What shortgage 421,306 homes built in a single year in france!

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

The solution people like are large homes. Terrace semi detached or flats doesn't matter so much if its a good 120sqm people arw very happy. Germany and France already build half theor new homes larger than 120sqm

We build only 70-80sqm and again it is government policy. As such we are rightfully unhappy with our new built homes.

Micro homes or mobile homes or caravans are not the solution to the cause of the problem they are a fudge to work around the problem. Homes are only expensive becuase of government policy we dont need to build snaller to tey save money we need to change policy. New build prices in france and germany are close to £1k per sqm while in tbe uk they are closer to £2.5k its all down to policy as both wages and materials are virtually the same in all three nations

I agree flats could be the answer but flats don't appear to appeal to families here.

vivatifosi

cells wrote: »

The solution people like are large homes. Terrace semi detached or flats doesn't matter so much if its a good 120sqm people arw very happy. Germany and France already build half theor new homes larger than 120sqm

We build only 70-80sqm and again it is government policy. As such we are rightfully unhappy with our new built homes.

I am quite happy with my house at 82 sq m as there are only two of us. What we need is a plethora of solutions. Micro living is fine for young London singles, I was only talking about London. An opportunity to live centrally and to the full. I would have loved that when I was younger.

People get stuck in houses because there isn't the flexibility to move up and down the housing ladder.

120 square m is nice,but it isn't the be all and end all, particularly when there are so many single person households. Mobile homes would be a great solution, if there was actually the flexibility to move them with a job (which I accept there isn't).

Overall I agree though that the system is far too inflexible and focused on astronomical land values.

PasturesNew

It's not just space, it's layout too. Layouts can be very odd as the developers were using the minimum runs for water/services, or somebody re-developed it and did some odd things to squeeze an extra bedroom into the space.

I saw a house details earlier today that said it was a 3-bed house, when I looked, two of the bedrooms were 5'3" wide. That's taking the pee.

Just looked at a spreadsheet I keep of houses I might like - the sizes range from 50-60 sq m for 2-3 bed houses that I think are "quite big/big enough"

£/sq meter is £3-4k or so for most of them on my list, highest is £6500/sq m at the moment.

I viewed a house last weekend - it'd have been OK - but as I looked round I knew I'd not use half of it ..... but I couldn't have bought the half I would use at a reasonable price. To buy half the size would have cost just a few quid less, so then you feel ripped off.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

What is it for the South East population density figures for a whole country are not relevant it's about density in areas where property is needed.

Surrey for instance 683

The density argument is very misunderstood

In most developed countries nearly 90% live in urban areas, ie towns and cities. What that typically means is that no matter where you live you live at similar densities

For instance,

London = 8.3 million people on 1,700 sqkm of land to give nearly 4,900 people per km2

A village in bedfordshire called Barton-le-clay = aprox 5000 people and aprox 1.2km2 to give 4,160 people per km2


Only the amount of empty land between settlements varies, and this land is by and large not accessable

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

The density argument is very misunderstood

In most developed countries nearly 90% live in urban areas, ie towns and cities. What that typically means is that no matter where you live you live at similar densities

For instance,

London = 8.3 million people on 1,700 sqkm of land to give nearly 4,900 people per km2

A village in bedfordshire called Barton-le-clay = aprox 5000 people and aprox 1.2km2 to give 4,160 people per km2


Only the amount of empty land between settlements varies, and this land is by and large not accessable

The number of those urban areas within a certain area also has an impact.

cells

vivatifosi wrote: »

I am quite happy with my house at 82 sq m as there are only two of us. What we need is a plethora of solutions. Micro living is fine for young London singles, I was only talking about London. An opportunity to live centrally and to the full. I would have loved that when I was younger.

People get stuck in houses because there isn't the flexibility to move up and down the housing ladder.

120 square m is nice,but it isn't the be all and end all, particularly when there are so many single person households. Mobile homes would be a great solution, if there was actually the flexibility to move them with a job (which I accept there isn't).

Overall I agree though that the system is far too inflexible and focused on astronomical land values.

The average UK home and the average new build UK home is not ideal for a family with children, ie 4-5 persons

Space is at the extreme end of too small. Also bear in mind that all homes have spaces which are not useable. ie corrordors and stair cases etc.

So effectively knock off say 10-15sqm for those and you have average uk build of 75sqm only has 60sqm useable.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The number of those urban areas within a certain area also has an impact.

not much, if they are close enough they are considered one, if not then there is little to no impact

eg if there was another barton le clay 1km down the road it would have little to no impact on the origional barton le clay

anyway the point is that national density figures are pointless and confuse people. it doesnt matter if england is 250 and france 100 or whatnot becuase all that tells you is that both nations have lots and lots and lots of land the majority can not access

What people need to understand is that in france, in england in scotland in germany in all developed nations the vast majority live in urban areas at densities of 1000-10,000 with a mean towards the middle.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree flats could be the answer but flats don't appear to appeal to families here.

I did not say flats were the answer. We need more of all types of housing, detached semi terrace and flats

Oh and the reason families dont like flats in the UK is becuase Flats in the UK have traditionally been far far too small.

If you built 120sqm apartments, many families would love them

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

not much, if they are close enough they are considered one, if not then there is little to no impact

eg if there was another barton le clay 1km down the road it would have little to no impact on the origional barton le clay

anyway the point is that national density figures are pointless and confuse people. it doesnt matter if england is 250 and france 100 or whatnot becuase all that tells you is that both nations have lots and lots and lots of land the majority can not access

What people need to understand is that in france, in england in scotland in germany in all developed nations the vast majority live in urban areas at densities of 1000-10,000 with a mean towards the middle.

So you are advocating we concrete over the south east but leave 1km between each urban area and saying that if you place a new large urban area 1km from an existing one it will have no effect is nonsense.

cells

Dunroamin wrote: »

Ha bloody ha!

Whilst we need more housing, the less of the country we concrete over, the better.

That is neither an argument or a valid view but a self confusing spin doctor statement void of any thinking

Let me rephrase what you typed to what it actually means

While we have more people who want to live less to a home, the less we allow them to build and the more we cram them together, the better