Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 32rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Avatar Image
blimey I have more space between my house and the neighbours, what ugly properties. If you've got that sort of money you'd want space and privacy surely.
08:45 Thu 20th Jun 2013
I've driven past that house a few times em, my general opinion of Sandbanks is it's vastly vastly overrated and people pay for the status of the address rather than what the area has to offer.
If I had the moolah I would, views of the harbour from the front and views from the sea at the back, fantastic.
Question Author
some of the housing in the capital are these sorts of prices, ludicrous.
Question Author
3.5 million for a shack.
I agree Prudie there are far nicer places than Sandbanks in this area, I don't really understand all the hype. So there are some largish houses and they have a view of the bay. None of them have much land to speak of and they're are crammed in like sardines as the picture shows. Give me the forest any day.
Question Author
I could buy a remote Scottish castle for that money, it might need a bit of work, but that would just as pleasant and far away..
''3.5 million for a shack''

And a 6 million property once they've knocked it down and rebuilt. Not a bad return.
blimey I have more space between my house and the neighbours, what ugly properties. If you've got that sort of money you'd want space and privacy surely.
and on the Jersey run for your off shore stash
Question Author
have you seen how much space there is between the properties, how will they knock it down and rebuild without interfering with the others, it looks wedged in. who would pay 6 million,
exactly em, with 6 million you would want a swimming pool, tennis court and a helicopter pad
people these days want a water view more than anything else. This wasn't true 30-40 years ago; the bank of the Thames was just wilderness from Greenwich to the Tower. Now every town in the world that has old warehouses by a harbour or a river is seeing them done up and sold for a fortune.

I don't know why exactly, but there is something relaxing about being able to look at water.

And as snags says, this one's quite a bargain.
If it's where i think it is as it says it has a double aspect then you definately won't have room for a tennis court or much else. It's on a tiny spit of land with a busy road at the front (with a view of the bay) and not much more than a yard at the back. You do have direct access to the beach (heaving with noisy grackles in the summer) over the back fence and you have the sea so you wouldn't need a swimming pool.
helicopter on the roof would be nice for a quick dash to Waitrose, though, as the road does look jammed on Google maps.
Grockles not grackles.... Duh! If anyone is interested in a sandbanks property just wait a few years for global warming to really kick in and they won't be able to give them away. You will need a pair of waders though.

Bit too close to sea level for my liking!
// 3.5 million for a shack //

The price is nothing to do with the property, it's the land and it's location that's worth that amount.
This thread has got me looking at expensive properties on Rightmove, in anticipation of winning £140 million on friday night!
they could build on stilts, garage downstairs usable as boathouse when necessary.

1 to 20 of 32rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Any Takers

Answer Question >>