Buying on floor space vs bedrooms

ReadingTim

LondonSi wrote: »

So you all mostly agree that price per sq/ft is the best way to go!

Whilst it may be the most sensible and logical way to go, there is little sensible or logical about the way we buy and sell houses in the UK. By and large, the UK operates on a number of bedroom basis.

Furthermore, justifying a price with reference to sq/ft in respect of non-commercial property is likely to see you laughed out of town by the vendor: "location, location, location" isn't just a snappy title of a TV show, it's the 3 most important things when it comes to determining the price of a property.

benjus

I think it's largely a consequence of living in a densely populated country where housing is expensive and space in short supply. Big rooms are a luxury that few people can afford when there are other considerations such as number of bedrooms, parking, outdoor space and proximity to good schools that take priority.

But I certainly want to see the floor area on the property listing.

jonnygee2

"I have always bought property of price per sq/ft"

For residential property its still only one of many comparables. Everything from neighbourhood to construction style determines value. Unlike commercial property, it just can't be factored down to a price per square foot.

It can be different in places like America or central London, because in places like that you get loads of extremely similarly constructed properties close together making floor area a major comparable.

Number of bedrooms is one comparable. Square feet is another. But those two alone do not tell us enough about the value of the house to tell us if it's good value or not.

MysteryMe

You need to remember that when the time comes for you to sell, the vast majority of buyers will be assessing you property against the criteria that is the norm in this country, which is not by square footage. There will be a reason why it is 15% cheaper, most people would want a house that size to have more than 3 bedrooms therefore you are limiting the number of buyers quite considerably. That's before we have even touched on location and the configuration of rooms.

Waterlily24

Crumbs 3000 sq ft sounds huge. I've just done a quick check on our square footage and it only comes out at 1977 sq ft (does not include hall, landing and stairs though). We have quite a big house 4 bedrooms, three receptions all good sizes and three bathrooms. Largest room(lounge) is 26.75ft x 13ft and the smallest (study) is 11.25ft x 7.33ft.


I'm going to have to check my calculations again lol.

airandwater

MysteryMe wrote: »

You need to remember that when the time comes for you to sell, the vast majority of buyers will be assessing you property against the criteria that is the norm in this country, which is not by square footage. There will be a reason why it is 15% cheaper, most people would want a house that size to have more than 3 bedrooms therefore you are limiting the number of buyers quite considerably. That's before we have even touched on location and the configuration of rooms.

I 100% agree.

The most lucrative customer base for large homes are families and landlord and to them the number of rooms is significantly more important than square footage.

A few friends or colleagues of mine who are raising their first child or on the brink of the second one all think their "3 bedroom" homes are small and want 4 or 5 bedrooms for:

• Master bedroom
• Bedroom for child number 1
• Guest bedroom
• Bedroom for child number 2 or office
• Office

Space is important but functionality often takes priority hence why bedrooms, garages and bathrooms add value.

andrewf75

Waterlily24 wrote: »

Crumbs 3000 sq ft sounds huge.

Try doing it in sqm then it will actually tell you how big it is. A nice round 100 sqm is an average 3 bed semi so it makes it very easy.

The insistence of some people in using sqft is probably one reason why we don’t use floor space measurement more. You need to stick to one measure – ie the one people in the business of designing, building and measuring houses actually use.

To illustrate my point, when building extensions or discussing them, people do talk of floor space measurements and can visualise by the numbers and funnily enough there is complete consistency in using sqm.

My suspicion is that the use of sq ft is a bit like the tabloids use of Fahrenheit during a heatwave. They want to wow people with a big number rather than communicate the measure.

Waterlily24

Must admit I'm old and I'm used to yards, feet and inches more than the metric system. Can't visualise it in the metric system but can in feet. lol

Waterlily24

Worked it out in square meters and ours is 183.67 excluding hallways and the 3000 square feet is 278.71 so huge lol.

andrewf75

Waterlily24 wrote: »

Must admit I'm old and I'm used to yards, feet and inches more than the metric system. Can't visualise it in the metric system but can in feet. lol

It doesn’t really matter which system you’re used to, its just numbers.

People understand their cars fuel consumption in miles per gallon even though no-one is used to buying petrol in gallons. They just have a feel for the numbers as a comparison. i.e 50 good, 20 bad.

What matters is that people use the same measurement. Then people will develop a feel for the area of houses. Tell someone the area of a house in any other country and people can picture it and will even know what price per sqm they should be paying.