Are family homes an anachronism?

westernpromise

So I have a 4-bedroom house what I live in and a 2-bedroom flat in Zone 2 (just - one stop out from Zone 1). At one point I also owned another 2-bed flat and a studio in Docklands but they were acquired absent-mindedly and then disposed of.

Now the rationale for keeping the flat is chiefly that the inflation has been useful, the mortgage costs flumpence (one year's interest < 1 month's rent) so the cashflow is free money, selling it would crystallise a CGT bill, and selling it to buy back in later even at the same price would involve huge transaction penalties of about 10% of the gross price.

So thinking about the latter, why would I buy back in? Well that would be because the flat is nicely located in a salubrious area convenient for airports, motorways, the West End and the City; a very nice safe place for my daughters to live in after they graduate, if they're living and working in London. So I wouldn't want to give that up.

That is, I see it as my role to house my children not only now but into the future. The properties are family capital, but instead of one big house that's left half empty when they move out, I own instead one medium-sized house and one large flat. Mrs Promise and I won't be all that overhoused when they do leave, and we could even move back to the 2-bed if it suits us, and let one of them occupy the house.

This seems an altogether much more sensible arrangement than buying one huge place that you end up under-occupying. So can we expect to see a decline in people's interest in owning suburban houses?

System

westernpromise wrote: »

So I have a 4-bedroom house what I live in

What do you mean "So I have ... )

You seem to be saying that there has been a long story leading up to this point in your narrative, at which, to cut a long story short, you wind up with your conclusion, "So, .....)

Do we need to know the story do far?

bluedrop

Its a choice really. I'd rather raise my kids in a spacious family home - than a smaller house that feels a bit tight. When time comes, I'd happily downsize and let them have deposits for their homes.

GreatApe

People buy things that they think will impress others. I'm not making a moral judgement on that just pointing it out

In the past that was a move to a nice big country house.
Now it seems more likely to be a nice house in Zone 1-3

elsien

GreatApe wrote: »

People buy things that they think will impress others. I'm not making a moral judgement on that just pointing it out

In the past that was a move to a nice big country house.
Now it seems more likely to be a nice house in Zone 1-3

I'd say impressing others would be towards the bottom of the list of reasons people buy a house, below affordability, family needs, location, size, commuting distance, quality of life etc.
Unless you're a Russian oligarch.

GreatApe

elsien wrote: »

I'd say impressing others would be towards the bottom of the list of reasons people buy a house, below affordability, family needs, location, size, commuting distance, quality of life etc.

It sure seems shallow but it seems to be very true for a lot of things

For instance imagine people who win lots of money or people who suddenly become rich and famous think sport stars media stars film starts tech stars etc. None of them covet a big mansion in the middle of nowhere but they do covet buying a nice (not massive) home or flat in central London. They do so to impress others

It also holds true for most others like expensive cars, expensive holidays, expensive restaurants expensive anything really

This is one of the prime reasons inner London has gone so expensive. It went from somewhere people avoided to somewhere people covet to impress others. Going from a Fiat car to becoming an Merc

always_sunny

westernpromise wrote: »

So I have a 4-bedroom house what I live in and a 2-bedroom flat in Zone 2 (just - one stop out from Zone 1). At one point I also owned another 2-bed flat and a studio in Docklands but they were acquired absent-mindedly and then disposed of.

Now the rationale for keeping the flat is chiefly that the inflation has been useful, the mortgage costs flumpence (one year's interest < 1 month's rent) so the cashflow is free money, selling it would crystallise a CGT bill, and selling it to buy back in later even at the same price would involve huge transaction penalties of about 10% of the gross price.

So thinking about the latter, why would I buy back in? Well that would be because the flat is nicely located in a salubrious area convenient for airports, motorways, the West End and the City; a very nice safe place for my daughters to live in after they graduate, if they're living and working in London. So I wouldn't want to give that up.

That is, I see it as my role to house my children not only now but into the future. The properties are family capital, but instead of one big house that's left half empty when they move out, I own instead one medium-sized house and one large flat. Mrs Promise and I won't be all that overhoused when they do leave, and we could even move back to the 2-bed if it suits us, and let one of them occupy the house.

This seems an altogether much more sensible arrangement than buying one huge place that you end up under-occupying. So can we expect to see a decline in people's interest in owning suburban houses?

I am not sure about the point of the question, in London many people live in flats and they seem okay. Is the morale of the story that you have many properties and you want people to know?

Thrugelmir

I bought a house with fewer bedrooms and a large garden. Having unutilised space is such a waste. Better to live in what you actually use.

Rosieandjim

I think it is very sensible to provide for your children if you can. I have never wanted to live in a large space so cannot comment on what that would be like.


I have been into such homes and they leave me cold. From what I have seen most just get filled with junk and as people age they struggle with the upkeep


So I would prefer to be able to provide my children with there own property which is just a pipe dream for many.

westernpromise

Large houses certainly do get filled with junk. We are in the process of clearing out my mother in law's 5-bedroom which she bought for £6,000 in 1961. The whole thing is filled to the rafters with garbage that should have been thrown away decades ago. There are the typed up minutes of the residents' association meeting of 1992. There are thank you letters from 1987. There is an artist's easel she giftwrapped as a present then changed her mind and kept still wrapped, over 20 years ago. Because the space cost her flumpence (I paid 6 times more stamp duty when I last bought a smaller house than she paid for the whole actual house), she saw no cost in wasting all that space. So she stored rubbish for decades.

I'm not in that happy position but if you take the view that family capital is to be preserved, that it's on me to provide a home, and that one should think on multi-generational timescales, then sitting in one large house that's under-used for decades seems silly. Much more rational is to have several of different sizes. Maybe we need a new paradigm of ownership where it's about being a homesowner rather than a homeowner. The penalties for selling up and buying are now so crippling that fragmenting your property wealth seems sensible. You give away what you don't need and minimise the tax grab on what's left.

LydiaJ

westernpromise wrote: »

Thread title - are family homes an anachronism?
So I have a 4-bedroom house what I live in and a 2-bedroom flat...

To most people, a 4-bedroom house is a family home, and is clearly not anachronistic since you are currently living in one and feeling that it's a suitable size for your family.

westernpromise wrote: »

... instead of one big house that's left half empty when they move out, I own instead one medium-sized house and one large flat

A big house by your standards (presumably meaning more than 4 bedrooms) would be a lot emptier than merely half-empty if everyone but the parents had moved out. Even a 4 bedroom house would be 75% empty if all the offspring had flown the nest, leaving only the parental couple sharing a bedroom.

always_sunny wrote: »

I am not sure about the point of the question, [is it] that you have many properties and you want people to know?

Probably.