Do we really need more affordable housing 'starter homes'?

economic

Why do family need the typical "family" homes anyway the in uk? Its perfectly fine to raise children in flats - as long as they are big enough. How often do families make use of gardens anyway given the weather? IMO flats are good enough, and nearby green-spaces can be used for outdoor activities.

Sea_Shell

economic wrote: »

Why do family need the typical "family" homes anyway the in uk? Its perfectly fine to raise children in flats - as long as they are big enough. How often do families make use of gardens anyway given the weather? IMO flats are good enough, and nearby green-spaces can be used for outdoor activities.

Probably because parents don't like to let their children play "outside" like we always did in the past. So they want a decent garden so the kids can be kept close and safe.

I think it's sad that modern children don't get to experience the freedoms we had in the 70's & 80's, roaming for miles on our bikes, or on the bus into town, with no phones in our pockets.

How are they ever going to become independent young adults, when they've never even caught a bus on their own by the age of 18!!!! (But that's a whole other thread!!)

michaels

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Probably because parents don't like to let their children play "outside" like we always did in the past. So they want a decent garden so the kids can be kept close and safe.

I think it's sad that modern children don't get to experience the freedoms we had in the 70's & 80's, roaming for miles on our bikes, or on the bus into town, with no phones in our pockets.

How are they ever going to become independent young adults, when they've never even caught a bus on their own by the age of 18!!!! (But that's a whole other thread!!)

I wonder if it is an introvert/extrovert thang - Personally I would choose not to house share and ideally live in a detached house with enough garden not to be overlooked my my neighbours and am willing to spend a large share of my income to do so even if it means missing out on 'essentials' such as holidays abroad and iPhones.

Perhaps those who think we should all take public transport and live in apartments simply have different values and priorities and don't understand that not everyone is the same?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

michaels wrote: »

I disagree, there is loads of land, we just choose to fix our development footprint at some arbitrary point in history - why was it ok in 1930 to turn fields into the road I now live on but now identical fields a few hundred yards further from the town centre are sacrosanct.

I live on an estate built in the 30s. It was deliberately planned to have lots of private and public green space, (roads built around mature trees; each house with a fairly decent front and back garden), to have its own parks, allotments, shops, pubs, cinema, schools and health centre and to be "a nice place for families to live." I think people mainly oppose modern developments because they simply consist of cramming in as many tiny houses as possible in order to maximise profit, with no consideration at all for parking, existing roads, schools and GPs, and the environmental consequences of acres more concrete.

westernpromise

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

....no consideration at all for parking, existing roads, schools and GPs, and the environmental consequences of acres more concrete.

All valid critiques, of course.

The other problem is with so-called "affordable housing". A relative of mine looked at this some time ago in respect of a plot in London where it appeared possible to remove two houses and build low-rise flats. No more than twelve flats could have been built because planning was unlikely to be forthcoming for anything taller or for any greater number that did not include "affordable housing". What this actually meant was "build fourteen and you'll have to sell two below cost".

The result of that is that the other twelve would have to be sold more expensively - at prices they'd never command - to cross-subsidise the cheap ones. As a result, none were built at all, and the two houses were simply sold.

Insisting that a proportion of a development be sold at loss simply prevents any development at all, "affordable" or otherwise, and keeps the supply restricted. I wouldn't really want to buy property in London right now, but I think if you own it already, you'd be potty not to hold.

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter

Do we really need more affordable housing 'starter homes'?

No. In our day a starter home was called a flat, and there are plenty of those going around. This snowflake sense of entitlement is utterly galling.

teddysmum

The OP, in his description of trading up then down in old age ,suggests that the cycle leaves one bed homes for the 'homeless'.
However, whereas the buyers of the current single bedrooms may be able to upgrade to two, and the others likewise, how are the 'homeless' going to finance their buy, which is the foundation of the rest of the cycle , as few truly homeless people have jobs ?

GunJack

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter wrote: »

In our day a starter home was called a flat, and there are plenty of those going around. This snowflake sense of entitlement is utterly galling.

Not round our way they weren't, they were typically 2-bed terraces and virtually no flats. There are more flats these days, but mostly on busy roads or other such places that are not good for living in, more like crash-pads. The 2-bed terrace is still the starter home for a single or couple, with the flats for the less well-off singlies...IMO the way it should be, especially in an area like this.

I never understood the bonk-on about flats, would never want to live in one myself, either as a singly or a couple/family.

The snowflake issue is something else again

Herzlos

teddysmum wrote: »

how are the 'homeless' going to finance their buy, which is the foundation of the rest of the cycle , as few truly homeless people have jobs ?

Lots of homeless people have jobs. Only a small percentage of 'homeless' are the rough sleepers you are picturing. The rest are 'normal' people on waiting lists, sleeping in hostels, friends couches, B&B's or are just under-housed (not enough bedrooms for family size).

michaels

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I live on an estate built in the 30s. It was deliberately planned to have lots of private and public green space, (roads built around mature trees; each house with a fairly decent front and back garden), to have its own parks, allotments, shops, pubs, cinema, schools and health centre and to be "a nice place for families to live." I think people mainly oppose modern developments because they simply consist of cramming in as many tiny houses as possible in order to maximise profit, with no consideration at all for parking, existing roads, schools and GPs, and the environmental consequences of acres more concrete.

But the reason for the cramming and lack of amenities is precisely because we refuse to use enough land to house the population at the density that was acceptable in the 30s - look at the housing stock built then and now and you would assume we had a higher gdp then than now....