Hi, I'm planning to buy a property in west London. I,m not sure I can afford a brand new house. Any way currently I'm in a dilemma of choosing the house for living and selling after 5 or 6 yrs time. I was adviced by few people to buy brick houses between 1930 - 1960's. Then again some of my friends said not to buy 1960s - 1980s. Can you please tell me what kind of houses are better to buy new or old houses.I think its better to buy 1990s which is very hard to find in the market. Please let me know your advices ASAP.
2007-11-08 22:08:48 · 4 answers · asked by Sham 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
A hard decision....older houses are generally better built, although beware as there were no building regulations for early properties, so you may find that the foundations are not as deep as they should be, or roof supports and chimney supports are not strong enough....older houses also generally have larger rooms and are therefore more expensive.....Whatever you choose, location is the main thing, buy the best house you can in the best area...always have a survey done, or take a friendly builder with you.....try auctions, but beware again....when the hammer falls its yours...I suppose a terraced house is your best bet.and these are usually turn of the last century....1900 ish
2007-11-08 22:21:28 · answer #1 · answered by Knownow't 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you check on the market prediction sites, most reckon that the London property market is considerably overvalued by as much as 15% and is about due for a re-adjustment. For the next couple of years the best house to buy in London may be no house at all as you could find yourself with no profit in 6 - 6 years and all the stress of negative equity in the interim. I would seriously consider renting for the next couple of years.
2007-11-08 23:11:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Older definitely better, bigger rooms in 60's houses. I've had two new houses, one in '83 and one '94 - not a huge divide in time but my goodness - you can tell the difference! I wouldn't consider anything built after '65 next time. Unless you are buying from a small developer who employs direct, don't consider a new one - too many sub-contractors who don't give a toss. In my last one '94, sub-contract gas/plumbing co. left a spigot on the gas fire which should have been removed - fire was pumping out carbon monoxide! Worst thing, they'd done it in every house! Had H&S exec., Corgi ands trading standards involved.
2007-11-12 03:15:00 · answer #3 · answered by groovymaude 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All houses built after the 60's are crap. That's a fact.
2007-11-08 22:16:17 · answer #4 · answered by cobra 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋