British Housing is rubbish

Phirefly

I live on a small development that was built 10 years ago by a local builder (who still returns to maintain it) Its a premium spot, near the centre of town but in a quiet residential area right on the Grand Union Canal. They could have crammed in 50+ pokey flats but instead have created an excellent example of new build housing. There are 10 spacious 2 bed maisonettes and 14 two bed town houses all with lovely gardens which back onto the canal. We've also got a private carpark with 2 spaces for every dwelling and 6 visitors spaces and a big communal garden.

Our house is small but really practical and not an inch of space was wasted by the architect.

I think it was probably the planners who deemed that the development be no more than two storeys high and had adequate parking and communal areas but looking around town now at the ridiculous so called luxury 'homes' shoehorned into tiny patches of land, I'm wondering where this wisdom has gone. The plot next to our development was flattened to make way for residential but that was bout 3 years ago and nothings happened since. I'm guessing the developers want to rinse every millimetre for as much profit as possible and cant get it past the council....

Guy_Montag

Phirefly wrote: »

I live on a small development that was built 10 years ago by a local builder (who still returns to maintain it) Its a premium spot, near the centre of town but in a quiet residential area right on the Grand Union Canal. They could have crammed in 50+ pokey flats but instead have created an excellent example of new build housing. There are 10 spacious 2 bed maisonettes and 14 two bed town houses all with lovely gardens which back onto the canal. We've also got a private carpark with 2 spaces for every dwelling and 6 visitors spaces and a big communal garden.

Our house is small but really practical and not an inch of space was wasted by the architect.

I think it was probably the planners who deemed that the development be no more than two storeys high and had adequate parking and communal areas but looking around town now at the ridiculous so called luxury 'homes' shoehorned into tiny patches of land, I'm wondering where this wisdom has gone. The plot next to our development was flattened to make way for residential but that was bout 3 years ago and nothings happened since. I'm guessing the developers want to rinse every millimetre for as much profit as possible and cant get it past the council....

Sounds idyllic - lucky you, is all I can say.

scope

Its not just rooms that are getting smaller, we went to see some new houses this spring, and the gardens are getting smaller and smaller too.. Add a conservatory and there is no space left.. I could not believe the size of the garden you get with a 4bed house - no wonder the kids stay indoors and play their xbox, there is no space to play in the gardens either... And it is no longer safe to send your kids out in the street to play, they will either get run over, or kidnapped by some pedo network.. (OK, not really that bad, but you get my point).

exprog

As far as I recall there used to be building regulations insisting on minimum amounts of space until Thatcher abolished them. Then the bad drove out the good. Who would have thought?

Now we have nulab demanding that housing be made ever worse to fit in ever more people. Lucky us.

olly300

NOT all old houses had/have big rooms.

There are a lot of Victoria 2 bedroom cottages around, used for the workers, and they have tiny kitchens and living rooms. These are actually the same size of some of the new build 2 bedroom houses I've looked at. (Out of noseyness) However of all the cottages I've seen the bedrooms can fit in a minimum of a double bed and a large wardrobe unlike the new build properties where some of the second bedrooms can only fit in single bed and wardrobe or a double bed and no wardrobe.

bunking_off

It's nice to throw brickbats at the developers, but fundamentally they're in the game to make money and don't do that by providing something other than what their customers want.

The big constraint is build density...the planning rules force builders to put on a given number of houses/hectare, even if that doesn't necessarily suit the target market. That's why we see the growth in 4 bedroomed "mews" (what happened to the word "terraced") houses...simply it's more floorspace for a given amount of land. The side effect of that is that gardens are smaller.

As to room sizes, well I can only surmise that a 4 bedroomed house with smaller rooms 3/4 sells better than a 3-bedroomed house with larger rooms. If it didn't, the builders would be putting up more of the latter as it would be a better investment.

The comment about some of the room sizes is valid...when we bought our new build a few years ago, we had to look for a while to find one that would adequately take a 6 foot bed. However, in saying this we had a 3-bed 30s semi, and the room sizes downstairs weren't fantastic - 13 ft square for a living room isn't good, which is why you find so many of these which have had the living/dining rooms knocked through.

On another point, has anyone else noticed the death of the dining room? Kitchen-diners seem to be the vogue...horrendous if you ask me - last thing you want if you have someone around for a meal is to be looking at the debris in the kitchen.

Guy_Montag

bunking_off wrote: »

It's nice to throw brickbats at the developers, but fundamentally they're in the game to make money and don't do that by providing something other than what their customers want.

The big constraint is build density...the planning rules force builders to put on a given number of houses/hectare, even if that doesn't necessarily suit the target market. That's why we see the growth in 4 bedroomed "mews" (what happened to the word "terraced") houses...simply it's more floorspace for a given amount of land. The side effect of that is that gardens are smaller.

As to room sizes, well I can only surmise that a 4 bedroomed house with smaller rooms 3/4 sells better than a 3-bedroomed house with larger rooms. If it didn't, the builders would be putting up more of the latter as it would be a better investment.

The comment about some of the room sizes is valid...when we bought our new build a few years ago, we had to look for a while to find one that would adequately take a 6 foot bed. However, in saying this we had a 3-bed 30s semi, and the room sizes downstairs weren't fantastic - 13 ft square for a living room isn't good, which is why you find so many of these which have had the living/dining rooms knocked through.

On another point, has anyone else noticed the death of the dining room? Kitchen-diners seem to be the vogue...horrendous if you ask me - last thing you want if you have someone around for a meal is to be looking at the debris in the kitchen.

Thanks for your input folks.

We do seem to have this conflict between the govt. enforced density to avoid "concreting over the countryside" and giving people enough room to live.

As scope pointed out, we no longer let our kids out to play in parks & the streets for fear of traffic/paedophiles - yet at the same time gardens are getting smaller so there is less space for kids to play in a "safe" environment. When I was growing up we didn't have much of a garden, but my folks were quite happy for me to play in some nearby park land.

& yes - kitchen diners are an awful concept.

pinkshoes

My mate has just bought a new build flat in London. The 1 bedroom is 9ft x 11ft with a small built in wardrobe, then a very small lounge/kitchen, and a bathroom!! It's not finished yet, so she's not had the shock of trying to find space for all her stuff...

I spent ages looking for a new build with decent proportion rooms. Our 2 bedrooms are 9ft x 17ft (yay - room for a kingsize bed!!), and 13ft x 15ft, both having inbuilt wardrobes. Our lounge/kitchen is 17ft x 21ft, and the bathroom is also an ok size - not quite enough space to swing a cat, but plenty of room to dry yourself and dump clothes all over the floor!!

The predicted population increase means that homes are just going to keep getting smaller. what's the point of having green belt and protected land if we don't protect it?!?! I don't want to end up living in a concrete jungle!

There's alot of older people living in houses that are far too big for their needs, but if they have to pay 3% stamp duty when downsizing , it's probably cheaper to stay where they are and continue paying high heating bills and CT!

My parent's house, built in 1986 has a lovely large garden. The other plot of land they wanted to buy and build ONE house on, was sold 5 years later and split into 8 plots!!!

olly300

pinkshoes wrote: »

My mate has just bought a new build flat in London. The 1 bedroom is 9ft x 11ft with a small built in wardrobe, then a very small lounge/kitchen, and a bathroom!! It's not finished yet, so she's not had the shock of trying to find space for all her stuff...

The thing I've noticed in lots of properties particularly flats is lack of storage space.

If the rooms are big fair enough you can put in more furniture but if they aren't and you don't have a loft where are you suppose to store stuff?

Rick62

I believe the actual figure is that only 8% of the UK is urbanised (ie built on) leaving 92% not built on. Taking another 2% would give space for about 5 million houses (proper houses with gardens, not rubbish flats) and still leave 90% 'unspoilt'.

Concerning the threat to biodiversity, I read that studies have shown that family gardens are actually better cared for and result in greater biodiversity than green belt/farmland (as well as less pesticides etc.)

It is sheer madness that we put up with some of the worst quality and smallest housing stock (and getting much smaller, as the table posted shows) when actually we could easily build many more decent homes and improve the environment.

This is only accentuated by increasing numbers of retired boomer couples living in large 4 bed plus properties while their children are paying up to half their income for shoeboxes. The 3% duty doesn't help, with turnover of houses having more than halved since its introduction.

Unfortunately the major political parties with all the intellectual rigour of Paul (from The Apprentice) can come up with nothing other than more shared equity £300k shoebox flats. Its pathetic and is destroying the quality of life for generations.