We had a 3-point system of value for each part of the house “1=low, 2=moderate, 3=high” and the same for use, with use averaged year-round.
So for the backyard example: the backyard for house 170 was high value, 3, and high use for half of the year, so 1.5. Its total value was 4.5. The backyard for house 450 was moderate value, 2, and high use for half of the year, so 1.5. Its total value was 3.
Save your calculations—you can go back later and judge how well you modelled your future selves.
My wife and I did something very similar 7 years ago when deciding between 3 flats, and recently came across our backs-of-multiple-envelopes calculations. We only considered the one we actually chose and estimated our current weightings for the different spaces. In our initial judgments we had vastly overrated our future use/value of the outdoor space, substantially underrated the kitchen and lounge rooms, and entirely ignored hall and loft storage space which has turned out to be decidedly non-negligible.
We are very happy in the flat so this is not an exercise in regret, hindsight or possible alternative universes—but made us notice that if we are flat hunting again, outdoor space is likely to cost more than it’s worth to us.
Yup, I’m saving them indeed, and this discussion post will be useful as we revisit our decision. I’ll put a note in my calendar with a link to this post to go back and look at the post again in a year after we move.
Regarding outdoor space, I’m glad that my wife and I figured out in advance that we’ll only use it half the year! Thanks for that feedback :-)
I was thinking of something that is only used occasionally, but for which you value the option to use it even if you aren’t going to use it much. Because going from no-X to X adds the option, the first use has a high value, but the second use does not have as high a value.
This can be calculated by estimating the probability of use times enjoyment, for example a formal dining room and table. Such a feature was not so important to us, so we left it out of our calculations. It’s only salient things that matter :-)
We had a 3-point system of value for each part of the house “1=low, 2=moderate, 3=high” and the same for use, with use averaged year-round.
So for the backyard example: the backyard for house 170 was high value, 3, and high use for half of the year, so 1.5. Its total value was 4.5. The backyard for house 450 was moderate value, 2, and high use for half of the year, so 1.5. Its total value was 3.
Save your calculations—you can go back later and judge how well you modelled your future selves.
My wife and I did something very similar 7 years ago when deciding between 3 flats, and recently came across our backs-of-multiple-envelopes calculations. We only considered the one we actually chose and estimated our current weightings for the different spaces. In our initial judgments we had vastly overrated our future use/value of the outdoor space, substantially underrated the kitchen and lounge rooms, and entirely ignored hall and loft storage space which has turned out to be decidedly non-negligible.
We are very happy in the flat so this is not an exercise in regret, hindsight or possible alternative universes—but made us notice that if we are flat hunting again, outdoor space is likely to cost more than it’s worth to us.
Yup, I’m saving them indeed, and this discussion post will be useful as we revisit our decision. I’ll put a note in my calendar with a link to this post to go back and look at the post again in a year after we move.
Regarding outdoor space, I’m glad that my wife and I figured out in advance that we’ll only use it half the year! Thanks for that feedback :-)
I was thinking of something that is only used occasionally, but for which you value the option to use it even if you aren’t going to use it much. Because going from no-X to X adds the option, the first use has a high value, but the second use does not have as high a value.
This can be calculated by estimating the probability of use times enjoyment, for example a formal dining room and table. Such a feature was not so important to us, so we left it out of our calculations. It’s only salient things that matter :-)