Second opinion on £963,300 asking price for a 1,670 sq ft Edinburgh townhouse

U

UmaLowe

Developer
Established
£963,300 is the number making me pause. The property is a two-bedroom Edinburgh townhouse of roughly 1,670 sq ft, in average condition. It has very good light and an appealing location, but the finishes are dated and the information I have seen raises a possible lease-length or tenure cost that needs clarification.

There are three comparable listings available, yet I can identify just one achieved transaction. Rather than applying a tidy rate across all the space, I am trying to work out how much of the unusually large floor area is genuinely useful and what the likely works would cost.

Would you prioritise the exact micro-location, tenure details, service charges, parking, outside space or marketing history before forming a view? I am not convinced the décor is the main risk if the legal interest or recurring costs differ from the comparison properties. I will still seek a local appraisal before treating any estimate as reliable.
 
I wouldn’t apply one percentage to all 1,670 sq ft. First compare usable rooms and layout, because extra circulation or awkward space should not carry the same rate as good living space. For condition, use a low-to-high schedule of likely works rather than a generic “dated” discount.

The exact street and position within it would change my view most. In Edinburgh, even nearby properties can differ materially in outlook, noise, light and convenience.
 
I’d put the tenure issue ahead of the décor. “Possible lease length costs” needs clarifying rather than treating it as a routine cosmetic adjustment, particularly as you should not assume an Edinburgh arrangement works like one elsewhere in the UK. Confirm exactly what is held, the remaining term if applicable, and any recurring charges.

Also, 1,670 sq ft for two bedrooms raises a layout question: is that generous, useful accommodation or space buyers may not value fully? Parking and private outdoor space could matter more than a neat price-per-square-foot comparison.
 
That helps. I don’t yet have verified lease details, service-charge figures or a reliable days-on-market history, so those are now requests rather than assumptions in my calculation. I’ll also break the floor plan into genuinely usable living space versus halls and other lower-utility areas.

For condition, I’m going to prepare cosmetic-refresh and more extensive-refit cases instead of choosing a single discount. The completed comparable will remain the starting point, with the three asking prices used only as context.
 
That approach is better, but be careful not to deduct refurbishment costs twice. If the completed comparable was already dated, subtracting a full refit allowance from its implied value would overstate the adjustment.

Make a simple comparison table: sold date, exact micro-location, floor area, usable layout, condition at sale, parking, outdoor space and any charges or tenure differences. Then note whether each difference supports an upward adjustment, downward adjustment or no reliable adjustment. With only one sale, broad scenarios are more defensible than a precise figure.
 
One further caveat: the three asking prices show seller expectations, not where buyers actually agreed. Their time on the market and any price reductions would help interpret them, but neither should be guessed.

I’d ask the local appraiser for at least two values: the property as presented and after specified improvements. That should expose whether the dated finishes explain the gap or whether the £963,300 asking price depends mainly on the location, light, parking or outdoor space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top