REALLY location location location?

[decisionschoices]

We are interested in buying in 2 areas. There are good amenities overall in both.

I know everyone says location location location.. but what if the location you prefer does not have great houses within your budget for sale or many houses at all even coming on the market.. However, the other location you are semi-interested in has much nicer houses which are better value for money..

• Would you switch to that one?

Area 1 (Preferred Location)

Advantages: Some family nearby. Quieter (? if an advantage). No traffic problems. A number of good primary and secondary schools. Beautiful nature nearby.

Disadvantages: Houses are older and neighbourhoods not brilliant (a bit rough around the edges). A bit more cut-off than Area 2. A few primary schools and 1 secondary school. Secondary school OK.

Area 2 (Other Location)

Advantages: Nicer houses. Potentially nicer neighbourhoods. Friends nearby. Good primary and secondary schools.

Disadvantages: NO family nearby. Traffic problems. Very built up. Not much in the way of nature/outdoors amenities.

Area 1 , you can change a house ( improve ) but not the location.

Thanks.

Sorry I made a mistake in descriptions. Schools in Area 2 are better than Area 1.

I don’t really understand what you are classing as a good location? To me, the best areas of a city have: good schools, decent transport links, cafes / bars / restaurants, plenty of green space, safe surroundings / low crime. These areas tend to have higher house prices. The two areas you describe both sound like compromises (ie neither that great) rather than either actually being desirable places to live. In that case, I’d go for the better house!

100% location. As I found out to my (great) cost when I moved to a nicer house in a not as desirable area (to save ££ by cashing in equity). Hated hated hated the horrible area, ,many noisy and antisocial neighbours, boy racers in cars, DIY at 7am and 10pm at night, general street noise, no peace. So we moved back to what we left and are in seventh heaven now realising we are so lucky and regained what we lost.
There's a reason why houses are cheaper in the not so nice area. As PP said - you can make the house anything you want it to be, given time and of course cash, and you are in control, but you will never improve a shit/not so nice area by yourself.

For me it's definitely location, I'd need to be no more than 10 mins from town centre and not on an estate. I think the only way I'd live further from town is if I won the lottery and could buy some sort of mansion.

Definitely location. But TBH neither of yours sound amazing, the first area has not great schools and is “rough around the edges”. So probably not a massive difference in your case?

So you have nicer houses, nicer estate, better school and friends nearby in H2. You have family abdo outdoor space in H1.

How far fro each other are they? As in how far to family and green space?

Having tried both in the past, I would definitely go for location. You can have the nicest house, but if the area around it doesn't do it for you, it'll cause problems for you.

We got a good house in a run down area the first time we bought. Miles from transport, schools weren't good, the GP was overrun and the area was depressing. Lovely house though - it didn't help as nobody wanted to visit anyway.

We moved to a smaller (and more expensive!) place in a leafier area with good schools and transport links and have never looked back.

I'd choose area 1.

Thanks. I suppose all of the above are criteria that can generally apply to both areas, give or take 1 or 2 points.

Of all of the above points you made, the downfall of Area 1 is that I am aware that there have been quite a few car thefts and burglaries in the area recently as it is overall perceived as a well-off and safe area (apart from a few estates), and therefore maybe an easy target? It has 1 good school and not a choice of schools.

The downfall of Area 2 is that we have no strong ties to the area much - a few acquaintances nearby but no family - and it is getting more and more built-up. There aren't too many green areas as a result. But there are shops, cafes, and it's a pleasant area - lots to do.

I am being fussy really!

They are on opposite sides of the city. Area 1 is a very outdoorsy place and easier to visit family. Area 2 is more built up but has more people our age about.

How far away from each other are they? As in, how far would you be from family in area 2? Because lots of people don't need to live near family whereas others think being in the next town is too far from family.

X-posted. So they're not far from each other really and you could still visit family from area 2. Really it comes down to taste. Area 2 would suit me better but sounds like you want the quieter place near your folks. It's not location in an objective sense, just what your preference is.

Neither sound great but schools would be one of the most important things for me. You don't say which city but presumably you can still reach friends, family and nature with just a short journey? I would say 2 now - you can move again when the children are older.

I did actually downsize from a 3-bed up a 2-bed when I was younger simply to get into a particular village (and nicer area) that I liked. But that was when I was single and didn't need 3 bedrooms. If space is at a premium with a family to consider I might have felt differently.

Its all a compromise though, just decide the order of your priorities.

@Parisj I could not agree more about compromise on a house & priorities.

I once read - write down the 6 things you want from a house & then be prepared to strike out at least two if it is the area where you want to live.