Des res?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
M

MOCAŠ

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
7,345
Location
West London
Car
SLK
48928_297699_IMG_00_0000_max_620x414.jpg


This sumptuously appointed, 4700 sq ft house with a decent-sized garden and garaging for two cars has been on the market for some time. Its fashion-model owner is moving on and was simply looking to recoup the £8m she paid for it in 2007, but despite having recently dropped the asking price to £7m, it has still reportedly attracted no interest.

By way of explanation, the selling agent points to its unfashionable postcode and indeed, its setting has optimistically been referred to as "St John's Wood borders" (it's not in NW8) and "Maida Vale area" (nor is it in W9). "South Kilburn" would perhaps be nearer the mark...

However, what they don't mention is the fact that the house is hemmed-in on three sides (and overlooked on two) by pig-ugly, post-war, local authority housing blocks, complete with Camden-green name plates and the obligatory "escape route" map boards. (Overtones here of the Dungeness bungalow that was advertised for sale last year, carefully photographed so as not to show that it was sitting directly in the shadow of the humungous nuclear power station.)

Given that, I frankly can't see anyone paying even £4m for it, let alone £7m. Time will tell.

aerial.jpg
 
That's going to be a tough one to sell, looks nice in the first picture, but the aerial view puts it into context. Hmmm, how much?
 
I wonder if they have a spare garage to let?

The thing that kills it for me isn't the location necessarily (much of desirable London has exclusive and municipal cheek by jowel) but the really inelegant lower ground floor - looks like a cheap, flat-roofed 60s bungalow tacked on to a relatively fine Victorian house.
 
It does seem pricey when you are sitting in a house with a rural view that costs a tenth per square foot.

Personally I wouldn't even swap.


(the view does not cost a tenth, I was referring to our house)
 
Last edited:
Charles Morgan said:
The thing that kills it for me isn't the location necessarily (much of desirable London has exclusive and municipal cheek by jowel) but the really inelegant lower ground floor - looks like a cheap, flat-roofed 60s bungalow tacked on to a relatively fine Victorian house.
Click to expand...

Hmm, regarding the lower-ground, it seems the house fell prey to a developer in 2003, who comprehensively remodelled it over the course of the following four years. Oddly enough, the house isn't listed, although the lodge immediately next door is (Grade II).

For the avoidance of doubt, it's not the proximity or public ownership of the housing blocks that I find objectionable, but their appearance - partly down to the planners/architects, partly down to the habits of their occupants (blankets draped over balcony railings...). As you rightly say, there are few parts of London where social housing - whether local authority, housing association or private trust - does not sit alongside privately owned properties, many of them far more valuable than this one, but rarely have I known such developments to look so ill at ease with their pre-existing neighbours.

Just out of shot to the left in my aerial view above is a pair of Victorian semi-detached houses, marooned beteen the uppermost block you can see and another, its twin, to the other side. This has all the hallmarks of a spite development, where the blocks were erected with little or no regard for whether they would fit harmoniously into their surroundings.
 
As someone not anticipating spending £7m on a pile of bricks I imagine the most important question would be what else can I buy for the same money in London? If somewhere as well appointed with similar space, garaging etc. but without the public observation platforms so near then clearly this property isn't worth the asking price - no matter what it previously sold for.

I was curious enough to go looking for the property however because the aerial photo does indeed make it's situation seem appalling. However, I often find that aerial shots are deceptive and I have to say I don't find the ground level view as objectionable...

mortimer.jpg


There seems to be an abundance of trees providing adequate shielding from the neighbours and I imagine making this house an oasis of sorts.

Regards,
 
And bordered by two busy roads too...that will sit and sit.
 
Excuse my ignorance on matters of our great capital, but isn't most of London just like this, Mocas?:confused:


My friend lived in St. Johns Wood for a while and one minute you could be looking at £5m+ houses and if you walked, quite literally, round the corner you were met with houses that were *ahem* not ' £5m+ houses;)
 
It certainly doesn't look particularly bad, Burger, and while the flats aren't that wonderful, I have seen many many worse. They look like mid-fifties municipal Bauhaus and have lots of grass and trees - I suspect they might have been built in the gardens of large houses either demolished or bombed in a period when Victoriana was regarded as hopelessly outdated.

Had an equivalent of Trellick Tower been built there, I would certainly agree with the spire development view Mocas!
 
Burger, you're right to an extent - the view you've shown looks very leafy and unobjectionable, as does that to the right (leading up to property's former entrance), but once you're at the main entrance, it's impossible to ignore the unsightliness of the surrounding blocks.

Interesting that you should see it as an oasis; in some respects it could be, but the fact that it is overlooked (the cover provided by the trees is itself deceptive) undermines this. It has clearly been developed into a 'compound' - the sort of place where the (celebrity) occupant would be whisked by car straight into the garage without so much as stopping to wave. Except celebrities who want to pay £7m to live in Kilburn must be thin on the ground.
 
sweetpea said:
Excuse my ignorance on matters of our great capital, but isn't most of London just like this, Mocas?:confused:


My friend lived in St. Johns Wood for a while and one minute you could be looking at £5m+ houses and if you walked, quite literally, round the corner you were met with houses that were *ahem* not ' £5m+ houses;)
Click to expand...

See post 6. London is all the better for its mix of social and private housing, with relatively few ghettos of one sort or the other, but it's all about how that housing is integrated. You will not find such a stark contrast as this in St John's Wood, Chelsea, Kensington, Belgravia or even Westminster (although Churchill Gardens probably runs it close).
 
Last edited:
This is London though. I am not sure I can reconcile it at that price, but I know I have just spent a small fortune on a house in SW6 which has a garden overlooked by a tower block a few roads away. It is just part of living in the capital.

Obviously it will all change when I up sticks and move to Norfolk in 10 years, enjoying a massive sod-off barn conversion with no debt on it.
 
SportsCoupeRich said:
This is London though. I am not sure I can reconcile it at that price, but I know I have just spent a small fortune on a house in SW6 which has a garden overlooked by a tower block a few roads away. It is just part of living in the capital.

Obviously it will all change when I up sticks and move to Norfolk in 10 years, enjoying a massive sod-off barn conversion with no debt on it.
Click to expand...

I'd say Fulham is a victim of its history. When I was growing up, it was where the rough boys came from, then in the late Eighties it suddenly became Yuppie Central for those who were priced out of SW3/10.
 
MOCAŠ said:
I'd say Fulham is a victim of its history. When I was growing up, it was where the rough boys came from, then in the late Eighties it suddenly became Yuppie Central for those who were priced out of SW3/10.
Click to expand...

I would say that, like the house I used to live in off S.Square, which was also surrounded by tower blocks, it is the victim of ill thought out rebuilding in post war Britain.
 
I heard Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddaf seemed interested at one point but hasn't been in touch recently.:rolleyes:
 
MOCAŠ said:
I was trying to avoid giving away too much about its specific location, but as burger's screenshot includes a road name, Google should provide the details.
Click to expand...

Sorry. It wasn't hard to find on Google Earth with the aerial shot you provided. I know little about the area.

Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom