Why are new build houses not as good as older ones?

bobajob_1966

IHateDida wrote: »

I agree with the above comment about the density - which also equals small gardens. Add into the equation the mixed population that they are trying to encourage (housing assosiation + owner occupied) - it just doesn't work.

Having just moved from a "said property" I have to say I will never go back....once bitten and all that....!:o I would rather have draughty floor boards and damp walls than live packed in like sardines in cardboard boxes!

Got to agree with that - what would have been a beautiful new development of four and five bed houses near me is now described as 'Little Beirut'. Got to feel for the people that bought the houses, they are going to be screwed when it comes to selling.

CLAPTON

the reason why new builds are small and cramped is that there is a requirement to build 30% of affordable housing

obviously these subsidized houses are paid for by the people that buy the non-subsidized houses

for those who can do simple arthimetic, you can work out how much the buyers are paying extra to provide the 'affordable' house for other people

(you didn't think the builders you paying the subsidy did you?)

Doozergirl

CLAPTON wrote: »

the reason why new builds are small and cramped is that there is a requirement to build 30% of affordable housing

The reason that new builds are so cramped is that the Labour government introduced legislation stating that developers needed to build and minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare and encouraged developers to build even higher than that.

It's why some places have so many unwanted flats and not enough family homes. It's the reason for so many three storey houses (which is a pretty good use of space, IMO).

The new government have abolished that rule. But of course developers will want to build a lot of houses in a small space. Land is expensive, houses relatively cheap to build in bulk so it's more profit for them.

There is a delicate balance to be found between between building high density housing and building on greenfield sites.

Our aging population means lots of older people living in houses which are too big for them once the children have flown the nest. I'd like to see some sort of tax incentive for people moving down the property ladder, not just those stepping onto it.

Cherryjack

New builds are cheap and cheerfull.. ive seen some near me that were built just 6 years ago and they look like hell..
My friend has bought one and cant hang anything on the walls, not solid walls.. in fact every time i go round its getting worse. Along with the tiny rooms and tiny back gardens you cant consider them proper family homes.
Victorian houses may need more work, but once rewired , plastered etc they look beautifull.. the space is lovely aswell..the character.. the fireplaces..
Stunning! Id take an older house anyday they have the wow factor :-) xx

The_Palmist

The old properties around me are all in run down areas where I wouldn't want to live and are actually cheaper than new builds [20 years old or so]. I was getting a bigger old very spacious council house for £50K less than my current relatively new build [1990]. A few trips to survey the area and I had no doubt where I wanted to live. Not all new builds are housing estates.

Also the other nicer old properties seem to be on main roads and not nice cul de sacs.

If I can afford to modernize and maintain a period property with character and in a small hamlet then yes otherwise I would go for a decent modern dwelling.

myhouse_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

the reason why new builds are small and cramped is that there is a requirement to build 30% of affordable housing

obviously these subsidized houses are paid for by the people that buy the non-subsidized houses

for those who can do simple arthimetic, you can work out how much the buyers are paying extra to provide the 'affordable' house for other people

(you didn't think the builders you paying the subsidy did you?)

Surely the reason that "affordable" housing is cheaper is that they tend to be flats/townhouses/smaller than the other large detached "unaffordable" houses. I don't see any evidence that the latter are subsidising the former.