Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apologies in advance for daring to post a property related thread in January 2011. But it's a simple question really.


Let's say you're worked hard enough to be able afford a roof over your head and were considering trading up from your flat. Or perhaps you want to start a family or just be able to paint your own walls rather than continue renting.


Either way, you've lived the "ED dream" for 10 years and in 2011 you're now ready and able to move to a family house.

Would you choose:


A) A 3 bed, non descript terrace in central East Dulwich for ?700,000 (almost three quarters of a million pounds) with a 35 ft garden, a patchy roof and some nice patterned wallpaper.


OR


B) A three story, 4 bed equally non descript terrace with a 50 ft sunny south facing garden in say, Honor Oak, 5 mins from the East London line but without the many joys and delights etc etc lordship Lane has to offer. (For that you'll need to drive for a whole 5 mins or walk for 20) for.....?400,000 (a whopping 300k less)


OR


C) move to Surrey (for Brendan)


In terms of this "value differential" , the current difference between East Dulwich and Nunhead/Honor Oak seems plain crazy - am I alone in thinking this price gap doesn't stack up?


I mean I like Green & Blue, William Rose etc as much as the next man but.....


Am I mad?

I don't think you are mad MrBen, I have known several people trade up for more space to Nunhead/Honor Oak area for more space. All depends on your budget and circumstances of course, i would stay put in ED as tried this once but soon moved back, it might be round the corner but still not the same IMO anyways. Not putting those areas down though.


*ducks*

Jezza - You can get a ?500k 3 bed in ED but it wont be 3 proper doubles, will have a wonky limb and will have a pokey garden. Take look and you'll find it a truly depressing experience. If you want anything on say Bawdale, Shawbury or Fellbrigg Road its 625K asking and on Melbourne Grove or Friern Road 700k approx.


If you are trading up from a flat you need to actually be able to sell it to release equity OR you need to have cash in han at 15% deposit minimum which is ?80-?100k. I just wonder how many people have that stack kicking around their sock drawer....and of those who do, whether they'd actually choose to live in SE London?

Creeping gentrification is always like this - huge differences in prices either side of seemingly arbitrary lines dividing up neighbourhoods and postcodes. Some bits of SE23 are essentially the same price as ED i.e. decent size 4 bed period house = ?600k and up, other bits (nearer to Catford) are half the price.
People will pay it (for now) and therefore it's worth it. Enough people, at least, to make a functioning market and to reassure each of them that if they buy a house in ED they will not lose their money when they come to sell it. They may turn out to be wrong but it won't be because you can get a house cheaper in Nunhead.

I looked at this when I first moved to the area and chose Honor Oak Park but mainly for the better transport links i.e. East London Line and when Thameslink finishes the through trains to Kings Cross will be excellent (I work in the north part of the city). Plus both Fairlawn and Stillness are very good schools.


Although I loved ED i realised that during my working week (Long hours, work drinks etc) I would not benefit from being in ED hence the price didnt stack up and at the weekend I can always pop down to lordship lane if I wanted to. I figured even for nights out that the 300k difference covered a lot of cabs plus its better to live somewhere relatively quiet and travel for mayhem than live in mayhem.


I dont think you can go wrong with either option.

Well, I've just gone for the ED option (today!) - and it didn't cost me ?700k or even that close to ?500k for my 3 bed house - though I will confess it's not 3 doubles (third is just over 12 x 7, others are good doubles). I think the garden is south facing and it is 50 ft.


Compromise was in being a bit more of a trek down to Lordship Lane than my rented place though still SE22, but I don't mind that as it's closer to the no 63 bus route than I am now and that is my usual journey to work.


I do know what you mean though, was skimming a property magazine the other day and saw some of the places you could get in Bromley for what I've spent and it wasn't a pretty comparison. But I've done suburbia and wanted to be here, and I don't have family to consider so it's up to me if I want to be silly with my money.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A house prices thread! Woo!! It's been a while.

>

> Jezza - here you go: check out this little fella


Yeah, but that one's a "wonderful opportunity", "rarely available to the market". It also has a fireplace. So obviously worth 700K.

But of course it does!


Most of the 3-beds are smaller and terraced, but the smaller percentage of larger ones (often semis) are about ?100k more. From what I remember from when we were looking around - the larger 3 beds were priced about the same as the smaller 4 beds.

Completely know where you're coming from and Mr Buggie & I are doing lots of head scratching ourselves as we have similar 500k-ish limit.


Trying to weigh it up is really tricky - more space/bigger garden obv good, but not having good bus service from Nunhead/Honor Oak into ED makes me wonder how useful it would be - especially since the arrival of the Bugglet, being able to get home from LL within 5/15mins (dependent on bus arriving or walking back myself) makes a huge difference to being able to feel confident getting out and about/not having to rely on car/finding parking space.


Is so difficult to second guess which would be the compromise we could easier live with - space or distance.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...