for londoners:where would you buy a house if you were a foreigner?

danieladam64

inflationbusting wrote: »

You might have to sacrifice one of your wishes. I don't think £170,000 would stretch to a house unless it was in a not as nice area. But, you would be able to get a flat, and maybe a new-ish one at that, depending on area.

If you like London and for rental purposes, being close to the rail is essential. Especially if your children come over for study and have no other forms of transport.

Somewhere like Surbiton has good transport links and is next to green space. Going a bit further out you'd get a bit more charm: places like Epsom, Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks.

Thank you inflationbusting for your advice.Could you tell me where arethe locations you mentioned? and how are tey connected to the london airports?

danieladam64

Emy1501 wrote: »

I live in Croydon and would tend to agree. Its not that safe at times and as the home office is there there is a lot of immigration. Also you are not going to get a real taste of english culture! Some of the areas on the outskirts like Coulsdon etc are quite nice etc,

It does have good train links to London though, Gatwik is not too far away and its cheap compared to other places you would look at. Got to admit its the last place I would be looking for a holiday home though! I suspect the OP would like to live in a nice village in parts of Kent or Surrey but 170K is not going to get you anything in these places really.

Thank you Emy1501, I was just thinking about Kent and Surrey.I will check those location' s price...
By the way, what does "OP" mean?

danieladam64

princeofpounds wrote: »

Wow, can't believe people are discussing Croydon (yes, it is cheap, yes it has access, but it's a total dump with little green space), or Brighton (which ticks all the boxes but is not Greater London by any stretch of the imagination).

OP, you are likely to get different answers from people depending on which bit of London they know well. Very few people will know the South, East, North and West equally, and there are potential places in all directions.

If you are intending to fly in, you probably want to be in the South (for Gatwick), West (for Heathrow) or maybe North (for Luton). Access to the East from abroad is harder, even though there are some surprisingly nice Essex villages which have great access (even tubes).

As for looking for villages, you won't find true villages in Greater London, although there are still areas that retain a village character they will be firmly suburban.

So, here are some suggestions based on areas I know:

(EDIT: I just noticed the 170k criterion... I'm not sure you can do anything for this price in ANY of the areas I discuss below, except maybe Chislehurst).

Expensive, but will tick every box:

- Wimbledon & Wimbledon Village. Excellent village feel and access to town, really one of the best places to live in Greater London. Will still be a bit expensive, but don't forget that there will be areas directly adjacent which are much cheaper but require a bus trip to the station.
- Richmond. Similar to wimbledon, but rather than being centred on a common on the hill it is very much a riverside place.

Stepping down a notch on the expense ladder
- Barnes. Not so far from town but access is a little indirect. Cheaper as a result, still a bit villagey and not far from the river and a big nature reserve.
- Kingston. Train to London is a little slow but well within your limits, but much cheaper than richmond, has great shopping and life all of its own, and is a river town. Would very much recommend a look.
- Esher. Bit further out that Kingston, but quick direct train and the first real 'village' you get to on this line out of London. Centred around a horse racing track, so lots of events going on and feels green.

Other places to consider
- Dulwich. Beautiful, probably the one of the few 'real' villages (like wimbledon and highgate) left in London. Easy access into town and not too pricey as it's in the middle of South London surrounded but unfashionable areas. Lots of green space and nice pubs.
- Chislehurst. A bit further out in the South East, but a really pleasant spacious area and cheap too.

I do really thank you princeofpounds for the very detailed answer.I will check every location you mentioned.
By the way, can you also give me advice for some location outside the london municipality that has good access to london airports (including stansted, even if I do not know if it is north, south, east or west)?

PasturesNew

danieladam64 wrote: »

I do really thank you princeofpounds for the very detailed answer.I will check every location you mentioned.
By the way, can you also give me advice for some location outside the london municipality that has good access to london airports (including stansted, even if I do not know if it is north, south, east or west)?

Map of London airports: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/scrapbook/eurocpianspring2004party/Airports_map.gif

BitterAndTwisted

Stansted is north of London and the nearest town is Bishops Stortford (I think) which also has a direct overground train into town. I think the journey time is about 20 minutes but none of towns in the area nearest the airport are particularly cheap. It might be worth looking a bit further north of the airport

breadlinebetty

West Croydon is a complete and utter dump, but South Croydon is green and leafy and beautul, although house prices therecan go up into the millions.

Banstead is very nice and villagey, with good transport links to Central London, as is Purley, but it is very very expensive there with lots of exclusive roads etc. All these places are just 15 mins from Gatwick Airport adn 20 mins from Central London.

North London is also expensive; Oakwood and Southgate have very villagey feels and are leafy and green with fab transport links (tube etc) into Central London.. Good for Stanstead or Luton..But again, it's expensive there.

£170k will not buy you anywhere in London really. Maybe a tiny studio in an undesirable area. The outskirts of London are just as dear too really, and you won't find much at that price.

PasturesNew

Turning it on its head, "what does £170k get you - which would you choose and why".

How about looking through this rightmove link and spotting the house/s you'd be prepared to look at: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^87490&maxPrice=170000&minBedrooms=2&retirement=false&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on&partBuyPartRent=false to give the OP a clue. Great fodder to argue amongst yourselves too

That is for 2 bed properties, in London, not shared ownership, not retirement.

bitsandpieces

Still not convinced that this will work as planned - if you want a holiday home, fair enough, but this will be a real pain to combine with renting it out as a place for someone to live in. Buying in an area you don't know well is also always hard.

hethmar

You are saying you want to live in London but when you give your list of wants it talks of villages? To be honest I dont think you will get much at all for £170k that fits your bill.

olly300

princeofpounds wrote: »

As for looking for villages, you won't find true villages in Greater London, although there are still areas that retain a village character they will be firmly suburban.

So, here are some suggestions based on areas I know:

(EDIT: I just noticed the 170k criterion... I'm not sure you can do anything for this price in ANY of the areas I discuss below, except maybe Chislehurst).

Expensive, but will tick every box:

- Wimbledon & Wimbledon Village. Excellent village feel and access to town, really one of the best places to live in Greater London. Will still be a bit expensive, but don't forget that there will be areas directly adjacent which are much cheaper but require a bus trip to the station.
- Richmond. Similar to wimbledon, but rather than being centred on a common on the hill it is very much a riverside place.

Stepping down a notch on the expense ladder
- Barnes. Not so far from town but access is a little indirect. Cheaper as a result, still a bit villagey and not far from the river and a big nature reserve.
- Kingston. Train to London is a little slow but well within your limits, but much cheaper than richmond, has great shopping and life all of its own, and is a river town. Would very much recommend a look.
- Esher. Bit further out that Kingston, but quick direct train and the first real 'village' you get to on this line out of London. Centred around a horse racing track, so lots of events going on and feels green.

Other places to consider
- Dulwich. Beautiful, probably the one of the few 'real' villages (like wimbledon and highgate) left in London. Easy access into town and not too pricey as it's in the middle of South London surrounded but unfashionable areas. Lots of green space and nice pubs.
- Chislehurst. A bit further out in the South East, but a really pleasant spacious area and cheap too.

The OP is wasting their time looking in the areas you mentioned apart from Chislehurst (even then they will struggle) there is absolutely no way they will find anything in their price range that is a 2 bedroom flat unless they want to live on a council estate or next to sewage works.