Quite an unusual interior
Quite an unusual interior
2 bedroom end of terrace house for sale in Standfield Road, Dagenham, RM10 for £450,000. Marketed by Purplebricks, covering Romford
You're viewing a single thread.
Can someone in the UK tell me how that home costs £450k? Is real estate that crazy over there or are they trying to recover the £300k they spent for the marble?
40 mins to central London on tube. Lots of green spaces near by. 2 solid square bedrooms, all the cosmetic crap easily stripped out. Hard standing for 2 cars, decent back garden. Semi detached.
The only reason it's not more is "it's Dagenham" and the general shabby state of the street.
This'll get snapped up by professional couple earning 160k+ combined willing to await the inevitable gentrification in 5/10 years.
Amazing what passes for a "decent back garden" in the UK. My "back garden" is a 1/4 acre (1000m^2 ) on a property worth $140k USD including the 1200ft^2 (120m^2 ) house.
On the downside my exterior walls are made of glue and sawdust, and my interior walls are made of paper and powdered gypsum.
Well, decent "for London". People can easily buy bigger spaces elsewhere in the country but you're often in the middle of nowheresville.
Absolutely, I live a metro area with about 5 million people, it's not an international hub of anything. It's big enough to offer most of what you get in a big city aside from public transport, since our population density is wayyyyy lower.
Is it really worth it for your back yard to be 3 feet of sidewalk and a 3ft^2 patch of unruly grass? Why is that grass even there? Feels like an insult to me. Just draw a frowny face on a block of concrete. People aren't meant to live like that.
Space in London is really a trade off. Many are there just to kick start their career which in the UK London offers far more opportunities than, say, Birmingham or Manchester.
It's the same as why people put up with small apartments in Manhatten. Or Hong Kong to some extent.
Many live in smaller places early in their career and then when it's time for marriage / kids they migrate out to the commuter belt where they get larger, nicer places with a more countryside feel and a longer train ride into the city.
I think the kind of professionals who would buy the above are comparing it to a smaller (nicer) 2 bed flat closer into the city in a greener area but with no personal outdoor space. That's the trade off. They might have started a family and so just want a little outdoor space for toddlers until they move out somewhere bigger for schools.
Or some people like living in smaller urban environments and want to get in early into areas that are "gentrifying". This has happened over and over in London - move into fairly cramped run down area but with easy commute to work - many other professionals do too - more upmarket shops open locally / cafe culture - streets tidy up, prices explode. Then you sell up and move further out for the country village pad and the train ride to work.
Also, there are many careers in the UK which you can really only pursue in London (or at least it's where all the opportunities are). Finance / legal / certain arts etc.
"Nowheresville" in England is very, very relative.
Oh totally, there are many great places to live in the UK that isn't the London bubble. I was replying quickly and looking for something that summed not being near London jobs / the West end / art/ music scene etc from the point of view of the two professionals who'd likely drop that kind of money on that house
First: I don't disagree with you.
Second: England is just too small relative to the overall population to really have places that would be considered "Nowheresville" in the US. For instance, I'm looking at moving to the desert, so I can get away from people. One of the towns I'm looking at has a population of 400 (people, total), and is about 60 miles from any city over 5000 people.
That's London prices for you. That's likely the bottom end of the price scale.
Not in the UK, but I'm guessing, like real estate anywhere, high population + limited availability?
There are 9 million people living in London. 607 square miles, which means, on average, 14,827 people per square mile.
Compared to, say, San Francisco with 808,000 people in 47 square miles, 17,191 people per square mile.
Globally though, numbers like this aren't even in the top 25:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population_density
My "city" is embarrassed. 635,000 people in 145 square miles. 4,379 people per square mile. We're absolutely porous by comparison.
Reading that I had to check my area, and it's a whopping 1518 people in 205.11 square miles or about 7 people per square mile. You got us beat by a long shot.
This is one of the areas that London expanded into, it was in Essex until to 60s. It's not desirable.