London price/sq ft in different areas

As the others have indicated in London properties aren't sold this way.

Generally any property in the catchment area of good schools, in close walking distance to a tube/train station and with it's own parking sells for more.

Bidding wars can occur simply because a property is well decorated, in the catchment area of schools, less than 10 mins from a station and has it's own parking even though 5 minutes further away (even on the same street) there are similar or larger properties.

This is why in London one of the best things you can do is rent in the area before buying if you don't know any long term residents of where you want to purchase.

I know a lot of people who have decided to move house after having children simply because they were in a poor school catchment area. I know childless people who have moved due to poor location and lack of parking due to their work prospects.

It's definitely a relevant factor, and one that I paid quite a lot of attention to when looking to buy in London. However, it's only a starting point - obviously you also need to factor in layout, outside space, parking, local amenities, state of repair, freehold/leasehold and a whole host of other things, which means that two properties with the same square footage in the same general neighbourhood could differ in value quite substantially.

Unfortunately I don't know of anywhere that you can find the data you need. I kept a spreadsheet of every property I viewed which included asking price, square footage, and price per square foot. Over time it gave me a good general sense of what was a reasonable price for the area.

I want to shout at people who babble on about sq ft. It is a waste of time trying to impose some popular concept from the TV of other countries.

In this country we have a huge variation in style design and age, and historically have a real mix of properties and who developed them, as well as hugely different living concepts
It is only when dealing with relatively new build apartments and suburban estates, say an area developed by one developer or owner or new towns, that it is indicative as the properties are easily and rationally compared

Look for eg a three bed semi with parking garden etc price range get the details and look at the room sizes and layout, view or dont view Simples.

propertyman wrote: »

I want to shout at people who babble on about sq ft. It is a waste of time trying to impose some popular concept from the TV of other countries.

Heaven forbid anyone should want to compare property based on an objective measurement! As far as imposing it on others - doesn't matter to me if someone else doesn't want to consider it - but as a buyer I would want to know the floor area before proceeding.

propertyman wrote: »

In this country we have a huge variation in style design and age, and historically have a real mix of properties and who developed them, as well as hugely different living concepts.

Translation - many UK properties are absolutely tiny and if people paid too much attention to this they might not want to buy them. The entire property "ladder" might collapse if people realised that moving up from a 3-bed house to a 4-bed house could sometimes mean only increasing the habitable area from 1100 sq ft to 1200 sq ft at a cost of £100,000 or more! So could perhaps get better value from an extension.

propertyman wrote: »

It is only when dealing with relatively new build apartments and suburban estates, say an area developed by one developer or owner or new towns, that it is indicative as the properties are easily and rationally compared

Indicative of what? Space is space whether a house is old or new. Sure - if you value "quaintness" and "character" over space go for a tiny historic cottage. But when comparing quaint character cottages it's still useful to know which one has more space.