House or a Flat

movilogo

You may end up staying whatever you buy much longer than 2-3 years.

So buy one which is more future proof.

JimmyTheWig

kayfaz wrote: »

Which one would you choose in this scenario to live in as a couple with no kids for 2-3 years?

What's happening in 2-3 years?
Is that when children are planned?
Or when you plan to move somewhere else?

I wouldn't buy anywhere where I wasn't happy to stay for at least 5 years. Prices can go down and, especially if you're a FTB with a small deposit, that can leave you stuck there.
Doesn't mean you have to live there for 5 years, just that you'd be happy there if you did.

So if it is a case of having children in 2-3 years I would go for whichever place was the more child-friendly - I'm guessing the house.

pinkteapot

Are you sure it's worth owning for that short a period of time? Buying costs thousands in stamp duty, legal costs, survey, mortgage fees... Add it up and add that to the cost of the mortgage for 2 years, then compare to the cost of renting.

We owned our last house for three years and I wish now we'd just stayed in rented a bit longer then bought bigger straight away.

kayfaz

Yes reason 2-3 years is because that's when we plan to have kids

We are not exactly planning to sell this one after 2-3 years, but would rather rent it out and buy another property and leave this as a pension pot, but may also decide to sell it.

Niv

Never a flat, I prefer to have the (perceived) control of a freehold, so its pretty black and white for me.

I would also say - that house is not 'very outdated' in my opinion and should not cost anywhere near £10-15k to modernise! Maybe not your taste but that is something else.

kayfaz

Comments about both properties as individual is also welcomed, thinking of putting an offer soon.

bstoke211

I would always go for a house over flat. However I would possibly be looking to get that house for a fair bit less than 200k judging by the sale values of similar properties in Abbey Road.

I know both areas and whilst I like the flats in Winterthur I have always wondered how desirable they might be to sell on easily in the future.

firebird082

I suppoose the flat is more easily rentable in future, but for living in I would always go for the house! Also, 10-15k to make it livable? Your standards are clearly more fussy than mine!

fairy_lights

I'd go for the house - you don't have to worry about noise from upstairs or downstairs neighbours and having a garden would be a huge plus point for me. it might need some modernising but new carpets and wallpaper should do the trick and won't cost anywhere near 10-15k.
The flat looks quite dark (though that might just be bad photography) and doesn't look like it has central heating which would put me off.

phemark

I personally, would go for a flat over a house most of the times - why would you need 3 bedrooms as a couple?

High spec flat > low spec house for me. (We are buying new build flat in London right now, so we had to make the same decision).

(But that's just my opinion, as even if I had to buy property for 5 million (imaginary), I would still get a big and nice (2floor) flat in London, instead of a big house).