Are you totally 'location location location' or rather have a nicer house?

britboy4321

britboy4321

britboy4321

Permabanned
Joined
10 Dec 2008
Posts
4,080
Location
London
There is no right or wrong answer to this question. '1' isn't the lowest score -- it's all opinion.

So .. you're buying a house .. please rate the place you're looking for (on a fixed budget) on a scale of 100,

So - if on the scale (1) was living in an absolutely nasty 7 foot squared, no heating, damp ridden bug-ridden 'Studio flat' -- however situated in the best, most beautiful, prosperous geographical location in the country (right next to work .. gorgeous cafe's, everyone is lovely - amazing community spirit - outside of your house is just gorgeous),

and of course the other extreme (100) is living in a absolutely gorgeous house - perfect condition, MUCH nicer than anything you could afford anywhere else -- but of course you can afford it because it's slap-bang in the middle of the worst council estate in the whole of the UK, with chavs and ****** everywhere and old sofas and piles of tyres on the neighbours lawns (and the neighbours are always screaming at each other and fighting or throwing beer bottles around and the police are called every other day for something or other) ..

Where would you place yourself on the scale? (1) and (100) are the utter extremes - just interested in how much people are prepared to compromise the quality of house they buy for 'location, location, location'.

Me, I'm about a (75) as i'm used to living in slightly dodgy areas so it doesn't really get to me ... and I don't mind my kids going to slightly ropey schools as I did and it wasn't too bad. You? (And If you say 'I want nice house, nice location' -- well, so do we all mate. But this is which way you're going to compromise when you inevitably can't afford the perfect life ..)
 
Last edited:
50 as I could go either way depending on circumstances.

I currently live in a really nice, although small, 1 bedroom flat in the centre of Bristol. For the same price, I know I could get a 2 or 3 bed house a few postcodes out. I plan to do just that in the next year though.
 
I'm stuck near town because of where I work but I am very picky about where I live. Call it snobby, yes it is snobby, but if it's the difference between living with quiet, considerate educated people or an area with builders' vans parked up everywhere and kids bazzing up and down the road on mopeds... I'll pick the quieter area. It does mean I'll end up with a smaller property than I'd like, but the peace and quiet is more important to me in a pleasant area.

I grew up in SE London and I've seen the area sink lower than it already was, so I've had my share of scummy areas, beatings, crime, vandalism etc. Just don't have time to put up with it any more.

So I'm about a 25 :D
 
75ish.

renting I prefer location. but if I was buying having a nice house, garden, garage would be much more important.

Aim for the places a bit further away from town or in the middle of knowhere and that no one ever talks about. Just good average area with bargain houses.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather a nice house, but wouldn't consider it in a run down area.

By the same token, I wouldn't pick an area purely because it's "cool" and have to live in a hell hole.
 
75, I bought a house with a garden in East London last July, there was no way I would have been able to afford even a 2 bed flat if I still lived in Clapham / Balham (nice areas).
The area isn't great but it's near the olympics and excellent transport links so hopefully will improve in time.
 
At the moment I'd sacrifice a flat/house for a better location, so about ~30 on the scale. I'm sure as I get older and at the end of the decade I may have swung up to about ~60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom