London house prices?
Discussion
foliedouce said:
On a side note, how do you get 6 meaningful bedrooms into 2800 sq ft?
Are you willy waving? My house is about 150 sqm, which is about 1500 sqft, so a little over half the size of the place you reference. It has 4 bedrooms, which I like to think are "meaningful" within the context of a family home. 2 are doubles, 2 singles, not many people need all bedrooms to be double sized. What's the point if they are only for children? It just makes them harder to tidy up. Sticking 2 more bedrooms into twice as much space as I am currently rattling around in strikes me as easy.battered said:
foliedouce said:
On a side note, how do you get 6 meaningful bedrooms into 2800 sq ft?
Are you willy waving? My house is about 150 sqm, which is about 1500 sqft, so a little over half the size of the place you reference. It has 4 bedrooms, which I like to think are "meaningful" within the context of a family home. 2 are doubles, 2 singles, not many people need all bedrooms to be double sized. What's the point if they are only for children? It just makes them harder to tidy up. Sticking 2 more bedrooms into twice as much space as I am currently rattling around in strikes me as easy.Children grow up. Single bedrooms become very small very quickly.
As I said, if you have 5-6 bedrooms, a single or two is just fine. If a young family, they will do for baby/infants, and if the kids need bigger bedrooms, they will do for office, utility/laundry or other useful space.
The problem with older London houses is more one of layout - until recently, en-suite bathrooms were not really a thing, so these houses need some work to make them en-suite (plumbing, electric etc), and fitting such facilities eats into bedroom space.
Our home is 2800 square feet with 5 beds and 3 baths, but due to an odd layout has one single and one small double. The other doubles are fine sized, but fitting en-suites would have made them tiny. So we kept the two full sized, separate bathrooms on the first floor. It would be possible to make one of these en-suite by knocking a doorway through to the bedroom next door if required. The other bathroom is in a place where it can never really be an en-suite.
We then and added a large 5th bedroom, en-suite bathroom and dressing room when we converted the loft: this is the "master suite" for us. Such a house suits us fine, but would not suit elderly people due to having to climb yet another set of stairs to go to bed.
Out of London, this would all probably make the house less desirable. Here, where en-suites are rarer due to space/layout restrictions, less so (at least in our market - pay above £2m in our area and people want these things).
London house prices are really odd, with odd dynamics, especially in the £1m-£2m price range. It was not so long ago that people thought Victorian/Edwardian houses were dreary - now everyone wants one and will pay 20% over the price of a 1930s onwards house to buy one. Detached houses, being so rare, command a healthy premium, even if you are just a foot from your neighbour's wall. Off-street parking is really, really important - in Zone 3: in Zone 2/1, it is prohibitively expensive due to houses in this price being smaller (terraced, typically), and nearer tube stations. Out where I live the same money will get you a semi-detached, off-street parking and a bigger garden: the trade-off being that transport links (especially South of the river) are worse due to having less of a tube network, and needing to rely on overground.
It's all very confusing! We just bought the worst house (1930's as opposed to Victorian, needing complete refurbishment, with lots of room to extend) in the best location (overlooking a park) on a nice street, at a knockdown price, and spent a lot of time and money renovating it to our specification, within the constraints of the Permitted Development regime. We may about break even on it or even "make" a little after accounting for the stamp duty we paid, and, in this market, we could well have "lost" money. But we aim to stay here for a while.
I've said it before - homeowners in the capital just don't want to accept that the stamp duty regime has killed the £1m+ market, and reduced the value of their homes in the short to medium term.
The problem with older London houses is more one of layout - until recently, en-suite bathrooms were not really a thing, so these houses need some work to make them en-suite (plumbing, electric etc), and fitting such facilities eats into bedroom space.
Our home is 2800 square feet with 5 beds and 3 baths, but due to an odd layout has one single and one small double. The other doubles are fine sized, but fitting en-suites would have made them tiny. So we kept the two full sized, separate bathrooms on the first floor. It would be possible to make one of these en-suite by knocking a doorway through to the bedroom next door if required. The other bathroom is in a place where it can never really be an en-suite.
We then and added a large 5th bedroom, en-suite bathroom and dressing room when we converted the loft: this is the "master suite" for us. Such a house suits us fine, but would not suit elderly people due to having to climb yet another set of stairs to go to bed.
Out of London, this would all probably make the house less desirable. Here, where en-suites are rarer due to space/layout restrictions, less so (at least in our market - pay above £2m in our area and people want these things).
London house prices are really odd, with odd dynamics, especially in the £1m-£2m price range. It was not so long ago that people thought Victorian/Edwardian houses were dreary - now everyone wants one and will pay 20% over the price of a 1930s onwards house to buy one. Detached houses, being so rare, command a healthy premium, even if you are just a foot from your neighbour's wall. Off-street parking is really, really important - in Zone 3: in Zone 2/1, it is prohibitively expensive due to houses in this price being smaller (terraced, typically), and nearer tube stations. Out where I live the same money will get you a semi-detached, off-street parking and a bigger garden: the trade-off being that transport links (especially South of the river) are worse due to having less of a tube network, and needing to rely on overground.
It's all very confusing! We just bought the worst house (1930's as opposed to Victorian, needing complete refurbishment, with lots of room to extend) in the best location (overlooking a park) on a nice street, at a knockdown price, and spent a lot of time and money renovating it to our specification, within the constraints of the Permitted Development regime. We may about break even on it or even "make" a little after accounting for the stamp duty we paid, and, in this market, we could well have "lost" money. But we aim to stay here for a while.
I've said it before - homeowners in the capital just don't want to accept that the stamp duty regime has killed the £1m+ market, and reduced the value of their homes in the short to medium term.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 27th March 12:04
battered said:
Are you willy waving? My house is about 150 sqm, which is about 1500 sqft, so a little over half the size of the place you reference. It has 4 bedrooms, which I like to think are "meaningful" within the context of a family home. 2 are doubles, 2 singles, not many people need all bedrooms to be double sized. What's the point if they are only for children? It just makes them harder to tidy up. Sticking 2 more bedrooms into twice as much space as I am currently rattling around in strikes me as easy.
Completely the opposite actually, in my view Willy Waving is "I've got a 6 bed house", personally I'd prefer less bedrooms but more space within them. p1stonhead said:
battered said:
foliedouce said:
On a side note, how do you get 6 meaningful bedrooms into 2800 sq ft?
Are you willy waving? My house is about 150 sqm, which is about 1500 sqft, so a little over half the size of the place you reference. It has 4 bedrooms, which I like to think are "meaningful" within the context of a family home. 2 are doubles, 2 singles, not many people need all bedrooms to be double sized. What's the point if they are only for children? It just makes them harder to tidy up. Sticking 2 more bedrooms into twice as much space as I am currently rattling around in strikes me as easy.Children grow up. Single bedrooms become very small very quickly.
Edited by foliedouce on Monday 27th March 11:36
p1stonhead said:
Does anyone really want singles though? Someone spending £1.6m for 2800sqft certainly doesnt. They will all be doubles probably all ensuite too.
Don't be daft, no one wants singles but you get what you can afford, plus the nature of a lot of Victorian terraced housing stock in London drives the room layout.My place is ballpark that value, and about 2300 sq ft, currently 5 beds (soon to be 4 as converting one into larger ensuite/dressing room). All could fit double beds though to be proper doubles with ensuites would require 3000 sq ft and a large jump up in price
Adam B said:
Don't be daft, no one wants singles but you get what you can afford, plus the nature of a lot of Victorian terraced housing stock in London drives the room layout.
My place is ballpark that value, and about 2300 sq ft, currently 5 beds (soon to be 4 as converting one into larger ensuite/dressing room). All could fit double beds though to be proper doubles with ensuites would require 3000 sq ft and a large jump up in price
Interesting, my current house is circa 2300sq ft, so the same as yours, admittedly more space downstairs than up, but we have 3 doubles and 1 single, only 1 ensuite. Not sure how you'd get 5 double beds out of that that including wardrobes / dressers etc in the rooms. Maybe a double bed yes but not the furniture. We're about to build an additional 2000 sq ft and are sticking at 4 bedrooms. By the rationale on this thread, we should have 7! LolMy place is ballpark that value, and about 2300 sq ft, currently 5 beds (soon to be 4 as converting one into larger ensuite/dressing room). All could fit double beds though to be proper doubles with ensuites would require 3000 sq ft and a large jump up in price
foliedouce said:
Interesting, my current house is circa 2300sq ft, so the same as yours, admittedly more space downstairs than up, but we have 3 doubles and 1 single, only 1 ensuite. Not sure how you'd get 5 double beds out of that that including wardrobes / dressers etc in the rooms. Maybe a double bed yes but not the furniture. We're about to build an additional 2000 sq ft and are sticking at 4 bedrooms. By the rationale on this thread, we should have 7! Lol
Because a lot of London houses are narrow and tall, and people extend into the loft, so you get 2/3 storeys of bedrooms. But yes of the 5, 3 are double beds plus bedside tables and various chest of drawers but not huge wardrobesfoliedouce said:
Adam B said:
Don't be daft, no one wants singles but you get what you can afford, plus the nature of a lot of Victorian terraced housing stock in London drives the room layout.
My place is ballpark that value, and about 2300 sq ft, currently 5 beds (soon to be 4 as converting one into larger ensuite/dressing room). All could fit double beds though to be proper doubles with ensuites would require 3000 sq ft and a large jump up in price
Interesting, my current house is circa 2300sq ft, so the same as yours, admittedly more space downstairs than up, but we have 3 doubles and 1 single, only 1 ensuite. Not sure how you'd get 5 double beds out of that that including wardrobes / dressers etc in the rooms. Maybe a double bed yes but not the furniture. We're about to build an additional 2000 sq ft and are sticking at 4 bedrooms. By the rationale on this thread, we should have 7! LolMy place is ballpark that value, and about 2300 sq ft, currently 5 beds (soon to be 4 as converting one into larger ensuite/dressing room). All could fit double beds though to be proper doubles with ensuites would require 3000 sq ft and a large jump up in price
Horses for courses.
Building to slow apparently, those of you on the ground seeing the same?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/l...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/l...
p1stonhead said:
Does anyone really want singles though? Someone spending £1.6m for 2800sqft certainly doesnt. They will all be doubles probably all ensuite too.
Children grow up. Single bedrooms become very small very quickly.
Dont want it too big or theyll never move out. Smaller the better. Children grow up. Single bedrooms become very small very quickly.
Ensuite because s
tting in your bedroom matters. 
Having a stter in your bedroom is a compromise to make at a hotel or similar but in a private home I've never understood why people want to move the dung bucket from its civilised separation into their bedroom. It seems to be because they think it's classy cos they've seen it in a flash hotel or that it's some kind of over reaction to having an outhouse in living memory.
You then see people shrinking bedrooms to fit them in and builders turning bathrooms into bedrooms and sticking a thunder box next to the bed.
Pretending to live in a bedsit is the most baffling of modern trends.
It's up there with people moving their kitchen into the sitting room so they can increase the bedroom count or splitting a proper double bedroom into two singles that they then thick are doubles because you can fit a 4'6" in.
Defacating and cooking really are best kept in their own segregated rooms as they always have been.
tting in your bedroom matters. Having a s
tter in your bedroom is a compromise to make at a hotel or similar but in a private home I've never understood why people want to move the dung bucket from its civilised separation into their bedroom. It seems to be because they think it's classy cos they've seen it in a flash hotel or that it's some kind of over reaction to having an outhouse in living memory. You then see people shrinking bedrooms to fit them in and builders turning bathrooms into bedrooms and sticking a thunder box next to the bed.
Pretending to live in a bedsit is the most baffling of modern trends.
It's up there with people moving their kitchen into the sitting room so they can increase the bedroom count or splitting a proper double bedroom into two singles that they then thick are doubles because you can fit a 4'6" in.
Defacating and cooking really are best kept in their own segregated rooms as they always have been.
DonkeyApple said:
Ensuite because stting in your bedroom matters.
Having a stter in your bedroom is a compromise to make at a hotel or similar but in a private home I've never understood why people want to move the dung bucket from its civilised separation into their bedroom. It seems to be because they think it's classy cos they've seen it in a flash hotel or that it's some kind of over reaction to having an outhouse in living memory.
You then see people shrinking bedrooms to fit them in and builders turning bathrooms into bedrooms and sticking a thunder box next to the bed.
Pretending to live in a bedsit is the most baffling of modern trends.
It's up there with people moving their kitchen into the sitting room so they can increase the bedroom count or splitting a proper double bedroom into two singles that they then thick are doubles because you can fit a 4'6" in.
Defacating and cooking really are best kept in their own segregated rooms as they always have been.
Most people have doors between an ensuite and bedroom you know tting in your bedroom matters. Having a s
tter in your bedroom is a compromise to make at a hotel or similar but in a private home I've never understood why people want to move the dung bucket from its civilised separation into their bedroom. It seems to be because they think it's classy cos they've seen it in a flash hotel or that it's some kind of over reaction to having an outhouse in living memory. You then see people shrinking bedrooms to fit them in and builders turning bathrooms into bedrooms and sticking a thunder box next to the bed.
Pretending to live in a bedsit is the most baffling of modern trends.
It's up there with people moving their kitchen into the sitting room so they can increase the bedroom count or splitting a proper double bedroom into two singles that they then thick are doubles because you can fit a 4'6" in.
Defacating and cooking really are best kept in their own segregated rooms as they always have been.
p1stonhead said:
DonkeyApple said:
Ensuite because stting in your bedroom matters.
Having a stter in your bedroom is a compromise to make at a hotel or similar but in a private home I've never understood why people want to move the dung bucket from its civilised separation into their bedroom. It seems to be because they think it's classy cos they've seen it in a flash hotel or that it's some kind of over reaction to having an outhouse in living memory.
You then see people shrinking bedrooms to fit them in and builders turning bathrooms into bedrooms and sticking a thunder box next to the bed.
Pretending to live in a bedsit is the most baffling of modern trends.
It's up there with people moving their kitchen into the sitting room so they can increase the bedroom count or splitting a proper double bedroom into two singles that they then thick are doubles because you can fit a 4'6" in.
Defacating and cooking really are best kept in their own segregated rooms as they always have been.
Most people have doors between an ensuite and bedroom you know tting in your bedroom matters. Having a s
tter in your bedroom is a compromise to make at a hotel or similar but in a private home I've never understood why people want to move the dung bucket from its civilised separation into their bedroom. It seems to be because they think it's classy cos they've seen it in a flash hotel or that it's some kind of over reaction to having an outhouse in living memory. You then see people shrinking bedrooms to fit them in and builders turning bathrooms into bedrooms and sticking a thunder box next to the bed.
Pretending to live in a bedsit is the most baffling of modern trends.
It's up there with people moving their kitchen into the sitting room so they can increase the bedroom count or splitting a proper double bedroom into two singles that they then thick are doubles because you can fit a 4'6" in.
Defacating and cooking really are best kept in their own segregated rooms as they always have been.
Just think about it, our society actually pays money to s
t in their bedroom so as to feel superior to people who defacate in a bespoke and segregated room. It is the madness of modern housing and the desperate shoe-horning of features and the gullibility of people to marketing.
Very obviously it is more civilised to keep one's ablutions wholly segregated and it is a function of lack of space that sees people instead resorting to fitting rooms within their bedrooms and then they brag about it!!!!!!
okgo said:
Yet most Victorian places have the kitchen next to the stter, at the back of the house
But that is terraced work man's housing where the shared dunny shed in the back allotment has been traded up for a brick privy bolted onto the rear where the kitchen always is. tter, at the back of the house As a student, being able to cook one's breakfast while abluting is obviously an advantage but in adulthood it is far from ideal.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff