asking if you can't afford them?

I think 2nd is the nicest. 3 is pretty awful. God I'm out of touch with London prices!

bigTillyMint - Do you know the area? I think they have done a loft conversion hence extra stairs going to the loft. We will be looking at smaller houses but the frontage will be similar. The houses in the area are mainly Edwardian, afraid if we buy a 1930 semi then it will be harder to sell in the future. Do you think I'm being too paranoid?

Yes, I guess it is a loft conversion - interesting style. Some of the Edwardian houses around there are fairly small unless they have been updated.

I do know the area (but I think Mintyy is more up on property than me!) I don't think you would have much trouble selling in the area, but I'm sure the Estate Agents could give you more info - it seems to be constantly popular and prices are always rising, even in the current market.

If you need to travel into London for work, make sure you are happy with the transport links as none of them are particularly close to rail stations! And if you are hoping to get a child into the village infants, I believe the catchment is pretty tight.

Love 2, 3 is horrendous, and moc tudor is a no no for me too.

Crikey, I knew you didn't get much for your money it some parts of London but that is ridiculous, one of them even looks to have an orange pine kitchen, now I know obviously it dosen't but really, fortunately not a dilemma we have to contend with having a somewhat smaller budget Sorry, probably not very helpful answer OP, am just a little taken a back!

Would you prepare to compromise on size of bedrooms or garden ? the 1930 houses seem to have a bigger garden and rooms than the Edwardian houses.

30s is fine for resale in Dulwich if the location is good enough. It's all about school catchments, as ever, and proximity to the village. Friends of mine moved from a lovely Victorian less than a mile away to 1930s doer upper in the village itself at twice the price for precisely those reasons. Primary catchment there is ridiculously tight.

I like the Tudor one best - although it needs more sympathetic windows and door and I wonder why they have a towel rail in the kitchen . Second one has been horribly over-extended, third one isn't at all appealing, very charmless. They all look as if they are being sold by downsizers who have maintained them well but haven't really poured a lot of love into them in recent years.

I find the dulwich area a bit incomprehensible, price-wise. It's lovely, but oh so twee yet surrounded by some of the s* bits of London. But maybe that's just me :)

Also, I can't believe that people paying £1m + for a house would be concerned about state schooling options. Surely if you can afford a house that big, then you could extend yourselves to private school fees?!?!?!? Of course they could be principled sorts who just want to go the state option.

And none of that answers your original question, sorry!

I am not particularly fussed about what a house looks like from outside, or period features. Location and internal/ external space are key for me. I would choose ultra-modern if I had a free choice tho. So 1, 2 or 3 would all be goers for me if they were right in other respects.

I do not really understand the obsession with 'period' properties at all. Victorian houses were notoriously poorly built and often need loads spent on upkeep and running repairs. Think broken sash windows, damp, etc etc etc. Also, IMHO they are often darkish, necessitating all sorts of fancy side return/ light-well type modifications. I just don't get it. Any house can be 'period' - I particularly like 60s and 70s built architect-designed houses like Span houses and similar. They were built with a careful eye on how you actually used living spaces IMHO.