Self storage soars as UK houses are too small

vivatifosi

olly300 wrote: »

Unfortunately I still manage to acquire lots of books even if I'm borrowing them from friends. Loads of people don't want fiction books back but don't tell you for months or years. :mad:

Now that I do have a solution for. If someone gives you a new title that you then read and they don't want it back, give it to the local library! A good paperback will issue 50 times before it falls to bits or becomes unpopular, a good hardback even longer. It's good for storage bills, good for the environment and particularly good for libraries facing funding cuts. It's also far better for your back when you come to move and don't have that box of heavy books.

bigheadxx

was paying more than £180 a month at Access for a 50 sq ft unit. David, my store manager, was polite and efficient but it was like having another mortgage

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1291411/Small-homes-lots-stuff--wonder-self-storage-thriving.html#ixzz15IWbGWs4

Why not get a bigger house then?

Why not try and live in Poland where your front room doubles up as the main bedroom, the bathroom is just big enough for a bath and the kitchen is 3X6 (feet not metres)

Loughton_Monkey

des_cartes wrote: »

"35 per cent said their kitchens were too small even to accommodate a toaster."

This may be true. But going to a bl00dy lock-up every morning to do your toast is a bit over the top.

asc99c

Have the minimum housing density regulations been removed yet? I think until recently, new builds had to be built at an average density of 30 / hectare. That's about an 18m square of land per house. On average. Build a couple of executive houses on 40m plots and you're down to 15m squares for the rest. It basically means you've got a choice - house or garden?

The green belt is great for a few people who live there and enjoy the scenery. Meanwhile everyone else is cramped into these tiny houses that just aren't suitable for bringing up a family.

I think the coalition annouced these regulations were to be abolished, but I'm not sure whether it's happened.

PasturesNew

The house I grew up in (from age 10 upwards) had 180' back garden, overlooking fields. The width of the plot was double the width of the house. The front garden was about 30' long. I lived in a village though

Loughton_Monkey

PasturesNew wrote: »

The house I grew up in (from age 10 upwards) had 180' back garden, overlooking fields. The width of the plot was double the width of the house. The front garden was about 30' long. I lived in a village though

About the size of Fred West's? Or bigger?

treliac

I have a cousin living in New Zealand, says they have as much space as you could possibly want, indoors and outside.

No feeling of claustrophobia over there.

treliac

vivatifosi wrote: »

Now that I do have a solution for. If someone gives you a new title that you then read and they don't want it back, give it to the local library!

I made a delivery of finished with books to my local library a couple of days ago!

PasturesNew

To be fair, old houses were smaller, lots of terraces of workers' cottages, fishermen's cottages, 2-up-2-down, estate cottages. It's just big Victorian, big Georgian and post-war stuff that was bigger (and posh stuff).

Your average peasant had a small house.

I went to look around at some estates/houses with somebody a little while back, there was a great house for sale, repossession, fairly new build, 5 beds, double integral garage, fabulous house, filled the plot.... it had about 1' on either side, the front 'garden' was a 2' strip with no wall/anything between that and the narrow pavement - and the back garden was about 20' deep.

Loughton_Monkey

PasturesNew wrote: »

To be fair, old houses were smaller, lots of terraces of workers' cottages, fishermen's cottages, 2-up-2-down, estate cottages. It's just big Victorian, big Georgian and post-war stuff that was bigger (and posh stuff).

In the 1800's, several of my ancestors lived in such small houses (they were all agricultural workers - some of them 'not unknown' to the Poor Laws) but they generally had between 8 and 12 children living in the same house too!

The 12 year olds would tend to work, and I suspect it was a huge relief when they could send some of them away (housemaids etc.) to 'live-in'. It would save space and no doubt provide an extra shilling or two.

The irony of today, being, that many of these small houses still survive, and have been renovated/extended and are now extremely expensive 'bijou' houses occupied by the well-off. Many of my ancestors would be turning in their graves (but I can't find out because being so poor, they are all un-marked).