The term ‘renovator’s dream’ might have been used to death, but maybe it’s due for an unpacking to determine what it really means. The question is, what would be the dream scenario for your average renovator? Would it be an opportunity to really go to town with renovations, updating pretty much everything except the basic building structure? If that’s the case, then the classic usage of the term to refer to a place that’s borderline unlivable is roughly on the right track.
But is that actually the ideal for most people looking to renovate? I know that if I was in that position, Ibe happiest with a situation where renovations are optional, rather than essential precursors to moving in. That would mean it could be a fun project, rather than a high-pressure situation where you’re forced to live in caravan for months while you figure out what to do about those sinking foundations and the collapsing roof.
I’m just raising this question because I think it influences how properties are bought and sold. At some level, it must play into the legal aspects of that, such as conveyancing. Specialists near Richmond, for example, might assess the livability of a home differently to on operating in a less well-heeled neighbourhood. It comes down to the question of what is essential for living. I mean, my own standards in this respect are based on a suite of things such as having running water and power and non-collapsing roofs such. At the end of the day, the necessity of this is ultimately relative.
I can’t really comment on how this plays into conveyancing, although I assume it’s a ‘take it or leave it as is’ situation where the buyer is required to do their due diligence in figuring out what that means. I’m not sure how much vendors are legally required to disclose about the state of a property – or, for that matter, what degree of poetic license real estate agents are permitted to take. A lick of paint is pretty different to a new roof is all I’m saying.