• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    (I am so sorry, please, whatever gods there may be forgive me…)

    Whoever sells this is going to lose their marbles.

    • EdanGrey@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I know right, if you could afford to do that to the interior, why on earth wouldn’t you at least paint your house

      • HeChomk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s in a shitty area. Think of the shitty exterior as camouflage. Burgler isn’t going to bother with the run down shitbox house.

        • rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah but if every time you open your door the neighborhood is blinded by the chandeliers reflecting off all that pearly white marble people are gonna get suspicious.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      40 mins to central London on tube. Lots of green spaces near by. 2 solid square bedrooms, all the cosmic 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.

      • shottymcb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Amazing what passes for a “decent back garden” in the UK. My “back garden” is a quarter 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.

        • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well, decent “for London”. People can easily buy bigger spaces elsewhere in the country but you’re often in the middle of nowheresville.

          • shottymcb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              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

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Nope@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is one of the areas that London expanded into, it was in Essex until to 60s. It’s not desirable.

      • Jay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

  • ahal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ignoring the obvious, I was not expecting that kind of money being dropped on the interior based on the photos of the exterior.

    • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I get a strong ‘my mate’s company bought too much of this for a project and asked if I wanted it for pennies on the pound so I said yeah, put it fucking everywhere’ vibe

    • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re probably not allowed to modify the exterior at all and made the best of it for whatever reason

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Before seeing this I had no idea what it meant to have a tasteful home and now I know what it means to have a tasteless home.

    There’s so many things stuffed into this house that nothing has any flavor. I’m sure this will be useful information

  • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That first photo - I though I was looking at a scrap heap that had already been gutted, covered in mould and rubbish and ripped up wall paper, before I realised that was just the tilling… 🤯

    The bedrooms don’t look too offensive, but the rest is just so overwhelming and off putting… Those stairs! I wish them luck lol

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You might be looking at the second toilet, rather than the main bathroom? The actual bathroom certainly is smaller than average, but not really unusual for these kinds of houses unfortunately…

        • kux@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          these postwar council houses sometimes have the bathroom and toilet in seperate small rooms, could be the extra toilet was added in were there’d normally be just a bath and sink

          • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, might be. Looking at the floor plans it seems more likely that the upstairs toilet was the later addition in this case (only because when there’s a separate bath/toilet they tend to be next to each other, not on different floors), but I could definitely be wrong, as far as we know the entire layout could have been changed since it was first built. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯