Are Victorian property more desirable

Fiddlestick

helencbradshaw wrote: »

We refurbished ours totally, including new double glazed units. tHey look absolutely stunning, if I say so myself. Victorian over modern any day for me.

Not everyone has that luxury.

We have the misfortune of living in a conservation area, so we are stuck with single-glazed sash windows.

Fortunately we are only renting and are planning on moving in the summer.

milliebear00001

I grew up in a Victorian house and have owned two others. I have rented three new builds. I much prefer the look of the Victorian houses. However, the one I now own, although built from lovely Derbyshire stone, is expensive to heat and has, erm, interesting sloped floors. Joists or foundations have definitely shifted over time and so there are some issues with this. Other than that, we hear no noise, despite living in a mid-terrace and the house is very solid. The house I grew up in was similarly well built, although again, hard to heat.

The other Victorian house I owned was small, cramped, and the noise from the neighbours was awful - so there clearly is a Victorian equivalent of 'jerry-built'. Two of the Victorian houses were in cities, and these had postage stamp gardens. One, in a village, had a reasonable amount of outside space.

The new builds I rented, were warmer, cheaper to maintain, and I also had no noise issues (although I accept this doesn't seem to be universal). They were however, much less nice to look at! They have also had good size gardens, but obviously, that depends on the plot you choose.

The Victorian house I live in niow, looks great from the outside, but has had it guts ripped out inside. Will take a long time to replace all the fireplaces/doors/cornices etc. But will be worth it in terms of resale (and our pleasure!) I hope.

I guess the upshot really is - judge every house on its own merits! In particular, never assume that just because a house was built in the 'golden age of Victoriana', that somehow guarantees it will be well built or comfortable to live in.

efunc

Cissi wrote: »

Apart from all that, I wouldn't ever want to trade in the ceiling height, cornicing, tall skirting boards, original stained glass etc etc that we have in our tumbling Victorian house. I know these all add to the nominal value of the house, but much more importantly, they add to my pleasure in living here!

I'm very interested in this topic as I would prefer a period property to a boxy, cramped modern house with paper walls and low ceilings. My current (30s?) house is OK at about 2m 65cm downstairs, but I wonder if ceiling height varies much from house to house in London? Is there are standard or should I expect to take a tape measure when I go out on viewings? Frustratingly it seems that estate agents publish all the room dimensions EXCEPT ceiling height.

Cissi

efunc wrote: »

I'm very interested in this topic as I would prefer a period property to a boxy, cramped modern house with paper walls and low ceilings. My current (30s?) house is OK at about 2m 35cm, but I wonder if ceiling height varies much from house to house in London? Is there are standard or should I expect to take a tape measure when I go out on viewings? Frustratingly it seems that estate agents publish all the room dimensions EXCEPT ceiling height.

I don't think there is a standard height as such; ours are 3m 10 (downstairs) and I think this is a little higher than the previous house that we owned in London which was also Victorian but a 3-bed mid-terrace versus 4-bed detached. The through sitting room feels very similar in both houses though - in our current house it's also wider, at 14' versus 12', so the overall proportions feel very similar. To me, that matters more than the actual measurements - the feeling of space and light is what's crucial. I think you get a good feeling for this from the EAs photos in general. In general I'd expect a period house to have nice high ceilings, with the exception of cottages of course (being 6' tall low ceilings and wooden beams are not for me...)

Terrysdelight

Cissi wrote: »

In general I think they do command a premium, and rightly so. Having owned both new and Victorian houses in the UK I wouldn't ever consider a new build again. There is just no comparison in terms of the building quality. We have friends who bought in a luxury executive development, £2.5M per house, and after less than 4 years they're having a nightmare with leaks etc. Our 1880s house is not only on a far bigger plot but also far better built - yes, we've had to do work on the roof, drains, repointing etc, but the basic structure is solid and will still be standing strong in another 100+ years. Not so sure about the new builds, from what I've seen so far...

Apart from all that, I wouldn't ever want to trade in the ceiling height, cornicing, tall skirting boards, original stained glass etc etc that we have in our tumbling Victorian house. I know these all add to the nominal value of the house, but much more importantly, they add to my pleasure in living here!

I have lived in my victorian house for 14 years now - it is a wonderful house, it is so spacious, full of character, incredibly homely and full of warmth with a wide and very long garden. I love my house and when I retire to another county in about 5 years - I will probably cry my eyes out for having to leave my home.

Everyone I know who has new builds don't get the same sort of pleasure. One common thing they dislike is the paper thin walls, the tiny bedrooms - and other rooms come to that. They also don't like the fact they can hear 'noises' coming from attached houses/flats. My best friend can even hear her neighbour having a 'pee' in the middle of the night lol.

Victorian - Georgian - you can't beat them!

Running_Horse

I loved my first Victorian house.

However, there was always something going wrong or needing repairing. In reality I probably bought it as it was nearing the end of its (1st) natural life. Did the basics of what was necessary and moved on.

The other consideration is most were built without a thought for the future importance of the car. Many Victorian streets are completely full of cars by 6pm, with incredibly tight spaces and turns. I have even seen people fight over parking issues.

Moved to an extended 1970s house with parking, and wouldn't even consider going back.

spud211

Depends on the buyer.

On this forum, the bias is strongly towards older/victorian era housing. The majority of members have a massive downer on newbuilds and "modern" housing, so the answers you see here will be strongly biased in that direction.

Personally I hate the old style houses - I don't like the pointlessly high ceilings, the draughty windows, the "period features" etc. It's just not for me.

Much happier in my toasty warm, draught free, low energy completely personalised newbuild house set in a wonderful location with a large garden, where I could just move in and start to personalise - no work on the structure/heating/insulation to do.

That's just me though - you'll find people in both camps all over the country. If you look at pure sales you'll see more "old" houses selling than any other kind - but thats just because there are obviously more of them..the real difference in value or saleability is nowhere near as pronounced. So really, there is no right answer here.

liubeliu

Running_Horse wrote: »

I loved my first Victorian house.

However, there was always something going wrong or needing repairing. In reality I probably bought it as it was nearing the end of its (1st) natural life. Did the basics of what was necessary and moved on.

The other consideration is most were built without a thought for the future importance of the car. Many Victorian streets are completely full of cars by 6pm, with incredibly tight spaces and turns. I have even seen people fight over parking issues.

Moved to an extended 1970s house with parking, and wouldn't even consider going back.

Ditto, had a victorian semi which turned into a money pit, always something need doing and cost a fortune to heat. Now on my second new build, at the end of the day it is somewhere to live and fits the purpose perferctly. Would never consider a period property again.

Running_Horse

The other factor is the local housing stock. A FTB in Medway is more likely to be looking at Victorian terraces. In Milton Keynes it is probably predominantly modern.

Doozergirl

spud211 wrote: »

Depends on the buyer.

On this forum, the bias is strongly towards older/victorian era housing. The majority of members have a massive downer on newbuilds and "modern" housing, so the answers you see here will be strongly biased in that direction.

What is it, you think, that makes the profile of people on this board different to the real world? I'm interested to know!