Re "We're looking at houses in the Leiden area. Given our requirements (5 bedrooms plus office space and a big-ass kitchen) . . .":
And who is "we", can I ask? Have you started your very own esoteric cult with you as The Master? And why buy? One thing I thoroughly approve of is the habit on the Continent (and the USA also, I think) of *renting* flats and houses. Here in the UK everyone has a pathological need to own their own property which has led to a ludicrous inflation of property prices - ownership is now unaffordable for the young. Renting gives one flexibility and is the best option for those not settling in to retirement. That is true if, AND ONLY IF, rents are cheap. That is far from being the case in Britain sadly and isn't going to change in the near future. ---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote : At least when it comes to real estate. I think I mentioned that we're looking at houses in the Leiden area. Given our requirements (5 bedrooms plus office space and a big-ass kitchen) and our budget, we haven't found a lot of houses that are "possibles." It appears likely that the perfect place just the right size and ready to move into may not appear, so we're looking at places that have "great potential." They will require work and possibly some major renovations to work for us, but they *could* be made to work for us. It would be a long-term project, but we're up for that. Seeing houses and thinking of buying them gets you to thinking about age, and what constitutes "old." One house we saw today was built in 1920, and is a definite fixer-upper. It would keep us very busy for some time to develop its potential. It doesn't have the high degree of interior "finish" that we're used to (it would need things like new floors, bathrooms, kitchen, etc.), but it really does have great potential. But it got me thinking about that issue of "finish" and wondering whether a nearly 100-year-old house is *worth* fixing up -- can one really make a house that old into a comfortable urban home? Then we went to the next house on our list. Walking in, the first thing that struck me was that it had a much higher level of "finish" that the house we'd seen previously. The paint was newer, the floors were wood and in great shape, it had lots of charm and a great deal of light for a row house in the Pieterskerk area of Leiden, and felt somehow "newer" or "less old" than the other house. But then something in my brain went, "Bzzzzzt...wait. This does not compute." I had noticed a small red and white metal sign to the right of the front door when we walked in, and asked the owner about it: "Is this house a Rijksmonument (national monument building)?" He said yes, so I asked him when it was built. He didn't skip a beat when he answered, "1400." Really. They know how old this house is because of something I had to look up -- dendrochronological testing. They can tell when the house was built by measuring the rings of the trees used to create the still-in-place main timbers. One of Rembrandt's teachers used to live here. The house is 615 years old and yet it has a higher degree of interior "finish" and liveability that the 100-year-old house. Go figure. I guess it's like with classic cars. Or people. It's not how old they are, it's how well they were taken care of along the Way. :-)
