Why are people buying new builds.

lincroft1710

zagubov wrote: »

We need bigger houses. Nobody else in high-income Europe seems to buy our rabbit-hutch-sized dwellings.

Having bigger houses creates more problems. More to clean, decorate, furnish and heat. More materials used in construction. More land required.

Far better to adapt to living in a smaller space and find ways of utilising that space to the max

harz99

coffeehound wrote: »

Blame Maggie Thatcher for the undersize new homes; it was her administration that reduced minimum room sizes.

And blame the Councils and their Planners who allow Big Builders to squeeze ever more properties on ever smaller land patches, even when it means doing things like allowing only one parking space for a 3 bed 3 story town house.

Many of those Councils, like for instance Durham CC, are Labour controlled and have been for years.

harz99

RelievedSheff wrote: »

Our first home we bought was a 1930s two bed semi.

Our current home is a new build three bed detached.

We much prefer the new build. The build quality is better, the insulation is far better, our Bill's so far are tiny, our nearest neighbours are 6m away so no more neighbour noise, our garden while not the biggest is fully walled a great sun trap and not overlooked in the slightest.

The houses here are very traditionally styled which we like.

Our house is freehold and we have no maintenance charges despite the estate having lots of green spaces. We also have miles and miles of woods on the doorstep for walking the dog.

We love our new build and would not go back to an older property now. This house suits our needs perfectly.

Any reason you didn't share the name of the builder?

RelievedSheff

None at all. Our new home is a David Wilson Homes house.

One downside of the plot is that the front of the house is south facing and every room bar the single bedroom has a window on the front of the house, so it suffers badly from excessive solar gain. We really do struggle to keep the house cool enough to be comfortable.

On the flip side it should help keep the bills down in the winter.

SallyDucati

I do think it varies. My house is a new build but on a small estate of 27 houses and 9 flats. They don’t look like production line houses and it’s a nice quiet cul de sac. The primary reason for me though was location, somewhere i really wanted to live but the 3 bed 30s semis were out of my reach. (Didn’t need to use HTB though).

Peoples house choices have many different factors.

getmore4less

letitbe90 wrote: »

Having visited family in new builds, I would say that better insulated can also be a con. In the summer the house actually becomes an oven, almost feels unsafe the level of heat it traps in.

That can be managed, our South facing garden house only get silly warm on that side with an extended period of warm humid nights.

The North facing living room remains cool and we can manage the solar gain on the south with blinds and with outside plants(grape vine) that give shade in the summer and let's the sun in in the winter.

Winter the North facing bay window gets some morning and evening sun.

Zero_Sum

pinkteapot wrote: »

It's now the norm - at least up here. But that's happened very quickly in just a few years. Yep - we're talking freehold houses with a service charge. Apparently because councils no longer adopt green spaces so a management company is needed to arrange upkeep.

The developer sets up a separate company - the management company. Householders pay a monthly service charge. When the developer is done at the site, the management company is typically sold to an investment company. They're popular with pension funds etc because they generate a steady income. What's bad is the number of stories of people seeing their service charge double in year 2 from the minimal amount they started off paying.

We did speak to one smaller, local developer who does it differently. They also set up management companies but everyone who buys a house gets a share in the company. At the end of the development, the householders have a controlling stake in the management company and appoint directors (usually some of the residents).

In any event, having had a leasehold flat some years back I refuse to go back to paying a service charge, especially when there are older houses where green spaces are paid for through my council tax.

Where's 'up here'?
Im in the north, and the council just adopted ours this year.

GDB2222

Zero_Sum wrote: »

A better system? Sorry but I wouldnt want one of them. Aside from them being hideous the small courtyard / lack of garage / no loft just doesnt work.
Where do you store DIY tools & materials? Most people keep in garage or shed. But theres no room for a shed. So you'd put them in the loft? Oh you cant as it hasnt got one.

And actually i like gardening, and growing my own fruit & veg. So having a garden for me is an absolute must.

The architects' brief was clearly to achieve very high density. Within that constraint, it was not possible to provide large gardens. They have produced nice houses, but not suitable for you.

RelievedSheff

It is the local authority who sets housing density targets not the architect.

Barny1979

zagubov wrote: »

Okay, here's another. The upside-down houses in Salford.

They were a great idea, good design inside, a friend rented one for a few years from their inception, however they tried to target up and coming young business/office worker types who worked in Manchester who were affluent, made them a sitting target as they were in the middle of a very rough area.