What is a "starter home"

vivatifosi

My first house in the late 1980s was a starter home. It had one bedroom and the whole house totalled less than 400 sq ft.

When I first moved in all of my neighbours were single people. What is interesting is how the demographics of the starter homes there (Hertfordshire) have changed. Initially after the single people came couples with two cars. These were followed by couples who could no longer afford two cars and a mortgage (it was centrally situated) so just had one car, then no car, then small families and more recently two couples sharing the same small space. I'd hate to live there now, the degree of over-occupation is staggering.

roseland69

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

chucky wrote: »

you're totally right but that's exactly my point - a starter home is individual to what you need and what you can afford. do you agree with that?

if it's available at your affordability that's a different argument.

ps - i don't smoke it's a filthy habit

Yep, used to smoke but too expensive and bad for me. I plan to live to a great age so if I make it to 90 I'll smoke like a chimney as I liked a cigarette!

I agree that a starter home should be what a person needs - but there should be a "base line" on what is the standard agreed and accepted "norm" for a starter home. Naturally there will be those who fall outside the "norm". But `i'm talking about Joe Bloggs, 25, just married perhaps, decent job earning national average. Looking to buy their first place in the town where they grew up to start a family.

That traditionally, up until the boom that has skewed perceptions badly, has meant a small, modest house - semi or terrace. 2 up 2 down. Maybe a bit of yard out the back. Affordable on the average wage of an average person in an average town.

What we have is this downward spiral of expections. Starter homes getting smaller and smaller and yet, more and more expensive and thus less for more. How can this be a good thing. Where will it end? That worries me actually.

Personally, not for me but for the next generation. As time goes by, little by little, expectations are being chipped away until there is NO expection. Just a realisation that "I'll never be able to afford my own place, so I'm going to rent".

It'll be hard to tell the difference between the markets of 2010+ to those of 1910+.

My parents were the first of their generation and class (working) to "buy". My mum worked as a secretary in a solicitors in the late 50's/early 60's so her boss helped them with the paperwork. My dad was a carpenter. People would say to them (and I'm not making this up!)

"its not for the likes of YOU to be owning your own house".

That was the attitude of about 1961. If we ain't careful, we'll be back there in no time. And that's where I'm coming from. People should be encouraged to better themselves and to stand on their own two feet (just as my parents did all those years ago, despite the snobby opposition). But rather than feeling encouraged many people are discouraged. This is what it comes down to eventually. And that's what makes me angry; the sense of "elitism" in owning a home which many people thought had been forgotten. Not so. Perhaps I was the lucky generation able to buy before the bad old days returned.

IveSeenTheLight

roseland69 wrote: »

What we have is this downward spiral of expections. .........................


That was the attitude of about 1961. If we ain't careful, we'll be back there in no time. And that's where I'm coming from. People should be encouraged to better themselves and to stand on their own two feet (just as my parents did all those years ago, despite the snobby opposition). But rather than feeling encouraged many people are discouraged. This is what it comes down to eventually. And that's what makes me angry; the sense of "elitism" in owning a home which many people thought had been forgotten. Not so. Perhaps I was the lucky generation able to buy before the bad old days returned.

I think the opposite has happened.
Expectations are that people should be able to get more and more.

You kind of backed it up yourself by saying that standards have improved since the 60's and not having a desire to go back to that era.

I think there is a difference between expectations and reality.

stumpycat

flea72 wrote: »

to me, a starter home, is a property that is small, but has its own garden. So by the time children arrive, you will have to think about moving on, as you just dont have the space

i wouldnt say a flat of any size, would fall into the starter home category, as i think of 'homes' being a house rather than a flat

Flea

I find this completely bizarre! My 'starter' home was a 2 bed flat in Edinburgh. Just about everybody I knew lived in flats and they were very much family homes... and we're talking about a very wide range of incomes, in case you think it's a 'make do' option.

Graham_Devon

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

I specifically didn't differentiate between the couple getting a mortgage and one person getting a mortgage.

Mainly because I don't think it's any different either way, it is still a starter home, and someone buying the house themselves does not mean they are automatically single. I also don't think single people who are actually single, should be seen as the "last in line" as it were.

But, I must admit, I seem to find the people who think single people should live in one bed's, seem to be limited to landlords and those who have done, or want to do well out of investing in property.

To me, single or couple, makes no difference, you should still be able to "start" in a home. I would suggest that someone who is currently single, would like to start a family just as much as the person in a 2 bed.

A couple can live in a one bed flat, yet some seem to be suggesting that singles should live in one bed flats, couples in 2 beds. Theres no reasonable explanation really, as like I say, a couple can live in a one bed.

roseland69

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think the opposite has happened.
Expectations are that people should be able to get more and more.

You kind of backed it up yourself by saying that standards have improved since the 60's and not having a desire to go back to that era.

I think there is a difference between expectations and reality.

To some extent it is human nature to have dreams that perhaps are just that, dreams. No doubt there are people who EXPECT to get something for nothing. You read in the papers about kids getting £20 a week pocket money and new cars for their birthday and that kind of nonsense. I don't see that as a good thing. I see that as an extreme.

What I'm talking about a hard working person earning a decent wage being able to buy a modest place for his or herself, perhaps to start a family. Why should owning a modest home be a "dream" for the average working person? Why should that be a "high" expectation?

Sometimes progress is good. Years ago people didn't have inside toilets. they didn't expect to. They would go on out to the outide loo - normally a shed with a seat over a hole. But over time people started getting proper sanitation and plumbing inside their homes. Their standard of living improved. And inside loos became the norm. And now who would expect to find a home without an inside loo?

Likewise (and I agree) Yes, expectations have got bigger since the time when my parents first bought. But I see that as a GOOD thing. Because before that the expectation was for them to be beholden to a wealthy landlord who could, if they wanted, kick them out on a whim. There was no stability in that. Historially of course, you got "good" landlords and "bad" ones. Bad ones were known to clear a whole villiages so they could extend the boundaries of their Capability Brown garden. Good ones "looked after" their tenants and would come around and visit their "people". How nice.

So I'm sticking with my point that expectations are falling. Rapidly. Most 25 year olds I know (and I know a few as my brother in law is that age as are his mates) is that they've not a hope in hell of EVER buying anything, ever. Living in London. They all work and earn decent salaries. So I think is a shame that The option isn't there for them any more. The only people happy about that are landlords.

Just the same as it ever was then.

We are regressing, not progressing. We need to find a middle ground where average people can have an expectation (and not feel ashamed of that expection!) of owning a modest home to have a family. I see nothing wrong in that at all.

chucky

1 bed flat / Bedsit i.e. small flat.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I specifically didn't differentiate between the couple getting a mortgage and one person getting a mortgage.

1 person earning £25k = £75k mortgage at 3x salary

2 people earnig £25k each = £150k mortgage at 3x salary

the loan amount goes higher dependent on salary, so it does make a difference if you're buying as a single person or as a couple.

as i said at the begining - buy what suits your affordability and requirements otherwise you need to find alternatives.

Graham_Devon

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

Glad you posted then roseland. Seems we can't be the same person then as Really2 seems to be suggesting as, god damn, we share the same opinion. :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

chucky wrote: »

1 person earning £25k = £75k mortgage at 3x salary

2 people earnig £25k each = £150k mortgage at 3x salary

the loan amount goes higher dependent on salary, so it does make a difference if you're buying as a single person or as a couple.

Not everyone earns 25k. Therefore some people will be able to buy on their own, some not. We are living in a society now where less and less are buying as couples anyway.

And I do not believe either that it works that way, i.e. 2 wages x 2 each.

This thread wasn't about what the starter home should be, rather what people see as a starter home, as as you know, I seemed to be the only one on the other thread and I couldn't quite believe it. Least I know now, I'm not the only one, infact, in the majority!

roseland69

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not everyone earns 25k. Therefore some people will be able to buy on their own, some not. We are living in a society now where less and less are buying as couples anyway.

And I do not believe either that it works that way, i.e. 2 wages x 2 each.

When we bought it was

1 wage x 3.5 (i.e 30K x 3.5 =£105K
2 wages x 3. (i.e 30K + 20K x 3 = £150K)