NEW SERIES Property Ladder.

sarah_elton

Mizz_Pink wrote: »

If I was spending 1.3 mil on a house I'd at least want a swimming pool.

This has been up for sale in my town for a while:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-7862388.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy

I love picture 10. Do you think they're guaranteed to come with the house? As I said above, my brother's an EA and called the agency in the listing above a rude name only one letter different to their company name when he saw that picture.

Pic 11 is new - not seen that before. "Winter scene". All that does is tell buyers just how long the house has been on the market. :rotfl:

sarah_elton

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The large 1950s house was so nasty. The ceilings looked too low, and that living room was huge. Much too big, how would you ever feel comfortable curling up on a sofa with a book? And imagine the heating bills!

I don't think people spending >£1m on a house really care that much about their heating bills.

How the other half live. :rolleyes:

skintlass

chappers wrote: »

Absolutely the bloke was a complete ar5e, they rented a motorhome for 2 months for £750 a month and lived in a building site for the rest of the time, hampering the works whilst they did.
My mate bought a two bedroom static caravan for £2500 including getting it delivered, when he gutted his house, connected it up to the mains for electricity, water and sewage and sold it for £1500 two years later.

I think it was £750 a week:eek: I nearly fell off the sofa when the beeny said that - they were numpties thogh - the husband was an idiot.

neverdespairgirl

sarah_elton wrote: »

I don't think people spending >£1m on a house really care that much about their heating bills.

How the other half live. :rolleyes:

I don't think that's right - I know a couple with 2 houses both worth well over £1 million (one worth over £2 million) and they have a distinct eye on heating bills etc, and keep the thermostat low, change suppliers, etc.

teabelly

The mock tudor pair should have just done a quick refurb and bailed out. They would have made more. The ugly 50s house wanted flattening and replacing with as many houses as possible as that would have made more profit to sell the plot off to a developer. Bare minimum should have been knocking it down and rebuilding something decent. Not knocking it down because they needed somewhere to live is so dumb it is untrue.

None of them so far are as unbelievably stupid as the two lads they had on "how to be a property developer' with that Irish bloke on Channel 5. I am amazed he managed to keep a straight face. I think Beany would have had to have been stretchered off with ruptured sides after the first week.

chappers

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't think that's right - I know a couple with 2 houses both worth well over £1 million (one worth over £2 million) and they have a distinct eye on heating bills etc, and keep the thermostat low, change suppliers, etc.

Have to agree my friend's Dad traind racehorses they live in a million pound plus house, the place is always freezing they sit watching telly wrapped in horse blankets and not new ones either ones that the horses have finished with.

Doozergirl

Really, the "architect" should have been shot on the Southampton house. The staircase was nice, but perhaps better on a house where the staircase sits against a wall ie. space is compromised.

With a staircase like that, it could have been split so it ran up and then went to either side, or split into two runs - walk up from the front foor onto a staircase that widens towards you, and then double back onto a much large galleried landing with more spave above, either for a study or seating area, or low and behold, a double height atrium!

Sorry, I'm not exactly the queen of square footage, but that architect picked the wrong career and should have been an accountant or something

PasturesNew

When I was looking for my last house, virtually everything on the market had either a swimming pool, or gold taps in the bathroom.

And I didn't want either.

Damned tasteless people being allowed to do what they want with houses!

Doozergirl

PasturesNew wrote: »

When I was looking for my last house, virtually everything on the market had either a swimming pool, or gold taps in the bathroom.

And I didn't want either.

Damned tasteless people being allowed to do what they want with houses!

Money does not buy you taste and money, in the 'shires' is an area that developers, in general tend to steer away from. The choise you end up with is 6000sq ft of stuff, all of you'd need to change to your own taste. The more money available, the more personal taste becomes, the longer people have owned ther houses and the more you have to change.

There is a definate marketout there for the well heeled who want something ready to move in to. If you have the balls and the backing(!) there's £££ to be made.

Phirefly

skintlass wrote: »

I think it was £750 a week:eek: I nearly fell off the sofa when the beeny said that

We did too - Mr P's 'business opportunity' radar went off the scale....