Anybody got anything positive to say about house over location?

nicknameless

I know this has been done to death.

We are looking in a specific area and are struggling to get the house we want in that area (lack of supply).

Just up the road is another area - better houses, cheaper, commute just as good - but basically a housing estate with nothing else around.

We are not moving to our forever home.  If we bought in the alternate location would we likely be regretting it for the next 5 years (we plan to relocate elsewhere in the country at approximately that point)?

We like evening walks around town (weird I know ) and like the small town idea (move from city), and this would be a compromise in those respects.  The house however, would give us the space and options (storage for loads of bikes and exercise equipment) that otherwise we just won't have.

Anyone chosen house over area and thought they made the right choice?

ProDave

Definitely.  I wanted a house in a nice village with off street parking and a garage or space to build one.

The ONLY way I could get that for what i could afford was buy a very run down house in a nice spot and improve it.

Everything else I could afford at the time was a modern tiny box on a soulless housing estate with no hope of ever making it what I wanted.

edgex

If it's only for a few/5 years, why not look at renting instead?

Getting_greyer

Well, with location, that do you mean your immediate location eg within a 10 minute walk or the vicinity to somewhere else? 

I chose to have a bigger place because I wanted extra space.  I wasn't really set on any particular location but I moved further away than I originally thought I would.  That said, the immediate location is nice and has all things i need shop, schools, docs and pub etc but it's lacking for some cultural experiences. If I want a meal more than traditional pub fare, or a cinema, theatre, swimming pool and such then it entails a 20-30 minute drive or taxi.

Whilst this can be annoying, I still feel glad I'm where I am against a smaller/subjectively less desirable property that is closer to bigger ammenties.

However, if my place was just a housing estate with literally nothing else I think I would think differently and regret it no matter how nice the house was.

sheramber

You may be able to change/ improve  the house but you cannot change the location.

aoleks

edgex said:

If it's only for a few/5 years, why not look at renting instead?

Because it's much cheaper to buy and you will make a big, fat "profit" when you end up selling?

But no, location is not always everything. Very important, but not important enough to warrant buying a shoebox in a posh area. I will always choose a nice house with a very large front and rear garden, room for extension, parking spaces for me and any visitors and large rooms.

Gavin83

nicknameless said:

I know this has been done to death.

We are looking in a specific area and are struggling to get the house we want in that area (lack of supply).

Just up the road is another area - better houses, cheaper, commute just as good - but basically a housing estate with nothing else around.

We are not moving to our forever home.  If we bought in the alternate location would we likely be regretting it for the next 5 years (we plan to relocate elsewhere in the country at approximately that point)?

We like evening walks around town (weird I know ) and like the small town idea (move from city), and this would be a compromise in those respects.  The house however, would give us the space and options (storage for loads of bikes and exercise equipment) that otherwise we just won't have.

Anyone chosen house over area and thought they made the right choice?

We did this (moved from London to a small town) and we hate it. It's a very pretty town, regularly voted one of the best places to live and whenever we say we live here people go "Ohhh it's lovely there!" but we still hate it. It's just so incredibly boring when compared to London. If you're moving from a city I'd definitely recommend renting there first to make sure you like it. The one big plus of our move is the house though, for less rent it's far bigger and nicer. We're currently buying in a small city, so a compromise in-between the two.

Anyway, in answer to your question it depends. If you're the type of person who barely leaves the house or does anything then prioritise the house. If you love going out to the pub, for walks, etc then focus on the area.

The house we're buying is also a compromise between the two. It's a decent sized house in a good area but both could be better or worse. If I had to choose between the two I'd pick location.

AdrianC

nicknameless said:

Just up the road is another area

How far is "just up the road"?

nicknameless

AdrianC said:

nicknameless said:

Just up the road is another area

How far is "just up the road"?

Not quite just up the road lol.  About a 8-10 min drive.

At the moment we are in big city and want to go south of the city.

We have identified a small town / area, which I think I / we might have over romanticised compared to where we live now.

Up the road (5-10) mins is a typical commuter town - all estates, nothing much else going for it - but cheaper and very convenient for our commutes.

We currently live in a 2 bed flat!

nicknameless

p.s. whilst we live in a big city we don't really utilise the amenities.  We go to occassional comedy gigs / concerts, but moving would not stop us doing this and they are only ever so occasional.

Talk about not knowing what to do!

nicknameless

Just realised I'm a complete moron and got the thread title mixed up - I am considering house over location, rather than vice-versa.