A Millennial Speaks out

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The house I built in 70s was not much if any bigger than equivalent 3 bed houses now, the building density on estate was not so high meaning my garden was bigger. Nowhere near as well equipped, no central heating, no white goods, carpets, single glassing. House size have varied over the years the house I was bought up in built mid to late eighteen was smaller than most modern houses, two up two down and I mean two rooms upstairs two rooms down stairs no bathroom or hallway.

There will obviously always be anecdotal situations contrary to what I posted.

However, it's simple fact that new builds are smaller now than they have been for the past however many decades.

2 up 2 down terraces were small, granted, but that was a whole different era and one most of us weren't around to witness. Plus they were built for a purpose...

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Houses have improved, yes.

But the trade off now, with new homes, is a lot less space.

While houses have improved, the actual space you buy today compared to a home built in the 70s/80s has fallen quite dramatically.

So while your improvement argument is valid in terms of technology (alas, technology always improves), what you get in terms of space and outdoor space has fallen dramatically. I don't see that as an improvement.

Though granted, you may have tripple glazing instead of single....your window will be half the size too

Seems you didn't understand my post at all

Its not about new homes vs old homes. It's about the same home in 1970 vs today

My home is worth x. There is an identical home 2 doors down which has had no work done for 50 years. Its probably worth £150k less as that is what it would cost to bring it up to the same standard.

So if you look at a 1970 house price and try to compare it to house prices today you should compare it to a house of 1970s standard and quality not a house that has had £150k spent on it on extensions and improvements

It also partly explains why London and specifically inner London has boomed so much. Someone who buys a £1m house and adds a £1m basement and sells it for £3million it appears as house prices went up 200% when in fact the capital he invested £2m went up by 50% to £3m

Cakeguts

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-61794430.html This house is round the corner from the one I bought in the 1980s. Mine was a two bed and a lot smaller than this one. As you can see this one has been on the market for a while and so is likely to be overpriced. So the one I bought would probably be valued at around £100k now. How much would someone have to earn to afford to buy this house on their own? How much approximately would the mortgage repayments be on that? At the time I could not have afforded to buy anything in London. Even studio flats were more expensive.

If I had chosen to take a job in London at the same salary I would have been stuck in one room in a shared house with a rent that I couldn't really afford. I didn't get a job in London because I couldn't afford to live there. Which is why I can't understand why people move to London and then complain that it is expensive.

When I bought the two bed house I had a full time job and a part time job and it was a struggle. I had a black and white TV because I couldn't afford to pay the license for a colour TV. I didn't go on holiday and I could just about afford one cheap meal out once a month and no takeaways. My job required me to have a car. It was very old.

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There will obviously always be anecdotal situations contrary to what I posted.

However, it's simple fact that new builds are smaller now than they have been for the past however many decades.

2 up 2 down terraces were small, granted, but that was a whole different era and one most of us weren't around to witness. Plus they were built for a purpose...

The average floorspace per capita has increased a lot since the 1970s

Almost every direction you turn you are wrong

How long does it take for reality to bite and you accept you are wrong about housing.


We are better housed than ever. And all factors considered homes are cheap. Most UK born Brits will inherit housing. Where on that graph do I look to glean that fact?

Graham_Devon

GreatApe wrote: »

So if you look at a 1970 house price and try to compare it to house prices today you should compare it to a house of 1970s standard and quality not a house that has had £150k spent on it on extensions and improvements

That's a pretty ridiculous way to look at things.

Everythign has moved on from the 70's.

By your standards, TV's now should cost 50x more than they did in the 70's as they are now better. Cars should cost 30x more due to the better safety equiptment, efficiences and longer lasting engines.

The world simply doesn't work that way.

The standard is ever changing, and a standard is always present tense.

If you don't do any work on a house for 50 years it simply devalues. What you are suggesting is that it stays the same price, but everything else around it get's more expensive. Bizzare way to look at it, in any walk of life, whether it be shares, investments or materials.

Extensions I agree with (but then that's no longer the same house, as per your post?). But general maintenance and keeping up with modern comforts doesn't increase a buildings value to the extent you seem to believw.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There will obviously always be anecdotal situations contrary to what I posted.

However, it's simple fact that new builds are smaller now than they have been for the past however many decades.

2 up 2 down terraces were small, granted, but that was a whole different era and one most of us weren't around to witness. Plus they were built for a purpose...

In recent times the bigger houses were built in 30s, many of the Victorian terraces now in so much in demand were small when they were initially built and have now been extended. They build many more 2 bed properties now than they did in 70s problem is in many areas they are the same prices or more expensive, the 1 bed houses that were biuilt in 80s were unheard of in 70s. My daughters firts house was 2 bed built in 80s that was very small.

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's a pretty ridiculous way to look at things.

Everythign has moved on from the 70's.

By your standards, TV's now should cost 50x more than they did in the 70's as they are now better. Cars should cost 30x more due to the better safety equiptment, efficiences and longer lasting engines.

The world simply doesn't work that way.

The standard is ever changing, and a standard is always present tense.

If you don't do any work on a house for 50 years it simply devalues. What you are suggesting is that it stays the same price, but everything else around it get's more expensive. Bizzare way to look at it, in any walk of life, whether it be shares, investments or materials.

If I buy a house for £100k and build a £100k extension and sell it for £200k does that mean house prices doubled? No of course not in that example house prices stayed the same I just added £100k to the value of that house.

The stock of homes in 1970 might have averaged 5x income
If over a period of 1 month everyone spent 1x income on their homes the stock of homes in 1970+1month would be 6x income. That is not house price inflation that is adding value.

I'm not taking about maintiance like painting walls or replacing like for like
I am talking about capital improvements
The stock of homes in the UK have had literally hundreds of billions spent on improvement. It is part of the reason for HPI you are buying more home for your income multiple.

GreatApe

:rotfl:

ukcarper wrote: »

In recent times the bigger houses were built in 30s, many of the Victorian terraces now in so much in demand were small when they were initially built and have now been extended. They build many more 2 bed properties now than they did in 70s problem is in many areas they are the same prices or more expensive, the 1 bed houses that were biuilt in 80s were unheard of in 70s. My daughters firts house was 2 bed built in 80s that was very small.

The average household has changed
People have fewer kids and we have had a boom in single occupancy homes thanks to more divorce and people never marrying and a boom in singke mothers too.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

:rotfl:


The average household has changed
People have fewer kids and we have had a boom in single occupancy homes thanks to more divorce and people never marrying and a boom in singke mothers too.

And it is set to get worse. small properties - 1 or 2 bed flats in london for eg - will continue to outperform the general market.

Graham_Devon

Cakeguts wrote: »

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-61794430.html This house is round the corner from the one I bought in the 1980s. Mine was a two bed and a lot smaller than this one. As you can see this one has been on the market for a while and so is likely to be overpriced. So the one I bought would probably be valued at around £100k now. How much would someone have to earn to afford to buy this house on their own? How much approximately would the mortgage repayments be on that? At the time I could not have afforded to buy anything in London. Even studio flats were more expensive.

Aroudn £25k with a 12k deposit.

Around £600 a month.

Though the average salary is Oldham is nearly half that of the rest of the UK at £18,000 a year according to the ONS.

So what looks cheap isn't that cheap when you look at the local wage.

Don't get the link with London though as it's around 220 miles away.