Age of house

chirp

All houses seem to have the same design. Kitchen, lounge & dining downstairs and 2.5 bedrooms (advertised as 3 bedrooms) upstairs. Why can't houses have atleast one bedroom and toilet downstairs which is so convenient? The 3rd so called bedroom is just a tiny study. It would be so convenient to have everything on one floor in a house (not flat) instead of having a hardly used rear garden. Also most houses seem to be built in 1930s. The thought of buying an 80 year old house is not very encouraging. New build homes are said to have a lot of structural defects. Totally confused.

G_M

Errr... get a bungalow?

What's wrong with an 80 year old house? Mine was built in 1851. Lovely house!

New build standards vary a lot. Make sure you get a NHBC guarantee. Simples!

Baileys_Babe

G_M wrote: »

Errr... get a bungalow?

Quiet agree.

What makes you think people do not use their back gardens?

What is wrong with an 80 year old house?

pawpurrs

If you want a house all on one level.buy a bungalow....
Nothing wrong with 80 year old house mines over 300 years old, shall I buldoozer it, must be useless by now
And errrrrrrr most people like a garden!
New builds well you could have a slight point there, wouldnt want a lot of them myself.

Davesnave

I think you must be trapped in some sort of commuter belt. I suppose that's better than a chastity belt.;)

Strangely, many houses built in the 30s not only have the sort of layout you mention, but also very substantial gardens, so the size of the plot was not the issue. This bering the case, many of them are now 4 beds, with a downstairs cloakroom and another room free to be used for whatever purpose.....often an extension to the typically inadequate through-kitchen.

Anyway, I swapped my 1930s house with a huge back garden, for a bungalow with an even bigger garden and a five acre field. It can be done.:cool:

maninthestreet

chirp wrote: »

Also most houses seem to be built in 1930s.

Really, this is news to me. If house has stood for 80 years, it was probably well built.

iamana1ias

chirp wrote: »

All houses seem to have the same design. Kitchen, lounge & dining downstairs and 2.5 bedrooms (advertised as 3 bedrooms) upstairs. Why can't houses have atleast one bedroom and toilet downstairs which is so convenient? The 3rd so called bedroom is just a tiny study. It would be so convenient to have everything on one floor in a house (not flat) instead of having a hardly used rear garden. Also most houses seem to be built in 1930s. The thought of buying an 80 year old house is not very encouraging. New build homes are said to have a lot of structural defects. Totally confused.

!!!!!!?! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Hmmm :think:

In 34 years on the planet I've lived in houses that were 250, 18, 120 and 5 years old. One was 4 bed detached, then a 2 bed flat, then a 3 bed terrace (and all 3 bedrooms were double), and now a 4 bed detached (all bedrooms are doubles). So I've never found the issues you have.

I think you may be talking about the houses you've looked at in your tiny part of the world, not the market as a whole, OP.

poppysarah

Erm you're either slightly mad from looking at too many identical houses or are only looking in one area or at one type of house.

There's massive differences between different styles of houses - round here the ex-council ones are the biggest with the biggest gardens, the private 1930s are tiny with such a small 3rd bedroom calling it a study is polite (You can fit a wardrobe in if you take the door off, one woman told us), and the victorian bay fronted houses are good sizes, but the flat fronted ones are for hobbits...

iamana1ias

Judging from the OP's other posts, I don't think he's the sharpest pencil in the box

pingu2209

This post is hysterical.

Davesnave

iamana1ias wrote: »

Judging from the OP's other posts, I don't think he's the sharpest pencil in the box

Nevertheless, I don't suppose he came to MSE to receive personal insults.