What age did you buy the 'forever' house?

[okgo]

By forever house I mean the most expensive one you'll buy and the one that all being well you'll be in for the bulk of your active life (so not talking about retirement flats/bungalows etc). Obviously best laid plans don't always work out and divorce/death/bankruptcy etc do happen, but this is a 'all being well' question...

I'm planning our next move at some point in probably the next ten years which would bring us to mid 40's, it got me thinking that that may actually be a little late? Moving from a city to somewhere with more space, taking on another large debt, not fully enjoying the facilities of a larger garden etc. All of these things got me thinking whether this is really something to try and be doing nearer to 40 than 50...

What say you?

Edited by okgo on Tuesday 21st March 13:05

[okgo]

Wacky Racer said:

Never say forever.

You don't know what's going to happen in the future.

House number one seven years

House number two four years

House number three ten years

Current one twenty three years.

We will be looking to downsize in a couple of years.

This is true, I should have added that making as few moves as possible is the aim of the game, the SDLT is quite a big hurdle to multiple moves down here.

This is our second property after having both lived in our respective first properties for about 7 years.

[okgo]

smifffymoto said:

What’s a forever house?

With the complicated lives we lead now I would say nothing is forever,a house included.

I'd argue life is more simple for some than ever. Me and my wife both work from home nearly all the time aside from client meetings which can of course be travelled to from anywhere, it is what has brought the question into more focus of late.

We'd be coming from London where we have been in this house for only 3 years but in other properties before that, but given we spend so much time here now vs when we bought it (well, covid was just happening then and we had previously been office workers) it has potentially switched the balance from location and proximity to work/entertainment to outdoor space and such which is obviously always lacking in London.

[okgo]

Evoluzione said:

^ What does this mean?

52. Before then I simply couldn't afford it.

May be slightly wrongly worded but..

Right now my garden is about the size of a slightly oversized squash court as is common for a terraced London house, we live near everything you'd want in terms of green space/pools/parks etc but it isn't quite the same as walking out the back door. BBQ's with more than 6 guests would feel quite tight, kids parties are not an option etc. I'd like a larger garden, pool possibly, certainly enough room to boot a football about with kid(s) etc - I think if the kid(s) had left home it would perhaps diminish the enjoyment of a larger garden.

Do hear the points around large house and rattling about in it, but I think there probably is a middle ground somewhere, not interested in a 4000Sqft+ property, but it would be unlikely to find what I want in terms of situation and such with a small house on the plot unless it was a big refurb/knock down job which I also am not that keen for.

[okgo]

CharlieGee said:

36 for me. Left London to do it a couple of years ago. From what you say, it doesn’t seem that there’s anything keeping you in the city so why wait ten years? Only argument I can see is further appreciation of your current place making the move easier - I did think about this before leaving London but decided another 5+ years to (maybe) realise something significant wasn’t worth it.

Fair points. I think it is a combo of being a bit young in my head to go and live in a village - this is where I'd wanna end up I 'think' so not sure I want to buy two houses by going to a suburb/half way house due to stamp. And then still having a lot of mates in and around London area, still enjoying going out around here, and finally 10 years time made some sense re school as my son would be 13 then so in market for a senior school. You are right in some respects that part of the decision is driven around potentially making some money on the place, but also getting some value from the stamp we paid only 3 years ago too.

I also have a bit of a fear about jumping too early and regretting it. Buying houses in London is quite forgiving in that sense because you know roughly speaking what you're in for and even if you don't end up loving the area you're in you're moments from another, or another, or another, and the simple fact is that no place in London is perfect, you can rationalise any number of things because 'that's just a big city'. That isn't the case with smaller towns or villages, this is why it feels more important to get it right.

[okgo]

cliffords said:

See my other post. I absolutely agree with this , learnt from experience.

What have you bought with land that meant your neighbours were an issue?

I think the first list mentioned was just council type behaviour you don’t really get if you’ve paid a few quid, but what you’ve said is more concerning but if house is central to its plot then maybe what happens elsewhere (save for some huge housing estate) is less of an issue?

The issue on my street is the houses that are now split and then the ones that are rented.

[okgo]

lizardbrain said:

Is it even possible to have a forever home when you have young kids etc.

Unless you are totally minted it’s quite likely your needs will change over a relatively short time.

Why wouldn’t it be? What needs?

I’m asking from a position of interest - all the things I want are just that, ‘wants’, they aren’t needs..

[okgo]

NomduJour said:

Have friends who did the usual move out down the Waterloo line thing - how they felt vindicated not having to do the 1 1/2 hour commute during lockdowns, £6k saved on train fees etc. Now they’re being expected to actually turn up at work more than once a fortnight, not so much.

There’s none of that expectation at either of our current companies and the sector more widely isn’t so focussed on ‘bums on seats’ really.