Finally… I agree with Prince Charles!
It’s not very often that you’ll catch me agreeing with Prince Charles’s views on architecture… however, listening to his address to councillors and planners in Edinburgh recently, he echoed something I’ve believed for many years.
Essentially, he called on housing developers to consider whether they would want to set up home in the properties they build.
This a basic rule of thumb I’ve always applied to my own developments, and encourage other developers to carefully consider.
“Would you want to live there?”
When you think about it, it’s not a bad test on the quality of a proposed development. After all, if the developer would want to live there, then it’s pretty reasonable to assume that other people will too. If you apply this principal to your development schemes – and even your BTL properties – then you stand a much better chance of shifting the houses quickly when they come to market.
But it’s about more than just cash flow. Often, developers can lose sight of the fact that they are building so much more than housing developments or housing estates… they are actually contributing to, or even creating, communities.
That’s why taking a broader, more holistic, approach to developing, taking into consideration not only the bricks and mortar, but the surrounding neighbourhood environment and the socio-economic aspect of a development can result in something altogether more rewarding.
I’m constantly hammering home to my Developing Profits students the fact that good development planning is essential – it makes the development more appealing for everyone involved…
That means it’s good for the neighbourhood… and good for profits too!
Popularity: 2% [?]
I read this one earlier too Linton. It’s an interesting common sense approach that all Architects and Developer’s should take on board.
Hope that you are well.
[Reply]
Hi there
I just want to say that asking the question “Would I want to live there?” is a GREAT test question to use for ALL property projects including the exterior and interior. I say this with my interior architect and space planning eyes. I have seen way too many projects use the “cheap and cheerful” motto and what many seem to forget is that cheap DOES NOT equal unattractive nor unfunctional. While beauty is subjective, function and safety are not. ie, all kitchens contain the same minimum number of vital components but are they in the correct placement for function AND safety? Based on observation, I would say that many are unaware that a safety element in kitchen design even exists.
[Reply]
Lyndon I totally agree, it’s the standard I work to. It’s got nothing to do with my own personal taste, but everything to do with providing decent homes that people actually want. A layout that works ergonomically and maximises space and light. A few extra percent spent on the appearance of a quality finish is vital to getting the best price and a quick sale. The finish is your street-value, what the buyer sees and what they will judge everything else about the property on. No point in scrimping on the finish!
Meanwhile, have you seen some of Sam Collett’s posts on propertytribes? Sometimes with refurb and minor renovation it can pay to make the place just barely habitable (not replacing but just painting old kitchen cabinets for instance), so the buyer can get a mortgage and move in, then fit the kitchen they really want.
I’ve never tried this approach myself and it might not work for me, but Sam makes an art of it!
BW,
Rich
[Reply]
Lyndon Forshaw Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Hi Rich,
Common sense when you think about it.
I haven’t read Sams posts but will do. Sounds interesting but not sure how it works? With scruffy run down kitchens etc the property may well not achieve the desired valuation…? As I say, will take a look
Regards
Lyndon
[Reply]