Does size matter?

[fatpony]

Has anyone gone for a small house over a bigger one and regretted it? Our purchase of a big Victorian has fallen through this week so viewed more houses this weekend and saw two we really liked. House 1 is a small Victorian four bed (1,100 ft2). Very beautiful interior/carpentry but nothing that can be done to add room (loft extension already done). House 2 is 1,600ft2 three bed with no loft extension yet. Needs immediate cosmetic work and - money allowing - some ground floor work to make a big kitchen-diner (no extension needed though). We love the area around House 1 more - access to green space great, friends about 10/15 mins walk away. Both areas have equally good schools [good/outstanding]. But...we're wondering if we would eventually get a bit frustrated/claustrophobic in House 1. I know it's not tiny tiny but we're selling our flat which is 980ft2 so not far off. Anyone had a similar experience? It's DH and I plus 13 month old baby, probably have another in a couple of years time.

Have only.read the first few posts but our family with two children under 8 are moving from a Victorian house slightly larger than your house 1 because it is just too small. We want more bathrooms and space for the stuff that comes with active family life including bikes instruments books shoes more shoes football's cricket sets rugby balls dog beds tents etc etc etc. Unless you are happy to consider moving again in the future then go bigger! Saying that, if you feel your budget doesn't stretch to the ideal family house then you may be better going for the finished house 1/as a step on the ladder that will not require too much work and effort while you are busy with young children.

Actually this house with the floorplan uppost has two loos, they just haven't marked it on the floorplan (in the top bathroom). Mind boggling - agent rang today saying it had already had an offer in £40k over the asking price. Don't faint all you non Londoners but that makes it £710k! Wowsers. Out of the question for us. Our flat at the moment is 980ft2 and feels spacious but have the usual annoyances of living in a flat with a 13 month old - no outside space and too aware of the racket he makes on the flat below.

I think it's a really good point several have made about these tiny cottages which would originally have been two bed. Expanding up into the attic to make two additional bedrooms helps a little but there isn't a corresponding increase in living/ground floor space.

Just move a bit further out along a tube line. I know London prices are horrific but you can still buy something a lot better in nice places with fast transport to London for that sort of price.

1100 sq ft is pretty standard for all but "luxury" 4 bed houses but the layout of that one looks like it has a footprint almost identical to our 800sq ft 2 bed - which has nothing but 2 reasonably big bedrooms on the 1st floor. The bedrooms are OK for size in the house you showed, but it's severely lacking downstairs space. There's 4 of us (2 adults and a 9 and 11 year old) in our house and we're really on top of each other, now.

Laughing at the suggestion upthread of not buying a 4 bed under 2000 sq ft. I guess we'd best stay put until we win the lottery, then.

I know exactly what you mean ftm123 - it's crazy. Even on our budget you are not guaranteed something spacious or halfway nice. Sometimes I show the spec/floorplan of something prospective to my mum and she half faints and whispers 'it's awful'. The frightening thing is also how fast prices are rising - last autumn when we were looking something might be on for 550-575. Now v similar properties in same block of 8 streets (so very comparable) will be 650-700 and going for above that. In the depths of winter when it's meant to be quiet. Harumph!

Don't faint all you non Londoners but that makes it £710k! Wowsers. Out of the question for us.

Of course we have to faint. The point about them being originally two beds. In london, you just have to compromise isn't it? You always make what you can afford work for you, because you have to.

We are in the south east, and just moved to a 4 bed for just over £400k. I think it might be also 1000 sq ft (not sure as it's not in the details). But the difference is we have a garage. It stores all that bikes, trikes, tents that Moving15 talks about. I assume in London you have to store them inside the house? That kind of thing takes up a lot of space.

I always remember the first time we started looking at houses here. DH and I are from NZ. Everything was incredibly small. I mean back home, we talk about internal access garages. We pack two cars in there, and still have space for laundry, workbench, storage and a garage fridge. And here I have never seen anyone actually park a car in there. And a full height pantry is standard. Oh and everyone of my friends learned the piano in a mini grand.

You do get used to living in smaller spaces.

Some of you must have very high expectations. I think it looks like a normal sized house. 30 years ago no one had more than one toilet! (House no 1 I'm talking about)