Why not go with the truth? That you would be interested in the property but feel the change he wants to make would take too much away from the character of the home. If he is willing to compromise on the change you would consider it but if he is totally set on making that change then you should agree to keep looking. I would not agree to the property unless you are in general agreement about the changes you want to make.
My first house was built in 1914 and my second in 1923. I’d live in them any day over the houses around here built in the 1960s or later. They’ve got nice solid wood construction, gorgeous wood work, real oak floors, working fireplaces if you want them and a lot of character. Most of them can be modified to make the plans more open without ruining them.
My DH and I couldn’t agree on a house. Finally I said, OK, we’ll get a house that YOU like and I won’t say anything. We did, I didn’t, and I’ve lived in a house I don’t like for the past 30 years.
Is this what you’re looking at, OP?
Ouch. That doesn’t sound like fun.
Actually, I also lived in a house I didn’t like, for 25 years. But it wasn’t my husband’s fault; it was our real estate agent. Long story.
Apparently, H has managed to come up with his own objection to the house (without even seeing the inside). The house was built for some rich muckety muck in 1882 by the leading architectural firm in the city at that time. As it was designed, the house faced south with another entrance and porte cochere on the west side. In the 1950’s the land in front (south) of the house was partitioned off and several homes were built there, facing the street to the south. Some reconfiguration was done on the house to remove the south entrance. Now, the main entrance is from the west side, and the former “front” is no longer visible from any street. H has declared that he finds this fatally objectionable (an excuse, if you ask me, I’m convinced he just doesn’t want to move at all).
My personal concern - on the 0.55 acre city lot there are several very large trees. They are probably 150+ years old. They are magnificent, really. I wouldn’t tear them down unless they were diseased, although sometimes they fall in windstorms so nature can do it for you. H immediately declared that he would remove all the landscaping, including the big trees.
I got to tour the interior today and the house is fantastic, the interior is fantastic, the location is fantastic (if you’re looking for old and in the city), the condition is remarkably good for 135 years old. It needs work, but I didn’t see anything in danger of collapse. And nothing to indicate that it had been grossly neglected, as is the case with some of our old housing stock. H was the one who said we should look at this one. I wasn’t going to because of the price, so if he won’t even bother now, I’m basically done looking, since he obviously isn’t interested in this endeavor, despite how much we discuss it. Three years of looking is enough.
Uh oh. Hugs. Maybe he figured out that he can’t legally remove the trees? Or the high price made him rethink the house…