Price Per Square Foot

[curious1]

I'm curious to see how properties compare when measured in £/sqft. I've started doing this with properties I'm looking at, but it would be useful to have some form of comparison to work with. Does anyone have any guidelines figures?

Is £150 /sqft sound good for a top floor tenament 3-bed in shawlands, glasgow. It's on at fixed-price so would probably put an offer in at around £135 /sqft. The property was bought back in 2002 for about £95 /sqft. I can't imagine prices dropping back down much further than £125 /sqft.

[Timm]

I'm curious to see how properties compare when measured in £/sqft. I've started doing this with properties I'm looking at, but it would be useful to have some form of comparison to work with. Does anyone have any guidelines figures?

Is £150 /sqft sound good for a top floor tenament 3-bed in shawlands, glasgow. It's on at fixed-price so would probably put an offer in at around £135 /sqft. The property was bought back in 2002 for about £95 /sqft. I can't imagine prices dropping back down much further than £125 /sqft.

This is a very useful way of looking at things, and was always my base point when I was valuing property. I'm not aware of any database for it though - I used to keep my own.

It's a long time since I saw anything decent in Oxford at less than £200psf !

[Charterhouse]

It's a good way to look at property but you need to take into account other factors that will affect price/sq foot, e.g. quality of property, garden size/facing, local amenities, distance to the tube, proximity of council housing etc, as well as any additional costs i.e. service charges, ground rents etc.

When I was looking in London in 2007 in zones 1-2 I saw prices ranging from £300/sq ft up to £500/sq foot, so it can be a pretty wide range. It does give a good guide though, particularly if you are comparing similar properties.

[Neil B]

It isn't usual to measure domestic property like this in the UK.

It is the normal on the continent though.

[curious1]

Yea, I'm not so interested in the EAs methods for measurement, so would prefer to measure up the property myself.

How would you take into account things like factors fees, location and other "perks"... I guess for factors fees, I could work out the cost per square foot over a 25yrs period, but then there's no saying how much that cost would increase over time!

As far as I can see, this property has a good price per sq.ft. It has original floorboards, great views, top floor (so no noisy neighbours above), bright east/west orientation, large hall, large cupboard off hall(big enough to be office), new kitchen nicely fitted. Only things letting it down are the windows middle pivot single glazed timber may need maintenance and are not original, and the bathroom could do with a fresh decor (fittings look good though).

Barring any structural issues, I can't see a property like this loosing too much value over the long term. I'm just looking for somewhere to settle... and this house definately looks the part. It's so rare to come across a house that ticks my boxes that I'm prepared for it to lose some value over the next 5-10 yrs.

[Timm]

You also need to look at how the property is measured. The EAs rulers seem to operate differently to mine. Theirs are often 10% shorter than mine so the property on their measurements are 10% larger than when I measure. eg one bedroom was 6ft 7in wide, I could just about touch both walls (ones height is roughly ones outstretched arm) I am less that 6ft tall, so by measure the room was 6ft wide not 6ft 7in.

But seriously, where the overall square footage is given, it may be gross external, gross internal, or net internal, which does not count halls, and sometimes "wet rooms", which would mean bathrooms etc were not counted.

Gross external would include the walls, which are hard to use as living space.

[abharrisson]

Everyone in some other countries , in france for instance, are much more aware of cost pre sqm than we seem to be here.

When I was recently looking at how much a property I have currently in central london might be worth I looked for similar properties and looked at their comparitive size.... the problem is that theres no set formula for the measurement, in the sense that some agents will include for instance corridor space, others don't. Some agents also bloat the size of some properties I have seen by around 10% (rounding?/Simple mistake ?/Con?).... but anyway with a clear formula.. eg no corridors, garages or lofts or something like that it would be useful ....... but in london I know prices can vary by 20% for say one steet vs another seemingly similar street not more than two hundred yards away and equally by the same or more for a flat on say the lower ground vs the third floor.... so measurement is a useful comparator but not the only thing or largest variable in my view.

[thecrashingisles]

When I was recently looking at how much a property I have currently in central london might be worth I looked for similar properties and looked at their comparitive size.... the problem is that theres no set formula for the measurement, in the sense that some agents will include for instance corridor space, others don't. Some agents also bloat the size of some properties I have seen by around 10% (rounding?/Simple mistake ?/Con?).... but anyway with a clear formula.. eg no corridors, garages or lofts or something like that it would be useful ....... but in london I know prices can vary by 20% for say one steet vs another seemingly similar street not more than two hundred yards away and equally by the same or more for a flat on say the lower ground vs the third floor.... so measurement is a useful comparator but not the only thing or largest variable in my view.

But if people were more conscious of the price per square metre, it would be much more obvious to them just how much extra they were paying for the other variables.

[abharrisson]

But if people were more conscious of the price per square metre, it would be much more obvious to them just how much extra they were paying for the other variables.

Yes you are quite correct it would do.... but in a way the market works currently especially where there is similar property around... with unique property it'd be more important.

But say you have a typical terraced house in a typical fulham street... it doesn't have any extensions and is on for £600k, its in Ok condition... then you come accross one thats been done up and has a rook and side extension but otherwise is exactly the saem and its on for £900k... you'd know you were paying £300k for the roof and side extensions and the "do up".... similarly take someone looking at two flats on different roads on for roughly the same amount...... ones smaller but in a nicer road..... you know from that roughly what the difference the nicer raod makes.

I wouldn't deny that sqft costs would be useful to have but I doubt it would pricatical to get agents all working the same way and theres always the risk that the purchaser puts too great an emphasis on it when the agent might have accidentally inflated the figures..... personally when I buy I do always think about size but it doesn't outweigh other considerations.

[stormymonday_2011]

Not aware of any databases

Nonetheless, I applaud you for starting with this simple measure of value as it is the one I have always used when starting to value a property prior to purchase.

You would be amazed how few buyers bother to work out the actual size of what they are buying let alone to divide the price by the area. Once you start doing this simple sum you soon out what poor value some supposedly 'competitively' priced properties turn out to be. And they are not necessarily even in the best locations.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

£ per square foot should be the way houses are sold +/- a factor for location etc.

Agents should be forced to print this information on their literature.

For now best to work it out yourself when you view anywhere and keep a record of what's what. It gives a great idication of what is truely over-priced and by how much.

[ognum]

£ per square foot should be the way houses are sold +/- a factor for location etc.

Agents should be forced to print this information on their literature.

For now best to work it out yourself when you view anywhere and keep a record of what's what. It gives a great idication of what is truely over-priced and by how much.

This information is always included on websites for homes in the US. I have worked this out for homes in my area, it is interesting that the cost per sq foot alters according to the price band of the house. Houses in the 200k - 350k band are less per square foot then houses in the 500K - 650K band. This is the exact oposite to the way I thought it would be!

Edited July 20, 2009 by ognum

[twatmangle]

If it's anything to go on... I'm paying £162 per square foot of living space for my place that's currently going through.

I say 'living space', as the garage and other externals are not included included in the calculation

[Guest happy?]

Property square footage could easily be a requirement of HIPs. If property size were a HIPs requirement people could make an informed/rational decision and a useful comparitor. Trouble is, who would buy a grotty property in Fulham when you could get something like this for the same money:

http://www.wheresmyproperty.com/details.asp?ref=SO2210765

NB Just a random sample of any shire county....

[Cherubium]

The square footage measurement is always gross internal.

Common disclaimers to add volume over and above standard surveyors definitions are:

Includes space with a celiing lower than 1.5m (IE useless bits of loft rooms and part of loft itself)

Includes garage

In terms of usefulness, it's very good for comparing the value of properties within the same area, or for working out the relative prices in two areas you'd like to live in.

You can also spot oddities in the market. One thing I've noticed where I'm looking (Barnet area) is that 3000sqft executive homes currently list at around £500 per sqft, compared to around £350 per sqft for more modest family homes around the 2000 sqft mark in the same areas.

I don't think it's entirely coincidental that almost none of these more upmarket houses have sold since I put them in my rightmove favourites list back in January. Though infuriatingly, none of the buggers have come down much either!

[ognum]

If it's anything to go on... I'm paying £162 per square foot of living space for my place that's currently going through.

I say 'living space', as the garage and other externals are not included included in the calculation

Property in central Cambridge in the 500K - 650K range is on average £350 per square foot. This is based on asking price and at the present time it is unusual for properties to be sold under asking price. Hard to believe I know but true!

[ognum]

Property square footage could easily be a requirement of HIPs. If property size were a HIPs requirement people could make an informed/rational decision and a useful comparitor. Trouble is, who would buy a grotty property in Fulham when you could get something like this for the same money:

http://www.wheresmyproperty.com/details.asp?ref=SO2210765

NB Just a random sample of any shire county....

Great idea to have it included in the HP, would IMO be the only useful information.

[aptid]

I have had a look at a couple of HIPS and there is often the square meterage listed on the Energy Performance section.

I have assumed this to be the gross internal area, excluding areas that are not heated such as garages and outbuildings etc.

[Muswell Hillbilly]

If only price per square metre (not square feet, please!) were widely used in the UK, perhaps our property market wouldn’t be quite so insane, and we wouldn’t have such rubbishy newbuilds. Instead, the standard for measuring property in the UK is that well-known SI unit, the ‘bedroom’. Hence we see horrible new houses with lots of tiny, poky rooms, because a ‘five-bedroom executive house’ is worth more than a three-bedroom house that might have the same internal area. Why are the British so stupid as to allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes in this way?

[Mr. Cholmondley-Warner]

Funnily enough new build houses values are all based on cost per ft2 when valued in appraisals by developers

This will vary form development to development and even flats in one development depending an a number of factors, location in country, area in city, outlook of flats etc etc

Area for flats as someone mentioned is net internal i.e. all area within flat party/external walls measuring over all internal partitions making up the rooms. For houses everything inside inner face of external walls.

At height of boom £300 -£350 pretty typical in places like Edinburgh and other major conurbations, higher on South London. Massive spread of costs though could be lower or significantly higher, think Candy Brother flats but if you bought one of those you need your head seeing to. This will have dropped from peak but don't know what to now

Very difficult to create a database of costs parameters are very varied.

I think valuers similar method for existing property by comparison with sales in the locality, so if you could get areas of the proprieties in a specific area that may help

Good luck

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Just a thot for the property bee implementors....it could easily parse a web page, pick out the room dimensions displayed, e.g. "living room 10 x 4" then give a price per square foot estimate.

That would be a very useful feature.

[Yoss]

£ per square foot should be the way houses are sold +/- a factor for location etc.

Agents should be forced to print this information on their literature.

For now best to work it out yourself when you view anywhere and keep a record of what's what. It gives a great idication of what is truely over-priced and by how much.

My original house plans (1948) quite clearly states the the square footage of the dwelling at 1200 square feet. Not including Garage + 100ft x 50 ft rear garden + front garden and off street parking for 4 cars.

And the latest valuation I got when looking for a new 10 year fix mortgage deal = £166.66 per Sq/Ft...Now I openly admit it needs some work!

But when a 2 bed lease hold new build flat sub 400 sq/ft with no garden, and 1.3 parking spaces is "marketed" at £220K it's not really surprising the banks will not touch new builds without a very very big deposit.

flats are less that 250 mtrs from my front door?

(FYI I am not bitter about the valuation of my HOME!, but just can't work the logic on people buying or even thinking of buying said flats)

[peter_2008]

I always wondered why the UK is the only country on this planet that sell properties by the meaningless "BEDROOM" unit.

My only guess is that since all EAs are colleague dropouts, so they can't do math. They can only to use a unit that they can count with their chubby fingers.

"So what area is 4 x 4?" "Er...about a Land Rover?"

The even funnier thing is when the Yanks, Spaniards, all other cheeky monkeys selling properties to Brits, they switch from "sq ft" to "bedroom" instantly. How nice of them to milk retarded Brits!

Buying oversea properties:

Rule No.1: NEVER BUY FROM BRITS, BECAUSE ITS AWAYLS OVERPRICED.

Rule No.2: ALWAYS SELL TO BRITS, BECAUSE THEY AWAYLS OVERPAY.

[Yoss]

I always wondered why the UK is the only country on this planet that sell properties by the meaningless "BEDROOM" unit.

My only guess is that since all EAs are colleague dropouts, so they can't do math. They can only to use a unit that they can count with their chubby fingers.

"So what area is 4 x 4?" "Er...about a Land Rover?"

The even funnier thing is when the Yanks, Spaniards, all other cheeky monkeys selling properties to Brits, they switch from "sq ft" to "bedroom" instantly. How nice of them to milk retarded Brits!

Buying oversea properties:

Rule No.1: NEVER BUY FROM BRITS, BECAUSE ITS AWAYLS OVERPRICED.

Rule No.2: ALWAYS SELL TO BRITS, BECAUSE THEY AWAYLS OVERPAY.

And that is the simple reason EA's in the UK will never quote a price at sqr/ft. If they did that they'd be mugging themselves!

When Tesco's starts selling houses by the Sqr/Ft at minimal fixed price.... then and only then is it the time to buy a house in the UK!

Until that the VI's are still calling the shots and they will lobby and resist at every turn.

[LuckyOne]

But if people were more conscious of the price per square metre, it would be much more obvious to them just how much extra they were paying for the other variables.

True.

From what I have seen, most valuations provided by surveyors seem to be based on price / sq m or price / sq ft.

Now that the bubble has burst, I suspect that we will see an increasing focus on the most basic measures of value.

People will have to decide whether Hampstead is really worth £1,500 / sq ft relative to Ealing at £400 / sq ft.