UK Household composition

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

26.0 million households in the UK in 2010.

The number of households has increased by 6.1 per cent since 2001, slightly faster than the 4.5 per cent growth in the size of the UK
population over the same period. This is due to the trend towards smaller household sizes.

The proportion of households containing four or more people decreased from 20.7 per cent in 2001 to 19.8 in 2010, while the proportion of households containing one person increased from 28.6 per cent to 29.0, or over 500,000, over the same period.

The most common household type in 2010 was one family, consisting of a couple with or without children. There were 14.6 million such households, which represented 56 per cent of all households.

This is an increase from 14.2 million households in 2001, but a
reduction from 58 per cent of all households. The next most common household type was one person households, of which there were 7.5 million in 2010.

Households containing one lone parent family increased by 0.4 million to 2.8 million in 2010.

7.5 million people in UK households lived alone, of which 3.4 million were aged 65 and over.

Of these, 70 per cent were female, whereas only 42 per cent of those living alone aged under 65 were female.

The largest change is in the 45–64 age group, where the number of people living alone increased by 31 per cent between 2001 and 2010.

This is partly due to the increasing population aged 45–64 in the UK over the last decade, as the 1960s baby boom generation have been
starting to reach this age group. The increase in those living alone also coincides with a decrease in the percentage of those in this age group who are married, and a rise in the percentage of those
aged 45–64 who have never married, or are divorced.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/famhh0411.pdf

Interesting stuff, and thanks to Mr Mumble for the link.

56% of households are a couple, with or without children.

29% of households are a single person, and roughly half of those are over 65.

The release doesn't say anything about household formation past 2010, but the trend reported elsewhere is accelerating.

Population growth of 408,000 (252,000 households*) in 2009, and 470,000 (286,000 households*) in 2010

*nationwide report july 2009, 2010 households not released but assuming same percentage.

Anyway..... with a need for 286,000 houses last year, and the building of something just over 100,000, it really does seem like the housing shortage must be getting a tad severe.....

geneer

None of which stopped house prices crashing.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

None of which stopped house prices crashing.

Although I think Hamish was talking about the UK.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Although I think Hamish was talking about the UK.

So was I.

Generali

Household formation can't increase faster than the number of houses indefinitely; that's just maths.

More households implies that each one has fewer inhabitants. That may put downward rather than upward pressure on prices.

Pimperne1

Generali wrote: »

Household formation can't increase faster than the number of houses indefinitely; that's just maths.

More households implies that each one has fewer inhabitants. That may put downward rather than upward pressure on prices.

Interesting. Why?

nearlynew

Are you feeling OK McTittish?


You've started a lot of these type threads lately.

If I didn't know better, I would say you are turning from a very silly boy into a very worried boy.

abaxas

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Interesting. Why?

Please, no-one bite.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

Household formation can't increase faster than the number of houses indefinitely; that's just maths.

More households implies that each one has fewer inhabitants.

Agreed.

Generali wrote: »

That may put downward rather than upward pressure on prices.

Here I'm a bit lost!

Can't see any logic in that. Unless you are saying that this can't last, and one day the number of households must 'peak' and then reduce - which would reduce prices.

Isn't it reasonably predicatable? What we have seen is a vastly increasing wish by '20-somethings' to be independent and want to move out, live on their own. Pull a few girls easier? Then there is the massive increase in single parent families, causing extra housing needs. [unfilled by government building].

Hence the demand for small properties/apartments continues - whether [for some] to buy, or [for others] to rent from a BTL merchant.

I assume this trend is still upwards, and is currently tending to burst the rental market rather than owner occupier market, but it must eventually spill back into increased house prices.

Pimperne1

abaxas wrote: »

Please, no-one bite.

Well if you've been on here since Sep 06 you've no doubt heard all the arguments before. However, if there are more people, less people are living in each house (on average) then more houses are needed. Few houses are being built so how will increased demand put downward pressure on prices? Do indulge me.

macaque_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Agreed.
Here I'm a bit lost!

Can't see any logic in that. Unless you are saying that this can't last, and one day the number of households must 'peak' and then reduce - which would reduce prices.

The more working adults in a house, the higher the net income and therefore higher the mortgage they can service (see shared mortgages).