What a Beatiful Flat in Chelsea!! Only £35Million Pounds!!!

jimbog

Energy rating is only an 'E' so I'm out

breadlinebetty

Oh I'd forgotten about the main road!

I wonder how much more it would fetch if it was on a quiet street?:p

Double the price?:p

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

somethingcorporate wrote: »

All those uber-expensive houses are too clinical and have no personality. Give me a Victorian gentleman's lodge for a fraction of the price but infinitely more character any day of the week!

I feel exactly the same.
Give me an old rambling property anyday over something like that.
Something that feels like a home when you walk into it and not a hotel.

Thermidor

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

I feel exactly the same.
Give me an old rambling property anyday over something like that.
Something that feels like a home when you walk into it and not a hotel.

Agree, old properties have heaps of character - unlike these new builds which have no soul, and the cheaper new builds are the size of rabbit hutches.:money:

Thermidor

CharlesPhillips wrote: »

If you go to see a show home on one of these new housing estates you'll notice how all the furniture is scaled down to fit in with the tiny proportions of the rooms. A normal double bed is actually a 3/4 bed, all that sort of thing, so it gives the illusion of being bigger than it really is.

Oh now way would I choose one of those pokey little new builds over a grand apartment in a Victorian or Edwardian property with all its spacious solidly built rooms and lovely features. You just can't compare them.

breadlinebetty

Where's that thread gone where the man complained about knocking his head on the light fitting in his new build lounge, and he was only 5"10"!:(

breadlinebetty

Ooooh I've found a much more reasonanble flat in London; it's a ground floor 3 bed conversion, a snip at £2M.:)

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35536139.html

mr_rush

Knighsbridge comes under the London Borough of Westminster, Kensington and CHELSEA.

Knightsbridge is at the north end of Sloane Street, which is CHELSEA.

Not quite correct. There's the London borough of Westmister and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

The flat which you've pointed out is in Knightbridge which is part of the borough of K&C but it's not in Chelsea. It's postcode is SW1 while Chelsea is generally considered SW3.

Please see the Wiki article below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London

(Lived in Chelsea for 5 years before moving out to West London suburbs)

kmmr

MrRee wrote: »

brit1234 rents a Chelsea place for £300 a month .... this may be it!!!

Not quite! It is for rent though (as found while checking out the SMH)

http://media.smh.com.au/property/domain/worlds-most-expensive-rental-2812773.html?&exc_from=strap

buzzhoney

I don't think I could live in a new build. Some of them are great but most of them are built cheaply and are badly-designed with not enough storage.

I've got a Victorian flat which is exactly 100 years older than me according to the stone on the front (though not sure when it was converted... lots of things I don't know about it really!). It's kind of a shotgun shack with a long lounge and a little tiny bendy hallway. It's got Romanesque arches (which I think were added in the 1920s to make it look more Victorian... just a theory) and amazing cornice work and ceiling flowers (though they've been painted over so much they look more like cauliflowers). Kitchen and bathroom were tacked on in the 70s or 80s and are a bit crap/pokey but they're OK, and a sunroom was added five or six years ago.

It's a right old mish-mash, and it needs more TLC than I can afford to give it at the moment but I love it. I love the sense that many other lives have been lived there before mine. Every house has its own character and personality which gives it a unique atmosphere... they're just like people for me, some you love, some you can't stand, some are just a bit unfriendly