Is it true Victorian houses are higher price & if so why?

[Ruralbliss]

We went to view a nice house yesterday but it's considerably higher asking price than it's larger, well insulated, multi bathrooms modern counterparts.

A quick chat with the agent tells me this is definitely the case despite rooms being smaller, lower energy efficiency rating etc no garage.

I'm thinking of making an offer despite it meaning I'd have to get rid of loads of large pieces of furniture and belongings as like the location and garden

Just wondering if Mumsnet property board people have a view. Don't want to find out via a survey that it's priced more than current value.

It’s probably fair to say the EA was incorrect to suggest that ALL Victorian houses everywhere command a premium. A tiny, terraced two-up two-down where you walk straight off the street into the living room isn’t going to compare with a big villa with enormous, high-ceilinged rooms and a coachhouse converted into a garage, or a roomy, we’ll-appointed new build.
Those aren’t like for like, though. The comparison is more: tiny terraced two-up two-down period property commands a premium vs the same square footage new build terrace; and big period villa with X bedrooms, bathrooms and grounds commands a premium vs the equivalent new build.

I do agree though that estate agents will say any old shite.

@hotmeatymilk

It’s probably fair to say the EA was incorrect to suggest that ALL Victorian houses everywhere command a premium. A tiny, terraced two-up two-down where you walk straight off the street into the living room isn’t going to compare with a big villa with enormous, high-ceilinged rooms and a coachhouse converted into a garage, or a roomy, we’ll-appointed new build. Those aren’t like for like, though. The comparison is more: tiny terraced two-up two-down period property commands a premium vs the same square footage new build terrace; and big period villa with X bedrooms, bathrooms and grounds commands a premium vs the equivalent new build.

I do agree though that estate agents will say any old shite.

Agree, if you do a square footage and condition comparison then th period property will usually command more than a similar sizes and conditioned newer build.

Estate agents do talk shite, they are sales people, but in this the agent is not wrong. You pay more for character.

However people should buy the property that best suits their needs at that stage in their lives and is within their budget. If you can afford character and it meets your needs and that’s your preference go for it, but it will usually come at a premium to the same newer property. Everyone has different tastes.

There might be a time when a well insulated house car yes up with old Victorian single brick walked houses. When prices for fuel sky rocket there might be a rethink.

Around me, the few Victorian larger houses will sell for more then the equivalent modern house or new build on an estate. An individual new build would be similar to a Victorian house on a good road. If the Victorian house has retained its period features it could command a premium. We have a few Victorian terraces nearby and they are not much different to new builds in good locations. So it’s really all down to location and scarcity. I do think fuel prices might start to have an impact though.

In my area, a 3 bed Victorian terrace costs about 25% more than the 3 bed 1980s house down the road. But that’s mostly because it’s 25% bigger. Price per sqm is about the same, with the period premium largely offset by the invariably poor state of repair.

There’s also scope to extend in the Victorian houses - both loft and into the huge gardens - which isn’t an option in the 1980s houses.

Plenty of smaller Victorian houses just gave a back yard. There are huge variations in these homes. Most newer homes don’t have larger gardens but sometimes bespoke ones do.

High ceilings are nice if you like pictures on the walls. In modern houses, you would struggle to put a decent-sized painting over a fireplace with an overmantel.

I do commissioned artworks. Clients tell me the size of what they want, at which point I suggest they measure the space it will go in. If it's over a fireplace/mantelpiece, or sideboard, or whatever, I explain they need to allow some height on top of that for ornaments (clock or whatever) and then space over that so it doesn't look cramped, then measure to the ceiling (or coving if there is any). Then allow for a picture frame. Most of my clients in modern houses or old cottages have had to come back and ask for something smaller than they originally wanted.

I don’t think my Victorian flat had high ceilings. It was part of a terraced house built for railway workers though, so nothing grand. I would pay more for slightly higher ceilings (although double height ceilings give me the heebie-jeebies).

An unexpected surprise was that my tiny flat had the biggest ceiling rose I’ve ever seen. I hope the young new owners keep it.

@Cattenberg

I don’t think my Victorian flat had high ceilings. It was part of a terraced house built for railway workers though, so nothing grand. I would pay more for slightly higher ceilings (although double height ceilings give me the heebie-jeebies).

An unexpected surprise was that my tiny flat had the biggest ceiling rose I’ve ever seen. I hope the young new owners keep it.

That's more in the 'workers' cottage' category. In fact, I personally think they can be lovely houses, and much cheaper to heat than ones with high ceilings, but not good for big paintings!

Round our way this is certainly true. You'll get 50 percent more floor space for your money in a new build compared to the pokey victorian terraces adjacent. And all that floor space is with full height ceilings as opposed to stuck up in the old loft. Lately I have started to wonder if the price difference is narrowing.