Hi all - bear with my long post please as I don’t want to drip feed!
Have had an offer accepted on very small semi detached 1880s stone cottage that needs everything renovated but it has a long 100m south facing garden in a pretty, popular rural area 15min drive from the sea (30 min to work, easy to sell on, normally very buoyant market, even during the recession) - survey showed that 70% of ground floor joists need replacing due to rotting and damp so basically the whole ground floor needs replacing and damp proofing, Windows are single glazed so need replaced, kitchen and bathroom are over 40 years old and in a state so need immediate replacing. Roof needs replacing in the next couple of years too. Price sort of reflects all this and we can’t get it knocked down anymore as developers have already offered more than us but the old lady that owns it preferred a family moving in - basically we’re lucky to get it.
We could only afford to do the flooring and damp proofing then borrow a bit to do the bathroom and kitchen as they are dire!
We were tentatively going ahead with the sale when a property we offered on in August came back on the market as the chain fell through - ea called me and asked if still interested. Now I’m confused because this other property is a light and airy 30s Art Deco house with partial sea views, large bedrooms, good size living room and dining room but in a not so great area 50min from work and kids would have to move school (school is very good though), the smallest kitchen known to mankind and North facing 60m long garden.
Which house would you pick?
Small cottage in great area, needs masses of money that you don’t quite have but has huge potential.
Or the largish, airy Art Deco house with the sea views and tiny kitchen that can’t quite afford to extend for at least a couple of years and need to move the kids school?