Which house would you choose?

[rosedahlialily]

Pregnant with first baby, due in August. DH works in central London, I work from home but plan to take time off with the baby for the foreseeable.

We are relocating as DH currently commutes 2.5 hours to his office 3 days a week. It’s exhausting for him and he will miss out on so much when the baby is here.

We have seen two great houses in very different locations and we are struggling to make up our minds and don’t want our judgement to be clouded before the baby arrives. Our initial plan was to move as close as possible to the office, but we want a 3 bed house + a safe area so will have to compromise on commute still. It’s annoying cause the whole point of the move was to make sure he can be home more. He is the main breadwinner and doesn’t want to change jobs.

Which would you pick?

1 - In a beautiful part of SW London. On the river, desirable location, great amenities and buzzy community locally. House is very top of our budget, ticks every practical box but needs work and isn’t much of a looker. It could be great in the long run but will take time and we won’t have money to do it up right away. Transport links are annoyingly not great though - it will take DH 1 hour 15 minutes to the office door to door three days a week.
No friends locally, 2.5 hours drive from any family.

2 - In a beautiful Cotswolds village (our top choice village if we were to move there). House is stunning, ticks every box and wouldn’t need any work. Village has lovely pubs, shops, couple of cafes, nursery and primary school but no secondary. Nearest big city is 45 mins away. House 2 is 30K cheaper than house 1.
It would take DH 1 hour 45 minutes to the office door to door. We would be 1 hour 10 minutes from any family. No friends locally.

House 1 makes the most practical sense and would offer more to do locally/ chance of making friends.

House 2 is the dream house and closer to family but much quieter location

I wouldn’t choose either of these houses.

Just as an alternative, how about Edgware? Plenty of three bed homes for £600k - £800k in a ten minute walk from the train station.

It's then 20 minutes on Thameslink into St Pancras and then walk across to Kings Cross for the Victoria line.

This house for £750k needs some updating:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/157890125#/?channel=RES_BUY

Or how about Harrow?

For example this 4 bed Edwardian semi for £775k (not my style but)

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/156265433#/?channel=RES_BUY

From there it's a 10 minute walk to Harrow on the Hill station. Then it's 18 minutes on the Metropolitan line, change at Baker St for the Bakerloo and another 5 minutes to get to Oxford Circus
.

Or, as others have said, look out along the Elizabeth line. This semi in Iver for £800k. A 7 minute walk to the station and then 33 mins on the Elizabeth line to Bond Street and then a 7 minute walk to Oxford Circus.

The downside with this one is that it is close to the railway lines but it does have a very nice garden:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/160333061#/?channel=RES_BUY

For 900k I'd go for a mews house or flat a couple of stops from Oxford Circus. Or you could look for somewhere with a longer commute that deposits him within an hour at the Elizabeth line Bond Street. Parenting will be so much better for both of you if he's around for longer.

Neither are good locations for commuting and lifestyle. I would rethink.
Can you afford the mortgage on either if one of you loses their job?

Cotswolds and SW London are both very expensive areas.

I'd go option 1 or look for an option 3.

It's just my opinion, but I think very long commutes are detrimental to family life and should be avoided whenever possible. The other thing to keep in mind is that if something goes very wrong on a London commute, there's always another option that will at least get you within walking distance of home. If you're reliant on a commuter train line, things get much more difficult.

It's not just length that's a factor but frequency/alternatives/changes. Eg better to sit for longer on a tube that comes every few minutes than having a train that's only twice and hour and you're stranded if that line gets blocked.

Definitely house 2 - better area and closer to family, no contest.

Which Cotswold village? I live in the area, some are really boring (sorry), senior school needs to be thought about (I presume you aren't looking at private?). Would Cirencester be a possibility? it's a town rather than village, but a nice one, dh could get the train from Kemble.

House 2

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/161080667?utm_campaign=property-details&utm_content=buying&utm_medium=sharing&utm_source=copytoclipboard#/&channel=RES_BUY

Grimshaw estate agents might have lots of possibilities - local agent for Ealing etc. Central line from Ealing Broadway AND Elizabeth Line.
I do think the Elizabeth line can be mixed though, it sometimes doesnt stop at the minor stations or only goes every half an hour. And it's packed!

Why do you think 1 is more practical? I can't see how it is in any way. In fact it seems worse in every way.

2 is better but neither is great. Being close to work (30 minutes or less) or being close to family would be the debate but neither of these are either.

House 1 has a shorter commute, which was the main reason for moving. 1hr15 vs the current 2.5 hours is a big difference, and also frankly quite normal for London area. House 2 is another 30 mins each way on top of that, and doesn’t seem like enough of a reduction from current commute.

Also house 1 is in a busier area with more going on - potential for lots more friends to be made close by.

I’m in team neither as well I’m afraid but I’d lean towards house 1 unless you don’t ever plan to go back to work. A Cotswolds village sounds like an idyll that wouldn’t actually live up to it as someone at home with a new baby, nor does it sound a sensible location for either of you to find a new job in the future.

House 1 - over 1.5hrs is a killer regularly.
I agree with the previous poster that you can be counting down the minutes til your partner is home sometimes.

How about North London/north of London? Stations on a direct line to Finsbury Park (say Barnet stations and beyond) and then it's an easy change onto the viccy line for Oxford circus. Definitely comfortably doable for a 3 bed + on £900k.

I'd do the opposite to you and come as far in as you can afford. DH and I did this (our house is 15 minutes on the tube to Oxford Circus). It meant a much better quality of life for all of us as we actually saw our DC. There is so much to do with littles in London - its a great place to grow up.

Neither. If you are going to move, you as close to London as you can get. Those options do not make any sense.

Walthamstow for a short commute?

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/160727495#/?channel=RES_BUY

London all the way. Much more interesting place to live and makes more sense commute wise.

You need to find house 3.

If a shorter commute is the purpose of the move then house one doesn't do enough to tick that box.

House 2 isn't ideal for this stage of your life and doesn't have a suitable secondary school. I think you'd move out of that house fairly quickly.

1.15 minutes is quite ridiculous commute if being close is your goal, when we are talking about this level of time then the extra 30 minutes barely matters.

I mean you are saying 30 minute is massive between 1 and 2 but that the 45 minutes between now and 2 isn't enough. How can 45 minutes make no difference but 30 minutes be massive?

like I said if house 1 was say 30 minutes and house 2 was a 2 hour commute then that would be easy but the difference between 1.15 and 1.45 is pretty much nothing when compared with the other pros and cons. House 2 is closer to family too (do not underestimate this if your planning kids, living close enough to have a good regular relationship can be really important) so more balanced and just genuinely sounds nicer.

I have friends that live in cities, towns and villages and once you have kids that does not effect having friends at all. Its not like your popping out clubbing and want to live close to the center for rolling back drunk. Most kids things are annoyingly rural (wait until you have they joys of getting to an industrial estate in the middle of no where to get to the big soft play is or sensory/imagination cafe or bounce trampoline center once older... they are virtually never in towns/cities as they take up huge air-hanger type buildings).

Being close to work (30 minutes or less) or being close to family would be the debate but neither of these are either.

It's really unusual to have a 30 min door to door commute if working in central London.

the frequency of trains and reliability of service is certainly important.

Clearly it’s entirely up to the OP’s husband to say what he feels is an improved commute - I took it to mean from the description that halving the commute time felt a lot better than reducing by 30%. Being closer is the goal. They’ve concluded they can’t get closer than that, I think, without compromising other things too much.

Also coming at it from the perspective of a family where we live 2.5 - 4.5 hours from any family, and DH has a 1hr 15 min commute into London, and definitely would not want to make it any longer. Feels like “just over an hour” and is very doable. He wouldn’t want to add another 30 mins each way to that - would tip it over the edge of what he feels happy with.

House 2

What would you do about secondary?