chem1st Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14909066 Architects say new houses are 'shameful shoebox homes' The most common new three-bedroom house was found to be smaller still, with 77% of the recommended minimum space - a shortfall equivalent to two double bedrooms Let's face it, these homes are tiny, and anyone mad enough to have purchased one in the last 7 years will be lamenting their situation for at least the next decade, using buzzwords such as 'negative equity', 'cramped' and 'overcrowded' to explain their situation to friends and family. Bankruptcy might be the best way for them to improve their lot. These problems began back in the 1980s as people's access to housing began to decline. RTB depleted the amount of council housing, not to mention the fact that they stopped building it! The Parker Morris space standards were abandoned to allow developers to build smaller homes and increase profits. Recently the situation deteriorated even further still as the Labour government began demolishing half a million homes under the pathfinder program (which has now ended without the homes being replaced), B2L mortgages became available along with Liar Loans, 5 & 6* income mortgages, rampant housing speculation lead to the housing bubble which has now popped, even lowering interest rates to a 300 year record low cannot stop houses falling in price, the end of this bubble has now created the first depression since the 1930s. Worst of all, this bubble was not like the bubble Ireland, where houses were actually built for sale, the bubble was people getting into massive amounts of debt to buy buildings which had already been built, bought, remortgaged and bought again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 **ding** ding** ding*** What's it time for?...... Oh yeah its Chem1st's daily housing whinge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 **ding** ding** ding*** What's it time for?...... Oh yeah its Chem1st's daily housing whinge Have you read the link? Or do you just reply automatically? Perhaps you believe there is no housing crisis? Maybe even think housing is affordable and of a very high standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 So a three bedroomed house is smaller than it 'should' be, by a whole 2 double bedrooms? Must be tiny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Is it Friday again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 So a three bedroomed house is smaller than it 'should' be, by a whole 2 double bedrooms? Must be tiny! They fit the show homes with specially made small furniture to make them look bigger I've seen some 3bed new builds without a garden and they call it 'attic living' because they fit the loft out as a room, one where you bang your head on the ceiling when you wake up if your unfortunate enough to have to sleep in it. Worst of all is the price £60k for a 50% share (they try and market them through shared ownership, because they are overpriced), so your renting, are tied to a mortgage in a property very unlikely to sell and liable for all repairs and service charges too. - These are properties next to council estates where you can pick up numerous larger 3-bed house built to decent space standards with decent sized gardens for under £60k. Unsurprisingly they are still unsold years later as even housing associations refuse to purchase them because A- they are too small and B- too expensive, whilst the nearby houses have fallen in price :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Have you read the link? Or do you just reply automatically? Perhaps you believe there is no housing crisis? Maybe even think housing is affordable and of a very high standard? Yeah I have read the link and think its a load of tosh. One man's opinion I feel. There is no indication that they have adjusted the figures to suit modern times of increase in population, migration and immigration, family size and the increase in demand and popularity of ownership v rental. I also find it strange that there is little mention of houses outside europe and USA where there is clearly more land. Take for example Asia. Land prices are through the roof. Nobody has a big house - they simply cant. Thousands of people live in apartments because they cannot afford a house but that's a way of life to them. We are an island. Land is not infinite. Not every piece of land can be built on and nor would we want to be. Therefore as land gets rarer it gets more expensive. In answer to your questions..... NO I dont think we have a housing crisis. We have facilities in place to provide a roof over the heads of those in genuine need. The recent homeless figures can easily be distorted as plenty of people who claim to be homeless could and do live somewhere but choose to define themselves as street homeless. I used to work in social care and had several clients who refused to live in hostel or shared houses, refused several properties and never put in a bid simply because they preferred to go around on the street begging and sleeping rough. It was worse than being a traveller. This is what council housing SHOULD be used for. People in need. Not subsidising someone working and earning. Why can't they pay market rate? The rest of us do. On the flip side we also have a clear housing envy problem. People are not prepared to live with what they can afford. There is plenty of affordable rental out there. Good quality, well looked after - mainly thanks to the buy to let and private investment because they are the ones who have to compete on an open market. However, there is a lot of snobbery with living in apartments or rental houses. They want a big house, a garden, a garage.... more and more, bigger and bigger without thinking or caring about whether or not they can afford it. That was a major contributor to the personal debt figures which have been thrown about in the press. However they never dared to point any fingers to idiots living beyond their means did they??? Despite what some people think. There is no way on earth that if we had a 2011 state built, state maintained, state controlled housing programme they would be built to a large size and good quality. I simply do not beleive. Chem1st you have got to admit. To maintain standards. We need private investment private ownership and private rental. Without it. There genuinely would be a housing crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Ideally everyone should live in a 15 bedroom mansion with 120 acres of land and a stable. The apartment I rent is tiny, but that means there is less to clean, which is brilliant IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Yeah I have read the link and think its a load of tosh. One man's opinion I feel. There is no indication that they have adjusted the figures to suit modern times of increase in population, migration and immigration, family size and the increase in demand and popularity of ownership v rental. I also find it strange that there is little mention of houses outside europe and USA where there is clearly more land. Take for example Asia. Land prices are through the roof. Nobody has a big house - they simply cant. Thousands of people live in apartments because they cannot afford a house but that's a way of life to them. We are an island. Land is not infinite. Not every piece of land can be built on and nor would we want to be. Therefore as land gets rarer it gets more expensive. In answer to your questions..... NO I dont think we have a housing crisis. We have facilities in place to provide a roof over the heads of those in genuine need. The recent homeless figures can easily be distorted as plenty of people who claim to be homeless could and do live somewhere but choose to define themselves as street homeless. I used to work in social care and had several clients who refused to live in hostel or shared houses, refused several properties and never put in a bid simply because they preferred to go around on the street begging and sleeping rough. It was worse than being a traveller. This is what council housing SHOULD be used for. People in need. Not subsidising someone working and earning. Why can't they pay market rate? The rest of us do. On the flip side we also have a clear housing envy problem. People are not prepared to live with what they can afford. There is plenty of affordable rental out there. Good quality, well looked after - mainly thanks to the buy to let and private investment because they are the ones who have to compete on an open market. However, there is a lot of snobbery with living in apartments or rental houses. They want a big house, a garden, a garage.... more and more, bigger and bigger without thinking or caring about whether or not they can afford it. That was a major contributor to the personal debt figures which have been thrown about in the press. However they never dared to point any fingers to idiots living beyond their means did they??? Despite what some people think. There is no way on earth that if we had a 2011 state built, state maintained, state controlled housing programme they would be built to a large size and good quality. I simply do not beleive. Chem1st you have got to admit. To maintain standards. We need private investment private ownership and private rental. Without it. There genuinely would be a housing crisis. Some interesting points there. Can't say I agree with it all. You touched on some of the points in here: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/ResearchAndDevelopment/Symposium/2008/MikeRoys.pdf Worth a read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 The BBC is currently firing out articles about the shockingly small size of our homes faster than I can start threads! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580 The sisters sold their comparatively spacious two-bedroom house in Croydon to move to their current property - but found there was no room for many items of furniture, including their bookcases and scores of their cherished books, most of which ended up in charity shops. Susan describes the cramped conditions that she shares with her sister as "oppressive". "We are just on top of each other the whole time. We find we are arguing much more than we used to - simply because there's not the space to be get away from one another." They are not alone - Riba estimates the floor area of the average new three-bedroom home in the UK is 88 sq m (947 sq ft) - some 8 sq m (86 sq ft) short of its recommended space. Riba's survey of new-home buyers in 2009 found that more than half (58%) said there was not enough space for furniture they owned, or would like to own. Nearly 70% said there was not enough storage for their possessions. Families reported they did not have enough space to socialise, entertain guests or spend quiet time in private, with 34% of fully occupied households said they didn't have enough space to have friends over for dinner, and 48% saying they did not have enough space to entertain visitors at all. Britain's tiny houses: • In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger) • In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger) • In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.