Downton Gabby

I found this article and am wondering if any of you have any thoughts or comments about the affordable towns listed here.

Mapped: Where affordable meets desirable - the best places to live in Britain - Telegraph

robin1234

I think it's a useful way to look at the facts. There are several places I'd love to live in on that first graph. Darlington, Stockton-on-Tees, Ribble Valley, rural Lincolnshire. But I'm retired, so not looking for a job. It's refreshing to look at towns where you can buy a decent house for £60 or £100k.

Take Darlington. It's on the best, fastest railway line in the UK. You can be in London, Edinburgh, Newcastle or York in no time. Gorgeous town. Lovely countryside on your doorstep. Why's it cheap to live there? Presumably overstocked with housing, job prospects not the greatest...

Pulaski

Take it with a pinch of salt. People don't live in average houses.

In each of those locations there is going to be a massive range in house prices. Some of those places I wouldn't choose to live even if I could afford an "average" house or even more, whereas others might be safe and pleasant even if paying below average.

LondonSquirrel

Lewes is lovely so not surprised to see it as a happy place. New Forest gorgeous too.

Editha

Lewes is also eye-wateringly expensive nowadays, not that I'm complaining since I've just sold a house in the area.

The DT article lists the Staffordshire Moorlands in the top ten. I'd endorse that. We lived there for a decade and loved it.

curleytops

Allerdale No. 1???? I don't think so. And same goes for neighbouring Copeland. They might sing the praises of Cockermouth and the Lakes but there's another very ugly and depressing side to it. Have a drive near the coast from Maryport to Workington and you'll see a vastly different story. Take this with a pinch of salt from someone who lives there.

Moses2013

Never been to those places, but is it that bad? Surely it can't be as bad as Los Angeles, New York etc. where you pay millions for a property and a few minutes away you have gang violence (murder etc.).


Paying 80K then does sound like a bargain.




But seriously, I would never trust these reports and maybe they just asked 10 hookers who are living in the area and the 10 hookers replied they are happy to live there

curleytops

I've never been to LA or NYC, Moses, but I've been through the likes of Gary, IN and some of the rougher areas of Chicago and would have to say it's not as bad as those but it's not ideal, not by a long shot. I admit not having a car doesn't help but if we had one we'd not be living here, we'd at least be out in one of those picturesque little villages everyone thinks about when people talk of the Lakes. As for crime etc., I'm not aware of a whole lot going on in this village of sorts we're living in but I wouldn't want to be out alone at night in the likes of Workington. Each to his own but I'd die before I laid down so much as £10 to buy property to live in here so I suppose what I'm saying is, cheap is only cheap if you're happy with what goes with it. We lived in a far nicer house for pretty much the same rent in Scarborough with far nicer surroundings and better, cheaper transport links. The beaches were nicer too.

robin1234

Pleasant to visit for a day in nice weather, but I'm guessing it's a bit remote for day in, day out quality of life ...

Hmm... I live in a really remote, rural county in northern New York. Nearest decent supermarket is 125 miles away. (Obviously, we have Walmarts and such nearer.) It becomes dispiriting having to drive for hours on the exact same, tedious road just to get ANYWHERE in the world. Yes, we have wildlife, a nice garden etc.

Moses2013

I do think you get a feeling from a place straight away and we obviously all have different views. I don't know if I really agree with the comment cheap is only cheap if you're happy with what goes with it. Of course those places will probably be cheap for a reason (employment etc.), but it doesn't always have to be a bad one (crime). That picturesque little village you like probably wasn't always great either, but now a few people made it nice and it's suddenly posh.






Ok, I don't know those areas but I can't imagine that all areas that are cheap are automatically dangerous or unpleasant. It's just that the masses aren't moving there (which is good) and that allows people to still buy cheap. I think it's great that there are actually still cheap areas to live in the UK. It might be for the retired couple who don't have a huge budget, or the couple who want to escape London, but don't see the advantage of working all day to only be able to afford a tiny apartment. I also can't imagine that walking home in a place like Workington would be worse than walking home in London.

Moses2013

That's what I meant with those articles :-). They could have asked 10 hookers, or they could have asked 10 yuppies who would never live rural.

LondonSquirrel

It's weird but sometimes an area just doesn't seem to have been 'discovered' and so it remains cheap even though there's nothing inherently wrong with it. When I moved to Crystal Palace I didn't know the area at all. I had lived in Kingston for 10 years. I fell in love with CP and the villagey atmosphere and much prefer it to Kingston even though at the time I moved here Kingston was much much more expensive. Well sure it still is, I haven't looked. But this area has started to be discovered and since we got the 'orange line' ie London Overground and the direct connection to Canary Wharf and Highbury and Islington, it has got more and more popular considering it is London zone 3.

I also think big properties are overrated. Many people down-size when they get older but we won't have to. There's a tendency to look down on people who don't own large places, but we would go for location every time. We could easily sell up and buy near my mum in Lincolnshire and get a huge place, but it is our choice to stay here. Then again given the choice of a large cottage in rural Provence or an apartment in Monaco, I'd choose Monaco too. I like having lots of interesting places to go and things to do.

Hazelnut

I've looked at the map for my area in the north and, on the whole, I'd agree with it. I also love parts of Sussex and the New Forest and have lived in or near both so I'm not surprised they rate highly.

That pretty much sums it up for me but I have friends who live in the city and who hate my place as they feel uncomfortable with the wide open space around them. These things can only ever be quite generalist but we were definitely happier at our house when it had a view. Now it's so bad that we don't bother opening the curtains some days and we're definitely less happy.

LondonSquirrel

Totally agree about the view. In Kingston I lived in a flat too (well I rented a room) but the view was an old telephone exchange one side and a main road and supermarket/garage the other. Now our view is gardens one side and although a main road the other, we are right opposite some houses or flats that have the most enormous bushy trees growing in the front of them, never seem to have been cut, and I love to watch the magpies coming and going. Tbh I think even in a very similar property ie Victorian conversion further down the same road, I would be less happy if the view wasn't as pleasant, like shops or a small council estate. It's hardly the New Forest in my backyard but I love my view. It's so true what a difference it makes!

Bermudashorts

I live in one of the very few yellow or "high" areas in the south east as shown on that map. My house is an end terraced and we effectively have it as a two bedroom house as the third bedroom is used as my dressing room, I suppose it could just about contain a small child if need be. House was recently valued at £550k, I am not sure I would call that "affordable".