How to decide on 2 very different houses

[killerqueue]

Narrowed our shortlist to 2 properties but they are opposite ends of the spectrum. How do you decide between them?

1st house

1960s build, not my preferred style
Good size rooms & proportions
Bigger property - 1300 sq ft but not much scope to extend & I think unlikely to be able to do a loft.
separate garage at back
semi detached
Small garden but wider
Smaller drive
Excellent location for shops
In catchment for secondary schools but primary may be a problem. The closest primary is excellent but no spaces yet so would be on waiting list however should be close to top of not top due to proximity.

2nd house
1930s house
950 sq ft but able to do good extension & loft conversion if needed.
very long beautiful garden with garden office
terrace
space to park 2 cars - only have 1
high ceilings
closer to the rail line so potentially more noise.
Further away from shops
closer to primary schools but not my preferred one but more options.
Not great for secondary so may have to rely on catholic (we are) or private so less options.
cheaper

Ideally we would move after 5 yrs but conscious of what the market could look like then.

Is option 2 priced lower than option 1 thus giving you an extension/conversion budget?

not much lower, 20k ish so would need to save up for a bit.

You write like you prefer option 2. We bought a 1930s property that has almost tripled in value in 8 years due to large extensions and improvements we have done. They have curb appeal, lovely room sizes and great plots. But times have changed. The market is at a peak in many areas and building work costs have soared. If you're not planning to stay long buy the one that you stand to make most profit on to help you up the ladder and best for your schooling needs.

How old are your DCs, how many do you have, and do you plan on having any more?! And how old are you, and would you want to take on a new mortgage in 5 years time? (Ie will you be over 40 by then and potentially thinking about retirement and when you’d like to have paid off your mortgage?)

If you are within a year or so of secondary applications, I would probably go for the first house, all things being equal. If your children are, say, 4 and 6, I would be more influenced by primary options.

But what you don’t say is anything really about the actual houses! To what extent does each property meet your current/future needs in terms of, say, number of bedrooms? You refer to extension potential - would you need to extend either house? How about things like a kitchen big enough to eat in, a downstairs loo and so on?

Do not underestimate how expensive and disruptive building work is. If one property is the right size for you now without an extension, that would be a big plus point in its favour if it were me. Unless the idea of putting your own stamp on something really appeals and the smaller property has enough things going for it to outweigh the downside of needing to do building work.

(Tripling also down to market increase!)

If 1 is big enough for you without an extension then I’d go for 1.

@Scottishgirl85 I want option 2 in option 1s location I think.
Yes I agree the market has changed & ideally I don't want loads of work. I can't work out which one is the safest bet if that makes sense.

House 1 sounds like the best location, and that can make a big difference to quality of life.
I live in a 1960s house, and I’ve always though it was ugly from the outside. But, the rooms are a great size and proportion, and you don’t actually spend much time looking at the outside of your house!

@CatsAreDictators 2 dc, 6&8. Yes we would take on a new mortgage in 5 yrs as would be then in 40s. Retirement we would downsize & leave London.
Both 3 beds but the 2nd property has a bigger 3rd bed but if wanted a separate office would have to build it whereas the 1st house has the garden office there. option 2 has a downstairs toilet which is a plus.

I live in a 1960s house, and I’ve always though it was ugly from the outside. But, the rooms are a great size and proportion, and you don’t actually spend much time looking at the outside of your house!

Good point 😆

I'd be thinking about heating bills now and which has the better insulation. Can you post floorplans?

Go for the location, it’s the only thing you really can’t change about a property!

Hmm. Sounds like different advantages then. Don’t underestimate bedroom size. It’s nice to have the right number of bedrooms and equally sized ones for the kids.

Do think about when you’d like to be mortgage free. We are early/mid forties and just remortgaging so age is a factor for us. I would buy the one that will serve you the longest, in that sense.

But you can’t change location or plot size. Most other things can be changed if you have the money. So I would pick the one whose location serves you best, which sounds like House 1 (and I say that as the owner of a 1930s semi).

whereas the 1st house has the garden office there

I thought the 2nd had the garden office. Must admit, I'd like that if properly insulated.

@SwedishEdith sorry my mistake. 1960s house has bigger bedrooms but no separate office. 1930s big garden office but box room for 3rd bedroom.

As someone else said, go for the size and location- the bits you maybe would like to change are an awful lot cheaper and less disruptive than extensions and it's not that difficult to pretty up 60s exteriors. Personally I would go for option 1 --

@CatsAreDictators it's really hard to weigh them up as pros & cons for both.

With an 8 year old I’d be thinking about secondary. Moving in less than 4 years, unless you intend to add value won’t be worth the stamp duty. If it’s a temporary move - those looking will face the same dilemma, area over ‘looks’.

Location location location always for me.

the costs of building materials have risen timber is up 25% and shortages
good builders are busy,

I would buy the bigger 60's house in the better location 1300sq ft is 30% bigger than house 2 that's a good bit. Isn't permitted development only 15% so to increase property 2 to the size of property 1 will need planning permission not just building regs

in OP you said garden office in property 2 now you say property 1

You could consider replacing the garage with a garden office and separate storage.

I think the 1930s house - more kerb appeal - you will look at it at least twice per day - and the character house will probably go up in value more and sell easier if you do have to sell.

Ive been lucky enough to live in 3 beautiful houses and would never have changed them for larger 60/70s boxes.

the character house will probably go up in value more this is not correct IMO as location is the biggest factor in price increases and, also, protecting against price drops.

now this all be a moot point as we may not even get any offer that we put in accepted! I'm still not offer the fact I lost out on the dream house, large 1930s SD house in good location but it went 80k over & needed work so i've lowered my budget

I'd go with the 1960s house because it is bigger and in a better location, especially for secondary schools which are v important.