In budget..at last.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

As odd as it sounds I am living in what I would class as a "dream house" and better than anything I could of ever expected.
But it is just a house, a place to come home too raise the kids and sleep. It is nice having all the space but in the end of the day it could be just a shoe box.

I see a house as a house, not a treasured sentimental possession or a thing to get emotionally attached to.

Its as valid a stance as any Really, and possibly reflects in your choice of house? And what you consider 'dreamy'.

Thankfully for those of us in love with architecture and for the wealth of our cultural heritage many have seen houses as smething to fall in love with and preserve through centuries, or invest sweat and tears into as well as building costs. That's why there are different types of houses and buyer

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

Its as valid a stance as any Really, and possibly reflects in your choice of house?

Thankfully for those of us in love with architecture and for the wealth of our cultural heritage many have seen houses as smething to fall in love with and preserve through centuries, or invest sweat and tears into as well as building costs. That's why there are different types of houses and buyer

Thanks: couldn't have put it better. Really's stance is fine for those who see the housing thing as a ladder, which leads to very transitory communities and anonymity, if taken to extremes.

Neither of the two houses I've owned in the past 30-something years have had any great architectural merit, but they've both been in the same close community. I could leave both houses easily, but the people are harder to walk away from. That's why choosing the next community and not just the house is so hard. No second-home holiday villages for us please!

And then there's the land......but that's something else, isn't it?

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

Thanks: couldn't have put it better. Really's stance is fine for those who see the housing thing as a ladder, which leads to very transitory communities and anonymity, if taken to extremes.

Neither of the two houses I've owned in the past 30-something years have had any great architectural merit, but they've both been in the same close community. I could leave both houses easily, but the people are harder to walk away from. That's why choosing the next community and not just the house is so hard. No second-home holiday villages for us please!

And then there's the land......but that's something else, isn't it?

You've just made a point that is so valid it deserves its own thread. Its telling we are a forum on ''House Prices, the economy and recession'' and that community plays very little part in the discussion, and yet could have a greater play on our lives than the relative economy. Community, though difficult to price has significant impact on both HPs and the local economy, not to mention state of health and well being, and yes, love for one's home and one's life.

For me a house can be changed. I know that the house of my wildest dreams will always be out of my wildest price range. This house of my more sedate dreams offers oppertunity. The inflexible part of our dream is the plot and the potential I suppose. In fact, for us we hope to add something of archtectual 'value' to us, hopefully to others, in the longer term. I think the oppertunity to so physically maniferst our love for archetecture and our ethos surrounding it is a great part of the deal.

Really2

Davesnave wrote: »

Thanks: couldn't have put it better. Really's stance is fine for those who see the housing thing as a ladder, which leads to very transitory communities and anonymity, if taken to extremes.

Neither of the two houses I've owned in the past 30-something years have had any great architectural merit, but they've both been in the same close community. I could leave both houses easily, but the people are harder to walk away from. That's why choosing the next community and not just the house is so hard. No second-home holiday villages for us please!

And then there's the land......but that's something else, isn't it?

I am not having a go at you and I understand your "community" point. I was just saying I see houses as a practical asset (by practcal area, and schools count in that) nothing more.
Yes I have a nice looking big house in a nice area, but it is people who make memorys not the property.

I do not buy in to the whole "romantic" idea of a property and perhaps if more thought like that we would have not had the massive housing boom we had just seen?

I don't see why not getting emotional attached to my house is a bad thing?

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

I am not having a go at you and I understand your "community" point. I was just saying I see houses as a practical asset (by practcal area, and schools count in that) nothing more.
Yes I have a nice looking big house in a nice area, but it is people who make memorys not the property.

I do not buy in to the whole "romantic" idea of a property and perhaps if more thought like that we would have not had the massive housing boom we had just seen?

I don't see why not getting emotional attached to my house is a bad thing?

Its not a bad thing for you which is good as you have what you want.

it would be a bad thing for us. which is why we are looking for something very different.

Davesnave

Really2 wrote: »

I am not having a go at you and I understand your "community" point. I was just saying I see houses as a practical asset (by practcal area, and schools count in that) nothing more.
Yes I have a nice looking big house in a nice area, but it is people who make memorys not the property.

I do not buy in to the whole "romantic" idea of a property and perhaps if more thought like that we would have not had the massive housing boom we had just seen?

I don't see why not getting emotional attached to my house is a bad thing?

Well, we're agreeing to some extent then.

I think where we'd differ is that I couldn't ignore the whole ambience of some houses, while you're saying it is just a few walls & a roof. I've looked at houses that on paper are big enough, full of nice things and in superb grounds, yet I've hated them. They just didn't 'go' with my personality, I suppose.

I also think it makes a difference whether you are buying with the intention of moving on, or buying to stay put, in which case how you feel is paramount.

LIR says houses can be changed, and while I agree with that, a 'final' house has to be right in those aspects that can't be changed too. For example, first thing DW and I do is ask 'Who's in control of the sunlight here?' If a house is compromised in that way, we walk.

I don't know how I'll feel until I visit a place.Imagination isn't enough. Before I moved into my last house, I thought the whole road was naff. When a friend bought one of the houses, I visited it and changed my opinion. Later, I bought it from him. It wasn't to do with size, except in terms of outdoor space, it was how it felt that really mattered.

I agree that no amount of old roses round the door, lattice windows and thatch would make me pay over the odds for some tarted-up, poky little
17th century worker's cottage in a South Hams village.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Its not a bad thing for you which is good as you have what you want.

it would be a bad thing for us. which is why we are looking for something very different.

Perhaps years of negotiating have taught me to keep finance and emotions well away from each other.:)
People tend to over pay when they believe there is an "emotional link" with something.
I am not knocking you but it is a good thing to keep in the back of your mind.

Most mistakes are made when following ones heart.

Really2

Davesnave wrote: »

Well, we're agreeing to some extent then.

I think where we'd differ is that I couldn't ignore the whole ambience of some houses, while you're saying it is just a few walls & a roof. .

well I never did say that but I am saying I am fairly unemotional about houses. I Like the house I live in and I am not looking to move as we can accommodate 9 people if we needed to and there are only 3 of us.

But would i place an emotional attachment on it?
No, Life can change at any time and I think it is safer to be prepared for change rather than a "house" (in the end of day a asset) clouding my judgement.

Davesnave

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what I thought you meant when you said:

But it is just a house, a place to come home too raise the kids and sleep. It is nice having all the space but in the end of the day it could be just a shoe box.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Perhaps years of negotiating have taught me to keep finance and emotions well away from each other.:)
People tend to over pay when they believe there is an "emotional link" with something.
I am not knocking you but it is a good thing to keep in the back of your mind.

Most mistakes are made when following ones heart.

I won't be ABLE to pay over the odds for something like this!

Every decision I make in life has an emotional link, what I studied, how and why I started my business, and the greater financial decisions I have made. There is a funadamental difference of stance here, and I don't think either of us is right or wrong. Your method has been so far successful for you, mine so far successful for me.

Money for me is important because it can give me the things I can fall in love with, whereas for you not falling in love with things means you don't waste money. Each stance can be appropriate for people in different poisitions and with different wants and requirements from life.

Wisely, for example, you state school areas are vital in your decision that you were prepared to make a financial decision based upon, but for us this would be an inappropriate selection criteria. Horses for courses