The 1960s house

Doozergirl

meanmachine wrote:

I honestly wouldn't take a joint mortgage, as I'm not confident that the relationship would survive the full 25 years.

You keep taking those happy pills meany! :cool:

Pennywise

Perhaps we are all thinking far too deeply about it.

In the 60's banks/building societies wanted a decent deposit and would only lend, say 3 times salary which they wanted proof of.

Now, you don't need much of a deposit and can "self declare" your income which the banks don't seem interested about verifying.

So, is the reason not just simply that the banks/building societies are willing to lend higher amounts, so there is more money flowing around, so prices rise accordingly.

Is there a real need to explore any further into social and economic reasoning?

wisbech_lad

In my family history: One grandmother worked in family cobblers. Other grandmother didn't work - but in 1930's Shanghai that just wasn't done! Deprivations of Japanese POW camp meant she died young, so don't know what she would have done back in UK.

My mother worked for a short time as teacher, and then as a volunteer teacher - due to my father's career being in places she couldn't get work permit.

Of two sisters, one has always worked (but varying between 3-5 days a week) as a lawyer. Other sister stopped working for a long while, preferring to be with kids, but now they are older she has started volunteer work in a school, with view to maybe taking it up as second career.

My wife doesn't work (paid) anymore. She did for a while for the social aspect, but we can afford for her not to, so as soon as it came a grind for her, she stopped. She does voluntary (charity) work. Sure we could make more if she worked for money - but she values leisure/ interests above that. It is a luxury I agree, but I have always seen the true value of money as the freedom it gives you in making choices in life - not the stuff it gives you (the concept of "f-off" money is an old one)

I think large amount is class (or rather, economic) based - some parts of my family can afford it if only one is working, and then it very much becomes a matter of choice, not necessity. Others have no choice, both need to work to keep wolf from door...

meanmachine_2

Pennywise wrote:

Perhaps we are all thinking far too deeply about it.

In the 60's banks/building societies wanted a decent deposit and would only lend, say 3 times salary which they wanted proof of.

Now, you don't need much of a deposit and can "self declare" your income which the banks don't seem interested about verifying.

So, is the reason not just simply that the banks/building societies are willing to lend higher amounts, so there is more money flowing around, so prices rise accordingly.

Is there a real need to explore any further into social and economic reasoning?

Correct. The money supply was much smaller. We had less of it.

Since 2000 the money supply has exploded, services and house prices have rocketed in price (gas bills, legal fees, etc), but keeping everything manageable has been cheap Asian imports.

I dread to think what our inflation rate would be without these imports - probably over 5%.

rozeepozee

meanmachine wrote:

True and the other social factor we have to consider is that of marriage breakdown.

I honestly wouldn't take a joint mortgage, as I'm not confident that the relationship would survive the full 25 years.

Isn't that sad?

So I can only buy based on a sole income.

Well, I can understand that having been through a sticky break up myself, but it needn't stop you from buying with someone else, be they friend or lover! Protection for both parties is possible if they are clear from the start who owns what proportion of the property, formalise this arrangment in a a legal document (when purchasing or later by the parties being 'tenants in common' don't want to get too technical here, though) and have an agreement acceptable to both about who pays what proportion of the mortgage, maintenance etc.

As a young and inexperienced gal, I left it to trust, thought such discussions were unromantic and beyond the pale. Some years on, I have learned by this experience that it's better to be clear about each other's expectations from the start.

Marriage does change your rights on this however, which is why I'm in no rush to marry again - and that's a bit sad, too.

margaretclare

lush_walrus wrote:

Ok you all disagree, so what do you all women worked forever thinkers feel is the major factor in affordability of housing in the 1960s and now? Women working more now is just my opinion, it would be interesting to hear what you all think as to what has happened.

If I was to pinpoint just ONE thing which has changed it has nothing to do with women working/not working. It would be the perception that the house you live in has to be seen as an 'investment' and that you expect to make money from it by selling it, buying a bigger house on a bigger mortgage and moving on again....this is exemplified in the phrase 'housing ladder'. This phrase was simply not heard.

I think those of us who bought our home back in the 1960s saw it as just that - a home. A place to live comfortably, to have a family, to bring up that family in reasonable stability. We didn't see the need to buy a home as a young single person - if we lived away from home because of work there were other options. As a student nurse I 'lived-in' for 3 years - that isn't possible for nursing students now. It was also fairly acceptable to live in lodgings or to rent a bedsit if your job took you away from home - if not, most people lived at home until marriage.

Someone has mentioned council estates not being the type of 'sink' we think of now. This is true. They were meant to be the kind of place that was pleasant to live, that people would take pride in, keeping their gardens nice just like the most up-market 'leafy suburb'! However, it wasn't all that easy to get one. When my first husband and I got married in 1957 we lived with his parents in a tiny bungalow near Dartford. We went to put our names on to the housing waiting-list and we were laughed at. A newly-wed couple without children had no chance - there just wasn't the housing stock available. (So what's new???)

Living with his parents was something I couldn't stand. We could have rented a bedsit, but I think he liked having the best of both worlds...I left, and that's how I got into nursing (married February 1957, left in June, started as a student nurse in York in September). We got back together eventually, spent 2 years with the RAF in Cyprus, came back to UK in 1962 and visited a friend who'd just bought a new-build (then) bungalow outside York. Sounded like a good idea...if I remember rightly the price was £1800, mortgage was £12 a month. We fell into all kinds of traps - because there was no history of buying a house in the family we didn't know about all the other costs involved in buying and running a house (again, so what's new?)

My present husband's experience was a little different. He lived at home until he was 29 then got married, bought a house at Greenford, Middx for £2500. He'd just got a new job at £1000 a year and he got a mortgage on that. The houses were originally built for rent, 3-bed semis, no garage, on-street parking, close to Greenford Underground with a school round the corner. His wife had 2 children by her first marriage and his 2 children were born in that house...Goodness knows what price those houses are going for now.

I think the idea of houses as an 'investment' on which you can't fail to make money came along with the Thatcher years. I don't know when the phrase 'housing ladder' as in 'gotta get on the housing ladder' appeared, but I think this idea, along with buy-to-let, has been a big factor in pushing up house prices to silly levels.

I bought this 2-bed bungalow in Essex for £58K in 1990, had a mortgage of £45K. This property was built by a speculative builder in 1930. It's now 'worth' about £160K. But is it really 'worth' that? We've done things inside, new bathroom, new kitchen, new wiring, redecorated etc, but basically it's still the same structure as it was originally! So why is it now 'worth' so much more? We released 25% of the equity a couple of years ago to get rid of the mortgage - we'd have been paying £250 a month until we're 83. But where did that 'equity' come from? The property is exactly the same.

Aunty Margaret

Maisie

margaretclare wrote:

If I was to pinpoint just ONE thing which has changed it has nothing to do with women working/not working. It would be the perception that the house you live in has to be seen as an 'investment' and that you expect to make money from it by selling it, buying a bigger house on a bigger mortgage and moving on again....this is exemplified in the phrase 'housing ladder'. This phrase was simply not heard.

I think those of us who bought our home back in the 1960s saw it as just that - a home. A place to live comfortably, to have a family, to bring up that family in reasonable stability. We didn't see the need to buy a home as a young single person - if we lived away from home because of work there were other options. As a student nurse I 'lived-in' for 3 years - that isn't possible for nursing students now. It was also fairly acceptable to live in lodgings or to rent a bedsit if your job took you away from home - if not, most people lived at home until marriage.

Someone has mentioned council estates not being the type of 'sink' we think of now. This is true. They were meant to be the kind of place that was pleasant to live, that people would take pride in, keeping their gardens nice just like the most up-market 'leafy suburb'! However, it wasn't all that easy to get one. When my first husband and I got married in 1957 we lived with his parents in a tiny bungalow near Dartford. We went to put our names on to the housing waiting-list and we were laughed at. A newly-wed couple without children had no chance - there just wasn't the housing stock available. (So what's new???)

Living with his parents was something I couldn't stand. We could have rented a bedsit, but I think he liked having the best of both worlds...I left, and that's how I got into nursing (married February 1957, left in June, started as a student nurse in York in September). We got back together eventually, spent 2 years with the RAF in Cyprus, came back to UK in 1962 and visited a friend who'd just bought a new-build (then) bungalow outside York. Sounded like a good idea...if I remember rightly the price was £1800, mortgage was £12 a month. We fell into all kinds of traps - because there was no history of buying a house in the family we didn't know about all the other costs involved in buying and running a house (again, so what's new?)

My present husband's experience was a little different. He lived at home until he was 29 then got married, bought a house at Greenford, Middx for £2500. He'd just got a new job at £1000 a year and he got a mortgage on that. The houses were originally built for rent, 3-bed semis, no garage, on-street parking, close to Greenford Underground with a school round the corner. His wife had 2 children by her first marriage and his 2 children were born in that house...Goodness knows what price those houses are going for now.

I think the idea of houses as an 'investment' on which you can't fail to make money came along with the Thatcher years. I don't know when the phrase 'housing ladder' as in 'gotta get on the housing ladder' appeared, but I think this idea, along with buy-to-let, has been a big factor in pushing up house prices to silly levels.

I bought this 2-bed bungalow in Essex for £58K in 1990, had a mortgage of £45K. This property was built by a speculative builder in 1930. It's now 'worth' about £160K. But is it really 'worth' that? We've done things inside, new bathroom, new kitchen, new wiring, redecorated etc, but basically it's still the same structure as it was originally! So why is it now 'worth' so much more? We released 25% of the equity a couple of years ago to get rid of the mortgage - we'd have been paying £250 a month until we're 83. But where did that 'equity' come from? The property is exactly the same.

Aunty Margaret

As Margaret said council estates were not 'sink' when first built and respectable people lived there. Among our neighbours there was a school teacher a research chemist and an archeaologist!

We lived in London when first married in 1960 and rented rooms in a house owned by a lady who lived in the other rooms.

We wanted to get a house in some way or other but could not afford to buy.

'New Towns' were being created around 1960 and my husband travelled from London by infrequent public transport(we had no car) for 4 hours a day for over 2 years and became a key worker and we got a house in Welwyn Garden City new town where we still live.

This town is one of the desired leafy suburbs and people pay a premium to live here. Eventually the New Towns commission transferred all their houses to the local council and house occupiers jumped at the chance to buy them when the right to buy rule came in.

It's interesting to see that these once ex new town commission/council houses are now much sought after. With tree lined roads,open spaces and parkland, good schools (3 or more special status schools, in science, IT, Music etc) good sports/leisure facilities and easy access to London,
Welwyn Garden City and its ex council housing has never become 'sink' .
It is a green and pleasant town well designed by Ebenezer Howard.

referring to another post about orange carpets etc. We did not have them in 1960. We had a white cast iron bath and white bathroom suite. Ercol furniture in pale colours and pale curtains and polished floors.
If people had orange carpets it was because it was fashion then just as today's fashion is beige all over!
What about the 1970's retro look that is high fashion now. We've been there done that and now it is being copied. The 60's and 70's couldn't have been that bad for fashion.

I think it's the buying for investment/rental that has caused the housing shortage and high prices. One also has to blame the banks for lending so highly. It was not easy for us to get a mortgage way back in the '70's and there was only a limited number of houses to buy. So we had the same problems as today.

History is repeating itself.

rozeepozee

Maisie wrote:

We lived in London when first married in 1960 and rented rooms in a house owned by a lady who lived in the other rooms.

Now there seems to be a change there. I don't know any married couples who are willing to do that today. Does anyone else?

Maisie wrote:

I think it's the buying for investment/rental that has caused the housing shortage and high prices. One also has to blame the banks for lending so highly. It was not easy for us to get a mortgage way back in the '70's and there was only a limited number of houses to buy. So we had the same problems as today.

I wonder about this. I know lots of people see BTL investors as inflating the market but as I've mentioned before, there is obviously a need for rental properties and now many council houses have been bought under the right to buy scheme, surely this has reduced the housing stock too. Does anyone know by how much? It seems like a bit of a vicious circle to me but if all the small investors sold their BTL properties, (and I'm not sure to whom, because at current prices it wouldn't be FTBers!) where would all those who choose to rent live???? Macro economics never was my subject -too abstract - but I'd love to hear from anyone who has some answers

Ian_W

rozeepozee wrote: Now there seems to be a change there. I don't know any married couples who are willing to do that today. Does anyone else?

No, but in 1960 there wasn't a choice. They didn't have the wherewithal to buy and there was still a very serious shortage of housing, whether for sale or rent [private or public]. It reminded me that I worked with guys 10/20yrs older than me who had started their married life at one of their parents, renting rooms as Maisie did or, if lucky, in a rented bed-sit.

and now many council houses have been bought under the right to buy scheme, surely this has reduced the housing stock too.

Right to buy hasn't actually reduced the housing stock - it's simply moved it, and the people who bought, from public rented housing to owner occupiers. The houses are still available for people to live in and to be bought and sold, even to be rented out privately by their current owners.

bunking_off

rozeepozee wrote:

I wonder about this. I know lots of people see BTL investors as inflating the market but as I've mentioned before, there is obviously a need for rental properties and now many council houses have been bought under the right to buy scheme, surely this has reduced the housing stock too. Does anyone know by how much? It seems like a bit of a vicious circle to me but if all the small investors sold their BTL properties, (and I'm not sure to whom, because at current prices it wouldn't be FTBers!) where would all those who choose to rent live???? Macro economics never was my subject -too abstract - but I'd love to hear from anyone who has some answers

It undoubtedly has an effect insofar that a good proportion of those people renting from BTL would prefer not to do so (ie that demand was slacker/supply higher so prices lower hence they'd buy themselves). However, I'm not convinced that it's very material.

How many BTL properties are there, versus how many single-adult properties are there due to later marriages/failed marriages? I think the latter will be the dominant figure, hence it's that which has driven up prices.