Welcome to 'rabbit hutch Britain'

penguine

CLAPTON wrote: »

Many young people move from shared property to their own first home and are willing to accept a small place because it's 'their own' and don't intend to stay there very long anyway.

Or because they've been brainwashed into thinking they need to "get onto the ladder" and can't afford anything halfway decent in size.

nearlynew

And there was always the assumption that the price of their place would go up.

People actually believe this makes them richer, when in fact they become poorer because to move they have to take on higher levels of debt.

But the HPI cheerleaders (because they are actually debt-junkies) will have you believe that this is good and that debt is wealth.












I know, I know, it's hilarious isn't it?

CLAPTON

penguine wrote: »

Or because they've been brainwashed into thinking they need to "get onto the ladder" and can't afford anything halfway decent in size.

Possibly

do you live in London and know the alternatives?

are you young and just what a place for you and your GF/BF?

I'm not anymore but I've been there and would have willingly lived in a rabbit hutch, but in those days property in London was just too expensive.

boyse7en

Or because not everyone needs or wants vast amounts of space. When I got my first house, my furniture amounted to a sofa, portable TV, table and two chairs a bed, small wardrobe and a chest of drawers. Even with fairly small rooms, it still looked empty!
Now I'm older I do need a huge house simply to store all the hobby- and child-related crap that has accumulated over the years.

Builders will always build houses to the minimum size they can successfully sell – if you can get 15 houses on a plot instead of 14 then one sale is almost pure profit.

PasturesNew

I've always found it isn't necessarily the space, it's the layout and the storage that are the problems.

My total living space is about 14'x15', but given that space I could have done much better with it.

Most kitchen cupboards would be completely redundant with one good larder - most are too small so you end up having to spread things thin and wide, a good larder offers better ways of storing more stuff.

When I get somewhere to live I want a ceiling to floor wall to wall set of built in cupboards in the bedroom. With that the only furniture I'd need would be a bed and bedside cabinet.

Large expanses of storage are just more efficient at storing everything, but there's too much "cupboarding".

As a single person, one income with all expenses coming out of it, you're hindered by the entry point to housing, the minimum price. A couple with twice the money can save 3-4x as much towards a deposit and their mortgage buys 3-4x the space.

I don't want extra rooms, I just want the perfect layout. With the perfect layout you can have your cake and eat it ... and have room to cook it.

mr.broderick

carolt wrote: »

I just don't get it either. I have looked at new builds to buy, but the minuteness (and, TBH, the newness) put me off.

Like them that little bit bigger carol?

chopperharris

Your all forgettign that these homes , and any new ones , are to be on brown sites too.So your pretty much sitting on stuff thats bad for you.

Builders arent really the problem , the govt set the space you can use in a build by legislation and whether you can build in a particular belt.Essentially todays new homes have gardens smaller than the garage in my 40s bunglaow plot.

You can stand between you and your neighbours house and touch both walls on new builds.

As long as we buy rubbish they will continue to make rubbish , but as long as there is only rubbish then we will pay a premium for it.

Then developers get told they must have houses that include garages for street safety , and then later councils let them convert it to another room , removing in the process the safety aspect and the planning limitations set out for the plan.

Maybe the american psuedo facist condo resident council thing isnt such a bad thing.But I suspect I would be lynched once a week.

Really2

chopperharris wrote: »

Your all forgettign that these homes , and any new ones , are to be on brown sites too.So your pretty much sitting on stuff thats bad for you.

You can stand between you and your neighbours house and touch both walls on new builds.
.

Of cause they all are. I live on what used to be chernobyl.:rolleyes:

I think people like the daily mail too much.

I take it not many people have heard of Radon very few pre 1980's houses have any protection to stop it seeping in. Never stopped me living in to a older house in a sandstone area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

I would class anything built on earth has a potential for contamination , flood etc.

Why do people dwell on fear so much.

As for the last bit I cant even touch my garages, I would need a good 50ft reach to touch my neighbours house.

One cap fits all in your world I see.:)

bluey890

Really2 wrote: »

Why the hell do people buy them then? (not being funny it is a genuine question)

1) Lack of better housing.

2) Because it's all they can afford.

3) For tenants to live in.

nearlynew

And there was always the assumption that the price of their place would go up.

People actually believe this makes them richer, when in fact they become poorer because to move they have to take on higher levels of debt.

But the HPI cheerleaders (because they are actually debt-junkies) will have you believe that this is good and that debt is wealth.












.I know, I know, it's hilarious isn't it?