New Builds Vs Old Builds

Mickey666

I've got nothing against new builds as such and there's no intrinsic reason why they need to be poorly built.  I'm sure some will be, others won't be.
No, my issue with them is size.  Developer's want to maximise their profits so they build new houses as small as they can get away with and then cram as many to the acre as possible, so even a 'detached' house might only be three feet from its neighbour.  Bedrooms that can't accommodate a super-king bed and still be able to walk around it, en-suites with shower cubicles so small you can't wash your hair without banging elbows on the sides, gardens smaller than the house footprint.
Sign of the times I guess.

NaughtiusMaximus

Racky_Roo said:

Another plus for new builds is the layout tends to suit the way we live now, not in the 50's/60's/whatever era your house was built. The main reason I bought a new build was I wanted a kitchen diner, downstairs toilet and ensuite. Every house I looked at on RM in my area didn't meet all 3 of those and if i'd done the work to add them and knock walls down, it would have been more money overall and a lot of hassle

For me that's a negative, not a plus.

Ensuite - complete waste of space, also I'd rather not have the delightful odour of a number 2 drifting into the bedroom. 
Kitchen/diner and open plan living generally - Nothing more than a fad. When they inevitably go out of fashion, new builds will go back to having separate rooms.
Downstairs loo - this I concede on, they're definitely worth having but you don't exactly need a lot of space for them, most older house I've lived in have had a spot where one could be fitted.

The single biggest problem I have with new builds is the size, of the house itself, the garden and frequently the streets which on new build estates tend to be far too narrow.

Davesnave

Racky_Roo said:

Another plus for new builds is the layout tends to suit the way we live now, not in the 50's/60's/whatever era your house was built. The main reason I bought a new build was I wanted a kitchen diner, downstairs toilet and ensuite. Every house I looked at on RM in my area didn't meet all 3 of those and if i'd done the work to add them and knock walls down, it would have been more money overall and a lot of hassle

This may be true if you live in a cheaper area. We were the first in our road to extend and re-arrange our semi because people generally considered them not worth the effort in 1987. However, perceptions may change, so two decades later, when we moved out, the majority of the 40 houses had been extended and re-configured in different ways.

Personally, I think there isn't  a 'way we live now.' That's just interior designer newspeak. The size, interests, priorities and personal dynamics of families are extremely variable.

MidnightWolf

Mickey666 said:

I've got nothing against new builds as such and there's no intrinsic reason why they need to be poorly built.  I'm sure some will be, others won't be.
No, my issue with them is size.  Developer's want to maximise their profits so they build new houses as small as they can get away with and then cram as many to the acre as possible, so even a 'detached' house might only be three feet from its neighbour.  Bedrooms that can't accommodate a super-king bed and still be able to walk around it, en-suites with shower cubicles so small you can't wash your hair without banging elbows on the sides, gardens smaller than the house footprint.
Sign of the times I guess.

Surely the size depends on the size of the house you buy? It’s a complete myth that all new builds are small with tiny rooms. Just look around some show houses and you’ll see plenty of decent sized houses, some of which even have room for a super-king bed (I remember one from a David Wilson house and there was still plenty of room either side of the bed).

The house we bought could squeeze a super-king, but it would have been restricted so we ‘made do’ with a king-size. How many older houses can realistically fit a bed bigger than a standard double? The bedroom also has a separate dressing area with built in double wardrobes and an en-suite with a double shower. That’s one of three double showers, with the others being in the bedroom 2 en-suite and in the bathroom (along with a bath). The living room is over 20ft long and we have a kitchen/family room and a separate dining room. None of the detached houses on our development are that close to each other. Our neighbour is on the other side of two double garages. The garden is around 200 sq m, so not massive, but hardly tiny.

There are new houses all sizes and types being built and people have the choice to buy the one that suits them.

NaughtiusMaximus

MidnightWolf said:

Mickey666 said:

I've got nothing against new builds as such and there's no intrinsic reason why they need to be poorly built.  I'm sure some will be, others won't be.
No, my issue with them is size.  Developer's want to maximise their profits so they build new houses as small as they can get away with and then cram as many to the acre as possible, so even a 'detached' house might only be three feet from its neighbour.  Bedrooms that can't accommodate a super-king bed and still be able to walk around it, en-suites with shower cubicles so small you can't wash your hair without banging elbows on the sides, gardens smaller than the house footprint.
Sign of the times I guess.

Surely the size depends on the size of the house you buy? It’s a complete myth that all new builds are small with tiny rooms. Just look around some show houses and you’ll see plenty of decent sized houses, some of which even have room for a super-king bed 

It's a myth that ALL new builds are small but a fact that the AVERAGE new build home is smaller than average mid 20th century home. 

MidnightWolf said:

Just look around some show houses and you’ll see plenty of decent sized houses, some of which even have room for a super-king bed (I remember one from a David Wilson house and there was still plenty of room either side of the bed).

The house we bought could squeeze a super-king, but it would have been restricted so we ‘made do’ with a king-size. How many older houses can realistically fit a bed bigger than a standard double? 

IME, the vast majority. The inference from this is you consider the ability to fit in a super king bed as a sign of an especially large home which speaks volumes tbh. The main bedroom in our current property (1960s built) plus our 2 previous properties (70s and 40s) could fit a double bed with ease, and thinking back to other houses I've lived in when I just had a bog standard double, I'm confident I could have fitted a super king in the majority of those too.

MidnightWolf said:

There are new houses all sizes and types being built and people have the choice to buy the one that suits them.

True, but you have to pay a hefty premium if you want a decent sized one. The only new build property I've been in which I considered comparable to 60s built ones in terms of size was a 4 bed detached bought for 400k, but that's in an area where average house prices are around 230k.  

MidnightWolf

tim_london said:

Also - All the new builds I've seen has gigabit Broadband, I think it is regulation now.  This is a big deal for rural properties.

It’s definitely a selling point. We live in a rural village that’s not even connected to mains gas (we have LPG fed from a central tank in the small estate), but we’ve got full fibre (FTTP) broadband.

RelievedSheff

Mickey666 said:

I've got nothing against new builds as such and there's no intrinsic reason why they need to be poorly built.  I'm sure some will be, others won't be.
No, my issue with them is size.  Developer's want to maximise their profits so they build new houses as small as they can get away with and then cram as many to the acre as possible, so even a 'detached' house might only be three feet from its neighbour.  Bedrooms that can't accommodate a super-king bed and still be able to walk around it, en-suites with shower cubicles so small you can't wash your hair without banging elbows on the sides, gardens smaller than the house footprint.
Sign of the times I guess.

You would be very surprised by ours then. Our nearest neighbours are 6m away and 13m away respectively.

Both the master bedroom and the second bedroom are more than large enough to accomodate a king sized bed with room to walk around and have decent sized wardrobes, the shower cubicle in the en-suite is a huge double length affair.

The garden is larger than the house but not by much and is very private with zero overlooking. It is surrounded by a nice tall wall which is great for keeping the dog in.

RelievedSheff

NaughtiusMaximus said:

MidnightWolf said:

Mickey666 said:

I've got nothing against new builds as such and there's no intrinsic reason why they need to be poorly built.  I'm sure some will be, others won't be.
No, my issue with them is size.  Developer's want to maximise their profits so they build new houses as small as they can get away with and then cram as many to the acre as possible, so even a 'detached' house might only be three feet from its neighbour.  Bedrooms that can't accommodate a super-king bed and still be able to walk around it, en-suites with shower cubicles so small you can't wash your hair without banging elbows on the sides, gardens smaller than the house footprint.
Sign of the times I guess.

Surely the size depends on the size of the house you buy? It’s a complete myth that all new builds are small with tiny rooms. Just look around some show houses and you’ll see plenty of decent sized houses, some of which even have room for a super-king bed 

It's a myth that ALL new builds are small but a fact that the AVERAGE new build home is smaller than average mid 20th century home. 

They may be smaller in terms of square footage but new builds waste very little of the square footage that they have and have layouts that are better suited to modern living.

Davesnave

I'm not sure what this 'modern living' might be. Is it code for something radical, like having a kitchen/diner and a loo off the hallway? Or what?

MovingForwards

I saw many flats (on paper) which had been turned into open plan living, kitchen - diner - lounge, and spent ages trying to reconfigure them back into a lounge with separate kitchen before ruling them out as something I wasn't prepared to make work or spend the money on.

One flat had crammed an on-suite and built-in wardrobe into each bedroom, rendering both rooms useless for anything other than a small bed stuck in a silly place (I put that one up in the thread about strange properties).

Reading the horror of people finding there's no upstairs bathroom or toilet when viewing properties makes me feel I grew up on another planet. I'm not even that old and have only known one family to have a bathroom upstairs, all the rest were off a small hall from the kitchen.

I've no interest in an on-suite and prefer what is being referred to as the 'old' set ups. They work for me and my lifestyle.

Thank goodness we are not all alike and there's enough properties which haven't been messed about.