Am I the only one fed up with houses being so small? do others feel the same way?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Smodlet wrote: »

It does not alter the fact that space in this country is extremely limited, AdrianC, so it stands to reason that most non-millionaire-bracket new-builds (with perhaps some regional variations) will probably be smaller and smaller and smaller...

I agree about new builds in general, though. Would not touch them with a barge pole, probably even if I were to win the lottery.

I agree with you about new builds. They are making people regard small as normal.

When I was a kid, I shared a bedroom in a two up, two down terraced house with my brother. We each had single beds on opposite walls with enough room in between for my model railway layout. In today's housing, it would be bunk beds on one wall and a bookcase on the other with about two feet between the two.

It's a case of making the maximum amount of money for the smallest possible outlay. Look at the statistics of firms like Barrett and Redrow. See what profit they make and how many houses they build. Divide the second figure into the first and see what profit is made per house. It works out at about £45k profit per house!

And yet they are still not satisfied. They've now come up with the Leasehold scam, but that's a whole other story.

Smodlet

Davesnave wrote: »

Was ever an age when ordinary people had loads of personal space at home? If there was, I missed it.

Back in the middle of the 20th century, I recall many of my school friends sharing rooms with siblings.

My village contains about 600 people, but at its peak there were 1100 living here in far fewer houses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that things would have been a little cramped in these 19th century homes.

...People were smaller then, Davesnave. :cool:

kerri_gt

PasturesNew wrote: »

What IS annoying in modern smaller houses is the building regulations meaning you have to have a "disabled accessible" downstairs loo and doorways. While I've nothing against this and think it's great, for me it means that instead of being able to have a 20'x12' living room the house has been designed as a 12'x12' living room and an 8'x8' downstairs loo and hallway round it... it's bang in the middle of the house and I have to walk round it to get from the living room to the kitchen and back...

I understand this in a way, but what I don't understand is the current obsession with bathrooms and toilets in new builds. We looked at a three bed terrace a few years ago which what the downstairs loo, two en suites and a 'family' bathroom. !!!!!!? It had more toilets than bedrooms :eek: imagine the extra room or storage space not having all those would allow (although to be fair the storage space had been well thought out in the builds). Even as a couple our 'compromise' was dropping a downstairs loo when we bought our house. Yet I grew up in a house with one bathroom and so did my OH, in a household of eight. To my knowledge no one has suffered lasting effects of this :rotfl:

copperclock

I live in a (seemingly rare) large new build. It has four double bedrooms. It was built, though, by a medium-sized local builder and I think perhaps it's better quality than the average new build.

Wasn't there a survey out recently pointing out that the built upon area of the UK was just a couple of percent or something? We have so, so much space, but we have a perception of being squashed in. I know that much of it is unsuitable for building, but surely we could expand a bit?

poppasmurf_bewdley

copperclock wrote: »

I live in a (seemingly rare) large new build. It has four double bedrooms. It was built, though, by a medium-sized local builder and I think perhaps it's better quality than the average new build.

Wasn't there a survey out recently pointing out that the built upon area of the UK was just a couple of percent or something? We have so, so much space, but we have a perception of being squashed in. I know that much of it is unsuitable for building, but surely we could expand a bit?

The problem isn't the amount of land available for development for housing, it's that whenever a new development is proposed on open land, the locals start to campaign against.

I live in the small town of Bewdley in Worcestershire, and it's common knowledge that the people here have no objection to any development - as long as it's in Wolverhampton!

copperclock

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

The problem isn't the amount of land available for development for housing, it's that whenever a new development is proposed on open land, the locals start to campaign against.

I live in the small town of Bewdley in Worcestershire, and it's common knowledge that the people here have no objection to any development - as long as it's in Wolverhampton!

Ha, yes! I think I have said this before, but there is a woman who lives on my new build estate (she lives alone in a large, detached, 3-bed house) who likes to get involved in the village 'protests' against further building that the same builders are undertaking down the road. It's like 'not in my back yard...once you've build my back yard'

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Was ever an age when ordinary people had loads of personal space at home? If there was, I missed it.

Back in the middle of the 20th century, I recall many of my school friends sharing rooms with siblings.

My village contains about 600 people, but at its peak there were 1100 living here in far fewer houses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that things would have been a little cramped in these 19th century homes.

My mind boggled one time when I was told that a previous owner of my last house (Victorian 2 bedroom terrace - with kitchen and bathroom in a modern-day extension) had, at one point, housed a married couple and 7 children:eek::eek::eek:.

I did spend some time trying to figure out how they physically managed it - and wondered whether the couple had had the smaller bedroom and how all those children fitted into the other bedroom (side-tracking off into wondering just how long the landing loft hatch had been a reasonable size one and if the house had had a ladder to the loft before I put my loft ladder in).

I guess a lot of it was their possessions were so few that they barely had a change of clothes each and they just didnt have indoor hobbies/interests/etc. Mind still boggled at the thought of them probably barely having enough room to move even when in bed...."Everyone breathe in please - I want to turn over....". Many of us are much more "individualistic" these days and we certainly do have a lot more possessions. To give one example - if I (very belatedly as it would be) got together with Mr Right now then there'd be two choices - either he would be someone that ate the same way I do (not that likely yet it has to be said LOL) or I'd be wondering where to find extra space in the kitchen for his food, as well as mine. In a previous era - we'd have probably both eaten the same way anyway or Society might have told me (as woman) to adapt to him (as man) - eeek!

AdrianC

copperclock wrote: »

Ha, yes! I think I have said this before, but there is a woman who lives on my new build estate (she lives alone in a large, detached, 3-bed house) who likes to get involved in the village 'protests' against further building that the same builders are undertaking down the road. It's like 'not in my back yard...once you've build my back yard'

<shakes head> The rank hypocrisy of some...

It's true that there's a very small part of the UK that's built-upon - this is the article being referred to... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901294

We forget that urban density is not representative of the density of the country as a whole - but we all want to live within easy commuting distance of work... Equally, greenbelt legislation has been in place for many decades, and farmland is required.

The population density of the country as a whole - even of South-Eastern England outside Greater London - is surprisingly low, when you look at how it relates to individual local authority areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population_density
UK - 270.7 people/km2
England - 424.3 people/km2
SE England - 452.2 people/km2
Greater London - 5,594 people/km2

ProDave

I prefer the Highlands. 9 people per square Km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_council_areas_by_population_density

stator

AdrianC wrote: »

You yearn for a return to the halcyon days of Callaghan and Wilson?

No, I'd like to hear a politician with the balls to actually change things for the better, instead of just tinkering around the edges.
Corbyn is just going to drag us back to the old labour days.
I'd prefer someone who actually abandons the whole left/right theology as no-one actually subscribes to it anymore