this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
247 points (97.7% liked)

Terrible Estate Agent Photos

6932 readers
3 users here now

Terrible photos listed by estate agents/realtors that are so bad they’re funny.

Posting guidelines.

Posts in this community must be of property (inside or out) listed for sale which contains a terrible element. “Terrible” can refer to:

Rules.

This community follows the rules of the feddit.uk instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Can someone in the UK tell me how that home costs £450k? Is real estate that crazy over there or are they trying to recover the £300k they spent for the marble?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

40 mins to central London on tube. Lots of green spaces near by. 2 solid square bedrooms, all the cosmetic crap easily stripped out. Hard standing for 2 cars, decent back garden. Semi detached.

The only reason it's not more is "it's Dagenham" and the general shabby state of the street.

This'll get snapped up by professional couple earning 160k+ combined willing to await the inevitable gentrification in 5/10 years.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Amazing what passes for a "decent back garden" in the UK. My "back garden" is a 1/4 acre (1000m^2 ) on a property worth $140k USD including the 1200ft^2 (120m^2 ) house.

On the downside my exterior walls are made of glue and sawdust, and my interior walls are made of paper and powdered gypsum.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

That's London prices for you. That's likely the bottom end of the price scale.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not in the UK, but I'm guessing, like real estate anywhere, high population + limited availability?

There are 9 million people living in London. 607 square miles, which means, on average, 14,827 people per square mile.

Compared to, say, San Francisco with 808,000 people in 47 square miles, 17,191 people per square mile.

Globally though, numbers like this aren't even in the top 25:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population_density

My "city" is embarrassed. 635,000 people in 145 square miles. 4,379 people per square mile. We're absolutely porous by comparison.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Reading that I had to check my area, and it's a whopping 1518 people in 205.11 square miles or about 7 people per square mile. You got us beat by a long shot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

This is one of the areas that London expanded into, it was in Essex until to 60s. It's not desirable.