Which house would you choose?

[ValancyRedfern]

DP and I have just started searching in earnest for a house for us and dd (9). We are probably not going to get either of these houses as there's no offer on our house yet, but I'd be interested in your opinion on which you prefer and why. DP and I have opposing views!

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/121658291#/?channel=RES_BUY

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/122040446#/?channel=RES_BUY

House 2. Bigger, bay window, no bedrooms in basement. More kerb appeal.

They're both rather nice. The more expensive one has a better garden (and owners with better taste!) but on balance I'd take the one with four bedrooms which comes in under £700 k.

Second one which is hardly surprising because of the price difference.

There’s always a guitarist isn’t there

First one seems better value for money. Although it doesn’t have back access from the front which would irritate me.

Do you think it's worth that much more though Enzbear? I feel it's a lot more to pay for a bigger garden and one less bedroom.

Definitely house 2.
Anyone sleeping on the lower floor in house one would have two flights of stairs to get to a loo.

And house two is, just, nicer

I think if you only need 2 bedrooms on a day to day basis then house 1 wouldn’t be too bad. So it depends how well you can afford the higher price on house 2 which is objectively nicer.

2 for me. The layouts are bettter

House 2, it's far nicer for the additional expense. Clincher for me is due to better number and location of bathrooms for people when downstairs, hosting guests in garden, or when kids are older and have two upstairs. And the bigger garden.

House 2. Toilet on each floor!

Also I would have thought the difference in long term liveability between 90m2 and 120m2 is significant. Having each of your main rooms being more spacious is for me more important than lots of small rooms.

I prefer house 1 apart from some of the decor.
I agree about the toilets though, I'd want to add at least 1 more.
I don't think I'd pay the difference for house 2 and the kitchen isn't as nice.

House 2 as semi detached, and layout much better

The more expensive house. Much more practical layout for me, I prefer both the dining and sitting rooms, better garden too and great from the road too.

The cheaper house has an extra bedroom but only 1 bathroom for the whole house. Lack of loos etc.

I wouldn't pay the difference in price and drop a bedroom. But I don't really like the layout of the first one either. There's not enough photos of the second.

1 doesn’t have enough toilets, those two rooms in the basement are two floors away from a loo and it would probably be very difficult to add a downstairs loo to either the ground floor or the basement so I wouldn’t consider buying it at all. And two basement rooms = not great for actual living. OK if no kids and you can have a hobby room each I suppose.

So 2, of those two.

Quite a difference in price

No 2 - it’s a ‘prettier’ house and is semi-detached.

Hence the price difference. Depends what your budget is at the end of the day?

I prefer the back garden of the second house and that it has more than one loo. I don’t like the kitchen units in the second house. If you only have 1 DC then house 1 would be fine. The basement rooms could be a gym/playroom and a spare bedroom, but I’d be looking to add a lower ground loo and shower, and a small utility as well.

I know someone who lives in a house with the same layout as house 2, the more expensive one.

They've said that they find the route from the sitting room to the kitchen to make a cup of tea a bit of a faff, having to go through the dining room. It dictates how they can have their furniture in the dining room laid out as the 'corridor' needs to be kept clear of obstacles.

House 1 could do with a ground floor loo - what is that building in the back garden? There's no mention of it in the details. Assuming it's some sort of shed, I'd be inclined to get it plumbed out and get a toilet fitted, maybe get my washing machine plumbed in there too to free up some kitchen space. You're only needing two bedrooms, so the basement rooms could become a cosy sitting room / cinema room / gym / spare room for visitors. (I have a second sitting room in the basement, it's great!) Being £200k less, I'd feel able to spring for any building work it needed to give me that toilet / cinema room.

I can't get on with either of those to be honest.

The first one is all low ceilings and oppressive feel, something about it makes me never want to set foot in it.

Second one -- feels very punchily priced given the size and layout.

And yes -- guitar on display, massive eye-roll.

Also, House 1 has a Quaker Meeting House and a Jehovah's Witness hall on the doorstep. Potential for religion beefs right outside your door.

House 1 has shared drive!

Ooh, tricky one. Both houses are in a good location, so no difference there. Sevenoaks is a lovely town but v pricey. The biggie for me is the bedrooms in the lower ground floor. This would be a deal breaker for me.

I am in west Kent and it is full of families with 2 or 3 dc. In fact, I am in the minority with just 2. So a house with 2 of the 4 bedrooms on the lower ground floor will be fine for a family with one child, but I would worry about the sell on potential. Most family homes really would need 3 or 4 bedrooms on the same floor. Or the standard 3 bed with the loft converted into a master with en-suite.

So if money is doable, I would go for the semi. The terraced house is a good price for the area because of the layout.