Action on Rabbit Hutches?

N1AK

GwylimT wrote: »

We could build up more, both by building more flats and more three level properties, most areas with highest density house most of their residents in spacious apartments, really we need to change our views of what a home actually is, if we did we could get far more space for our money.

Both are already far more common than they were in the past. Just about every new development I see near us includes, or is primarily 'town houses' and I live in an area with considerable development.

There's nothing wrong with them but they're not nearly enough to solve the issue. Factoring in wasted space from stairs etc a 3 floor house is likely only ~20% larger (in terms of room space) than a 2 floor with the same footprint. Often the space is hard to use, which is why many have bathrooms on every floor.

ukcarper

alleycat` wrote: »

Blimey you can get a bigger 3 bed detached for half that price in certain parts of the UK.

Dare i say the issue is the government needs to get people & business into the idea of not all trying to live in 5% of the UK.

I think that would be the best solution but a lot easier said than done.

In the Surrey village I was bought up in you could pay twice that for a 3 bed semi.

michaels

That 2 foot is 20% more floor space or considerably more % wise if you count free floor space once you have a bed in there (and don't most people have king size rather than double these days?). And who can manage with one wardrobe and one chest of drawers? DW needs 2 of each on her own (I get half a hanging rail and one shelf)

When they measure house sizes (83sqm or whatever) do they just take the ground floor exterior footprint and double it or do they measure interior room sizes plus do something for halls and stairways?

michaels

GwylimT wrote: »

If you consider the room needed for a double bed you can get a chest of drawers on one of the side walls, you wouldn't however have room to open them as the bed takes up so much room, you could open the drawers if it was under the window near the wardrobe, however you then couldn't fully open the wardrobe doors. Even the door into the bedroom would be a few inches from hitting the bed, not a very well thought out room at all, especially with that stupid en-suite. That is the same with the headboard being on either of the two walls that are available.

It is interesting what sells, I do some design stuff as a hobby and I do small ensuites as a long thin room, shower cubicle at one end and toilet at the other with the door in the middle of the onlg wall (possibly opening outward) and the basin opposite the door. This would also in this example allow for a window in the bathroom over the tiolet and leave a larger rectangular bedroom. However obviosly the corner design with no window sells better or they wouldn't have done it this way.

DigForVictory

Were I looking for a single person flat, I'd be looking for a well located rabbit hutch with good transport & grocery infrastructure.
As I went looking for a space to raise three small boys, I looked for different things. Wish I'd paid a bit more attention to transport infrastructure now (as domestic taxi service can get fraught!)
When I find myself a widow (eventually!) I'll be looking for a rabbit hutch with every money saving facility going - like triple glazing, solar panels & wheelchair accessibility...

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

That 2 foot is 20% more floor space or considerably more % wise if you count free floor space once you have a bed in there (and don't most people have king size rather than double these days?). And who can manage with one wardrobe and one chest of drawers? DW needs 2 of each on her own (I get half a hanging rail and one shelf)

When they measure house sizes (83sqm or whatever) do they just take the ground floor exterior footprint and double it or do they measure interior room sizes plus do something for halls and stairways?

Judging by what's in my room I would be able to fit a couple of chests in.

The main thing is that that room is slightly smaller than my bedroom which was built in the 70s it's also about the same size as the bedroom in the house I bought in the 70s and both of those do not have on suite.

Perhaps it says something that as a privileged boomer I would be happy with that room.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps it says something that as a privileged boomer I would be happy with that room.

I'd be happy with it too.

Though I wouldn't be happy with the price for it. It's £300,000. And for that you struggle to fully open doors?

It comes back to value for money again. While the room is functional, it's not something I would be enthrawled handing over that kind of money for.

Your average worker would have to work a quarter of their working life to earn £300,000 and we haven't even considered interest payments. For me, personally, that's the issue. Not the size of the room per-se, but the cost of it.

CLAPTON

although I don't know the area, rightmove seems to have previously loved properties that are more spacious in that price range.

however, that's to be expected as the previous loved don't have to pay extra for infrastructure levies or subsidise social housing.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

For me, personally, that's the issue. Not the size of the room per-se, but the cost of it.

That's what happens in a market. Some people can buy and others are unable to. The ones that are unable to buy look elsewhere in a cheaper area or they rent and pay someone else's mortgage instead.

They are life choices.

laurel7172

Perhaps I'm only thinking of my local area, but here, a rabbit hutch is a choice. There are plenty of spacious Victorian terraces with long gardens and in perfectly nice areas close to the city centre that sell for less than a modern rabbit hutch on the outskirts.

Clearly, space matters less to the average buyer than free laminate flooring. Hard to criticise a business for selling what people obviously want.