Bungalows or not?

Waterlily24

We've lived in both and much prefer bungalows.

When we moved here it was a bungalow and we wanted to extend (keeping it as a bungalow) but they wouldn't let us and we had to go 'upstairs' to extend. It's now a chalet bungalow.

Can anyone tell me why they are still called bungalows please? lol

We are now looking for another bungalow.

chris_m

Waterlily24 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why they are still called bungalows please? lol

Same reason as they've always been called that - the builder ran out of bricks and decided to bung a low roof on to get it finished

OK, I'll get me coat

terrierlady

LAYOUT thats the most important thing, not too many hallways or doors opening onto each other,usally more expensive due to footprint size but worth every penny.

phoebe1989seb

I'm another one who prefers stairs and wouldn't actively seek out a bungalow, although since downsizing dramatically from our large family house in 2007 DH and I (we're in our forties) have to admit that we need more reception (ie downstairs) space than we do bedrooms

Bungalows can be made into excellent family homes though and there are some intereting larger period ones out there, plus as another poster said they can be on large plots, affording opportunities to extend.

Also agree that those on estates should be avoided unless you are happy to be surrounded by older peeps - our last house was originally moved to its site in the 1930s (it was a Tudor house that had been carefully dismantled) and at that time it was surrounded by fields and a few 1920/30s houses all on large plots. By the time we bought in 2007 an estate of 1950s and later bungalows had grown up around it and virtually every one was inhabited by the elderly. It was relatively quiet, I'll give you that, but it felt like being in a retirement village