Square Feet

Catblue

Also, does square footage just mean floor space? Surely some floor space is more attractive or usable than other floor space.

Do corridors and stairs and landings add to the square footage? What about attic bedrooms with restricted head height?

A room with stairs in it will have smaller usable living space than an identically sized room without the stairs in it. Also a room with high ceilings and large windows will feel much more spacious and be much better for storage than a sloping attic room.

On the face of it, 3 storey houses might have more square footage than a traditional 2 storey house but if you factor in the stairs, corridors, landings and restricted height in attic rooms then the useful living space may very well be less.

PasturesNew

I sat and worked out the square footage on two 3-bed semis, being built on the same new-build estate by different builders. Even then, both lots being built side by side and seemingly no different, the difference in £/sqft was staggering. The house priced £245k, broken down into square feet and compared with another one on the same estate, should have been priced at £190k to give the same 'value'. There was nothing to tell these two houses apart location-wise.

Doozergirl

Catblue wrote: »

Also, does square footage just mean floor space? Surely some floor space is more attractive or usable than other floor space.

Do corridors and stairs and landings add to the square footage? What about attic bedrooms with restricted head height?

A room with stairs in it will have smaller usable living space than an identically sized room without the stairs in it. Also a room with high ceilings and large windows will feel much more spacious and be much better for storage than a sloping attic room.

On the face of it, 3 storey houses might have more square footage than a traditional 2 storey house but if you factor in the stairs, corridors, landings and restricted height in attic rooms then the useful living space may very well be less.

It's not going to be less, otherwise they wouldn't bother with three storeys! You can certainly fit more living space into a three storey house that sits on the same footprint as a two storey. You are allowed to view these houses as well as calculate the price! You make a decision on all the same things but the price per square foot helps you assess whether it's genuinely good value.

Square footage is calculated either externally by measuring around the house, in which case you have to allow for the walls, or internally which will be exact and will include staircases and cupboards.

Most houses need a staircase and all houses have space under stairs. The stiarcases in most houses is a standard 13 stairs so they all take up roughly the same amount of room. So if one house has more square footage, it's just a bigger house; the stairs should be pretty inconsequential. But if the house has a lot of wasted space, it can be made more useful but you might expect to pay less per square foot than a beautifully laid out house with perfect flow... and so you compare.

A three storey house will have more staircases but they are also cheaper per square foot than two storey houses as standard anyway. Some don't have restricted ceiling heights on the top floor, they have a separate loft space. Depends entirely on the design.

Doozergirl

olias wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be the first to disagree. It may work in principal, with similar age/type of houses in similar areas, but in practice it bares no relation.

In my area for example you might have a 5 bed detached with a large garden (new build, estate) for exactly the same price as a tiny 2 up 2 down period cottage with a tiny courtyard. There are also extreme variations where immediate surroundings come into play. For example identical houses, one next to busy and noisy building suppliers on the edge of an industrial estate and one in a quiet culde sac backing onto open fields may have vast differences in price yet be the same suare footage.

Now I think it works better across different house types in different areas.

Because if they are similar house types in similar areas, the asking price should be pretty much the same.

When I looke with friends, we looked at two duplex apartments, a period house needing renovation, a renovated house, immaculate brand new conversion flats, some just regular 'home' type flats, some with gardens, some not. And with prices that varied by £100k. It brought them to a level playing field and you then just do a double check on it, especially where you might like a couple of different places, it can help swing it. Yes, you will pay more for a garden, for a gorgeous location, for a period property or for something that needs no work.

You then decide whether the immaculate flat with the garden is worth £500 a square foot! And when the gorgeous funky airy duplex with no garden and a kitchen that is fashionable but showing signs of wear and looks like it will need replacing in the next couple of years comes up at the same price per square foot - you know that the better deal is definitely the garden place that's just been finished.

It's more helpful as the places get bigger and more expensive as well.

neverdespairgirl

Doozergirl wrote: »

Hardly any agents give you the square footage to start off with (depending on where you are) so it's impossible to calculate.

I've noticed that this is very area-dependent, though.

In central London, where we are looking, almost all places have a floor plan and a total area given.

I've been surprised by just how many links people post up here that don't have either a floor plan or a sq. footage. Both seem absolutely basic information, as far as I'm concerned.

Just done a quick rightmove search - in WC1R there are 4 places for sale, all have floorplans and sq. footage info. In WC1B, 6 places, all have both lots of info.

In NW1, did a search between £300k and £325k, 20 places. 17 had floorplan & area figures.