Size or location, aka how long is a piece of string?

[HabitualLurker]

It's that perennial question - which is more important in a property, size or location? I expect there is no right answer, but I'd still like to hear your opinions.

Since having our son it's become apparent that our very wee flat is just too small. We like there area of London we're in - lots of green space, good transport links and good primary schools. We'd love to stay around here. Funnily enough, so would lots of other people, and so we'll probably "only" be able to afford a large-ish 3/4 bed flat or a small 3 bed house. Doesn't seem so bad I hear you say, but my DH works from home, and if we have another sprog (which I'm not sure about anyway..) then really we might find ourselves running of space again in a few years.

We could stay in the area and be prepared to move again in a few years, or just resign ourselves to living somewhere smaller than we'd like. Or we could move to a less desirable area of London (a few miles down the road we could afford the space I'd like, but the area is not so naice and transport links are a bit rubbish. However we'd still be reasonably near friends and family), or a few miles further out (probably would be even well-to-do than where we are now, but would be balanced against being being further from everyone we know). Ok, so this is all within in London, so the distances we're talking are not large at all, but I've seen friends less than I would like simply because they live a few miles away (=40 mins on public transport) rather than in my neighbourhood.

What would hou do/have you done in this situation? Stayed in the location you wanted but compromised on the property, or got a great home but in a place you weren't so keen on? Or something else entirely?

Just noticed my typos. 'we like the area', 'even more well-to-do'.. and several more!

We've done both.

Property 1 - just outside M25, beautiful area, huge house (detached 4 bed 2 bath double garage), but terrible train links to central London and just felt a bit too far out. So we moved to ...
Property 2 - Zone 5 in an excellent London borough, a 3 bed semi with no offstreet parking. Great location and good road and train transport links. But the noise from the neighbours through party wall and the lack of parking are driving us crackers, plus the generally cramped feel, are pushing us towards ...
Property 3 - inside M25 but Surrey, not a London Borough. Detached 3 bedroom house with a double garage and offstreet parking. Quietness, space and beautiful views that can't be built out. But it's suburban and the postcode won't impress people, but our need for privacy and space means this is the right choice for us.

And that's without having to think about schools!

The best thing to do is be really open minded, do tons of research, talk to lots of people about the various areas, and don't hurry into a decision. Good luck!

It only depends on you, your nature and what you want from your life.
We live in London zone 4 which is quite suburban in other people?s views, but for me it is ?too London?. Plus, secondary schools is a constant worry (though my DC are only 5 and 2) and a battle to get it. I will soon take a plunge and move out to just outside 25 with 40 mins commute where I can just about buy 3 bed house for the same budget as my 2 bed house in London.

Some people love their flats in London and everything-on-the doorstep convenience. Some people like me long for idyllic quietness far out (yet with 5 days commute to London).

If secondary schools are good, I would probably stay where you are. If not, definitely move. Then think if you are happy for your kids to wander around the area while you are at work (if you work). If yes, it is ok to move.

And as for space, if I can afford a small 3 bed terrace in the idyllic area I like, I would be happy for life and would not ask for anything else?

I grew up in London myself and I'm more comfortable with city living, so it's not that I'm after a rural idyll. I don't hanker after views, countryside or no neighbours, so that's not an issue for me. I'm not keen on comuting too far either (I'll be at work full time and for me it's better that I can maximise the time spent at home with the kid).

I'd actually be quite happy with some quite urban areas, but I can't afford them. It's really that the places I can afford are more down-at-heel (eg greasy spoons instead of cafes, more run-down streets, fewer amenities..)

Secondary schools.. well they're ok, but always changing. Who knows what they'll be like in 10 years time when I need to choose one.

I seem to be talking my way round to something, but I'm not quite sure what! It does help to read your responses though - helps me to clarify what I really want.

There is always going to be some compromise. You ned to decide which you can live with and which you would prefer not to. We dont live in london but for us the choice was live in smaller house in preferred catchment area for schools or much bigger house. For us we felt we could not risk being outside good catchment area as schools oversubscribed.

when house hunting try and see potential for more space in each property in your preferred location - ie is there enough ceiling height for a mezzanine storage area in any of the rooms ? or room for a home office in the garden or if you switch rooms around would it flow better and allow an extra room to be squeezed in somewhere ?! Sometimes you can gain a few more cubic feet with creative room use !! see each one as a challenge - the one that can be adapted to create the most gain wins !!! have fun !! :-)