Opinions on these two houses please. Which one would you choose?

[JulieAnderton]

I won't link to them as I don't want to be outed, but here are the main details. Both are in the same town, so location is pretty much identical for both.

House 1

Offers over £240K
Modern ? probably 1980s/90s
Detached
4 bedrooms (Two reasonably sized double / two small singles)
1 reception room (18? x 11?6?)
Kitchen (13?9? x 9?6?)
Downstairs WC / En-suite to master bedroom / Bathroom
Centrally heated
Integrated garage + off-road parking for two cars
Garden
Cul-de-sac location
0.6 miles to railway station
0.2 miles to school

House 2

£249,995
Early 1930?s with some original features (front door, some internal doors, a working fireplace, wooden floors, stair balustrade, picture rails)
Detached
3 bedrooms (two large doubles / one small double)
2 reception rooms (14?x12? and 12?x11?)
Kitchen (15?x11?)
Downstairs WC (but no handbasin); upstairs bathroom (but no toilet)
Centrally heated, but two rooms are missing radiators
Car port to side + off road parking for 2 cars
Garden
Through-road, but not particularly busy
0.2 miles to station
0.4 miles to school

We've got a pre-schooler and hope to have another child in the next few years. We'd like to stay wherever we choose for a long time.

Thank you!

I prefer older houses. The two reception rooms could be very useful as the family grows up. One room quieter/one room tidy another for mess.

As and when funds permit, you could get a bit of work done on the loo and bathroom.

Probably the second one if you can afford to sort out the bathroom/loo situation fairly soon.

I'd go for the older one - you can probably extend above the car port in a few years, if you need extra space. Having had a 1990s house, I'm not a huge fan of the quality of modern workmanship.

Tbh the only drawback on #2 is the lack thereof of an upstairs toilet. Is there room to put one in the bathroom? If not is there room to put one without significantly decreasing a bedroom size? It could be a while before you could extend with costs and planning.

House 2, as you'd have 2 receptions, the kitchen is bigger, and it sounds like there is room to extend up and out. BUT house 1 if school catchment distance is a factor!

Yes, there is room for a toilet in the upstairs bathroom. When we asked the vendor if there was a plumbing reason there is no toilet, she replied "no, we just didn't want to" . It's a new-ish white suite, but the configuration of the bathroom would need to be changed to fit a toilet, so the whole lot would need ripping out. Guess we could re-fit the existing bath and basin though.

School catchment not a problem.

House 1 for me.
It depends I suppose on how much work you are willing to do, but the 2nd hse is slightly more expensive, and needs work fairly soon (radiators in missing rooms - messy; hand basin in downstairs toilet - not too bad; fitting an upstairs toilet - bigger job and presumably then wouldn't 'match' the rest of the bathroom).
For me, moving is stressful enough, I wouldn't then want to start having to do urgent work on the new house, unless specifically bought as a project.
Also, 2nd house has a bedroom less!
I like the idea of 2 living rooms, but I have to tell you a 4th bedroom can be very versatile - study, 'den' , drying/ironing, storage, music practice (when they get older), TV/x-box/wii type space; as well as spare bedroom

oh - x-post!

House 2 if, as others have said, you can sort out the toilet/bathroom situation.

House 2, no contest.

It should be far more solid & have a good ceiling height. And I have a hatred of 80s/90s houses in general.

Also, 2nd house has a bedroom less!

The modern house has 2 small singles though which may not be great usable bedroom space for children, especially with only 1 reception room.

The 1930s house is likely to have loft conversion potential too.

House 1 and for no other reason than it's in a cul-de-sac. A friend and I live in very similar houses but we are on a quiet road and they are in a cul-de-sac. When our children play together it is always in her cul-de-sac. My DCs would play outside more if we lived where my friend lives.

Definitely house 2.

House 2 for me, the second reception and bigger kitchen more than outweigh the hassle of having to redo the bathroom if you can afford to do that. Means you can have a separate eating space, somewhere for homework while another kid is playing, etc etc.

I really love house 2. We've offered on it, but it's at the top of our budget, so need to keep some money back for the work. Unfortunately, the vendors can't see that any work needs doing and are currently not budging from asking price .

We haven't actually seen house 1 yet, but thought it would be good as a comparison.

hose 1 for children to be able to paly out in cul de sac & nearer to school. Could you maybe add a conservatory?

House 1, I like the idea of a small bedroom each and one that can be used for everything else if you don't want to make it a guest room. It could house game systems, toys, you name it.
Or have a guest room and maybe extend in a few years to get the second reception if you find you need it.
We said we'd do that if we needed too, and never have bothered. One worked fine for us.

1. Cul de sac, no messing around with plumbing, walk to school, can convert garage to get more downstairs space when the kids are older.

number 2 definitely without a doubt as hate new houses/ cul de sacs or estates.

With older houses be prepared for lots of maintenance and every job creates another one. You will either need to be constantly working on it yourself or paying people to do it.
Without a doubt they are sturdy and have more potential, if you buy you MUST get fireplace checked by a specialist as many old houses have partially blocked chimneys that could emit carbon monoxide. But they are lovely Go on buy the old one, you know you want to.

I would go for house 2. Being a 1930's house means to will need to get a decent survey done which no doub will come back with some work that needs doing and then the vendor will have t be realistic and budge on the price. A decent estate agent will advise them that your demands for a reduction in price are reasonable based on the work that needs doing and that any other buyers are going to want the same.
A survey will recommend that the downstairs wc needs a hand basin as it doesn't currently meet building regs.

I have lived in a modern house and in a 1930's house and prefer the 1930's house. Even though an older house needs more ongoing maintenance they have more character, higher ceilings, separate reception rooms and usually more long time established neighbours. The separate reception room becomes a real benefit when you have children that want to bring their friends over to watch DVDs or play computer games.

We had a 1930s house moved to a modern one; modern one is so much easier to live in!! No regrets at all.

but definitely vote with heart if you can, sounds like would be right choice for you.

Keep looking, the older house sounds nicer but no where to wash hands at downstairs loo and no loo upstairs vs two bathrooms in the modern house. I would keep,looking because maybe this has helped you clarify what you want but house 2 is not ideal and however much you think the work will cost it will be way more and will take a lot longer. Don't underestimate the costs involved in just redecorating and carpeting, new curtains etc besides the building work.

I would prefer the bigger rooms of house 2. If you are not in a hurry stick with house 2 while still looking for others. If the vendors come to their senses then great - if not there will be something else similar soon.

House 2.

1930s houses are becoming very popular for their period style. It will retain its value/saleability better than the other one providing the location is equally pleasant and the road not too busy, whereas the modern one will soon be coming into a period of deep unfashionableness for about 20 years!

House 2 has a bigger kitchen and more usable living space. A second separate reception room will be more versatile than a fourth poky bedroom, and can still be used as a bedroom should you ever need it to be.

I would not take the vendors word for it about the lack of loo being a choice - very odd choice! Check out the location/layout of the bathroom in relation to the waste pipe and sewage system and take advice from a plumber or builder if you can, or ask your surveyor to comment on it. It isn't just a question of space for a loo - it's more complicated than that. If it's a condition of purchase is that you MUST be able to add a loo then don't buy it on her word alone.

Is there potential to extend to the side? Presumably there is if there's a car port? And thirties houses usually have nice big gardens.

Thanks for the info about not having a handbasin not meeting current building regulations. That's a definite negotiating point.

The bathroom is immediately above the toilet downstairs, and a couple of people have mentioned that it shouldn't be too much of a problem to install a toilet, but we'd definitely get a plumber to advise before taking it any further.

We'd also get a full structural survey done.

There is definitely space on the side for a single-storey extension or for a proper garage to be built with a room above if we found we needed more space.