fawniture

At the top end of the market the amount of money involved means it's often more economical to focus on maximising occupation, rather than minimising initial costs. My apartment, for example, is worth around £1m and has around £10,000 worth of furniture in it provided by the landlord: if during the lifespan of the furniture the convenience of the apartment being furnished reduces tenancy voids by a total of 3 months then the furniture pays for itself.

I don't want to expose my address but you can browse "London" on the UK property website Rightmove and find comparable apartments (same building, same floorplan) with furnished/unfurnished prices that are no different.

> it's common for unfurnished apartments in Zurich cost upwards of $2,000, so adding $400 on top of that for a really beautiful interior package is not that big of a jump, especially when compared to fully-furnished apartments which cost significant more.

I'd be mindful of that assumption across markets. I'm in London and while furnishing may have an impact on the list price for some properties, list price is almost always a product of the market and it's rarely possible to quantify the _cost of furnishing_. For example, apartments in my building are roughly the same price whether furnished or unfurnished. Furnishing is seen as a convenience here[1], not a financial benefit.

I do think this is a great proposition and that, once prices come down, you'll have a good opportunity in London -- just challenging the assumption that furnishing is universally reflected in price :)

[1] Typically, a furnished property is easier to tenant, so landlords can choose between furnishing (easier to find a tenant, risk of expensive damage) or unfurnished (harder to find a tenant, no risk of damage). Very common to see a furnished property offered "furnished or unfurnished" if someone wants to bring their own furniture, and that doesn't impact the price.