Will delete if another is made while I’m making this one.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    64 months ago

    Opinions wanted.

    I’m looking to live right by the seaside but it’s hard to get a place.

    Is it better to get a bit of a shitty place in a wonderful location ( the place I’m in now is a disgrace so it’s not like I would be going from a good place to a dump, I’m already in a dump )

    or a better place in a worse location?

    I reckon I can fix up a place to be more comfortable but I can’t actually move a house to a better location.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Location > House quality. A castle in Clyde is still in Clyde. Your kids are old and out on their own yeah.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 months ago

      The classic advice is to buy the worst house in the best street/location. I reckon this applies here too. Location location location.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      Assuming it’s not going to be a big or expensive problem I’d prefer a slightly crummy place than a bad area. You can fix up a bad place but there’s not a lot you can do about the area and a bad one will wear on you.

      Also if you resold someone would likely want that area regardless of the house’s condition.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I also reckon go for a preferred location, as long as the house repairs would be manageable. It would be a nicer environment to live in and also better resale value in case you decide to move.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Ah… I’d say the same thing, provided the rent was reasonable and house ok to live in. I think the problem with seaside towns is competition from holidaymakers would bump the prices up