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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
“Nowheresville” in England is very, very relative.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.