Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
davidg

Don't Buy That House

Recommended Posts

“People forget that housing deteriorates over time. It goes out of style. There are new innovations that people want, different layouts of rooms,” he told me. “And technological progress keeps bringing the cost of construction down.” Meaning your worn, old-fashioned home is competing with new, relatively inexpensive ones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-americans-think-owning-a-home-is-better-for-them-than-it-is/2014/04/21/5e9f4dd2-c979-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email

My mum has got hit by this. Overly large 1960s house in village a long way from nearest schools, supermarket, petrol station, public transport, jobs with large expensive to maintain swimming pool. Notionally her house is worth more than small bungalows in the village (according to the very rare sales that go through) but virtually no-one wants to buy her house, so in reality she couldn't even sell-up and move to a smaller house in the same area.

At the same time the "eco" friendly houses can be a bit overplayed. My leaky old gaff doesn't cost much to heat or run... less than the service charge on Eco flats they've built nearby due to the cost of communal solar panels and water recovery.

Edited by davidg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the states maybe. Here ugly houses on tiny plots is a given. And theyre just getting smaller.

We seem to have reverse innovation, de-evolution.

It is true that the states has more building land so can just abandon houses, or even whole cities (Detroit anyone) and build new. They also build a lot in wood which seems to have a limited lifespan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a house built 100 years ago will still be standing in a 100 years.

will a house built today still be standing in a 100 years.

You might want to think about the logic here. To put it another way, do you think all houses built a 100 years ago are still standing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mum has got hit by this. Overly large 1960s house in village a long way from nearest schools, supermarket, petrol station, public transport, jobs with large expensive to maintain swimming pool. Notionally her house is worth more than small bungalows in the village (according to the very rare sales that go through) but virtually no-one wants to buy her house, so in reality she couldn't even sell-up and move to a smaller house in the same area.

At the same time the "eco" friendly houses can be a bit overplayed. My leaky old gaff doesn't cost much to heat or run... less than the service charge on Eco flats they've built nearby due to the cost of communal solar panels and water recovery.

Same situation in Ireland, you can pick up a house with a few acres in the middle of nowhere dirt cheap.

The problem in the UK is the cost of the land is far more than the cost of the building on top of it.

Buildings can be made cheaply. Land cannot be made and is subject to tight restrictions on where the government want you to live, not where you would like to live. The government dictate where you can and can't build based on some arbitory limits sketched out on some paper in the 1950's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to think about the logic here. To put it another way, do you think all houses built a 100 years ago are still standing?

What's "all" got to do with it? The question is whether houses built 100 years ago were better built than ones built now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in 500 years there are more 19th century buildings in Britain than 20th century ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's "all" got to do with it? The question is whether houses built 100 years ago were better built than ones built now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in 500 years there are more 19th century buildings in Britain than 20th century ones.

Well, I'll put a tenner on it...

My point is that what you are really saying is "the houses built a 100 years ago that are still standing are better than the average house being built now."

You may well be right (ianas), but that's not how to demonstrate it (and a lot of the approx. 100 year old terraces in London are looking very long in the tooth these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to think about the logic here. To put it another way, do you think all houses built a 100 years ago are still standing?

If ive another 45 years on this planet i wouldnt be buying a 100 year old house an expecting it to see me through to the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to think about the logic here. To put it another way, do you think all houses built a 100 years ago are still standing?

Fair point but there are huge swathes of hundred year old houses standing in just about every village, town and city today.

I think the real point is WHEN LOOKED AFTER - older houses are likely to outlast new ones. Most if the stuff being built today is of such poor quality - there us very little point in even trying to maintain it for more than 50 years or so.

A fair analogy would be a quality built bike of 20 years ago to a 'full suspension Aldi mountain bike for only £79.99' trade off.

I know which one my money us on to last longer if looked after properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ive another 45 years on this planet i wouldnt be buying a 100 year old house an expecting it to see me through to the end.

I know a couple of people who build houses for a living, and for themselves they wont touch anything built after the start of WW1.

Its amazing with all the progress thats been made in other areas no-one is even attempting to build better houses, just build them as cheap as possible. Standards have gotten progressively worse. I would not be surprised if we live to see mass homelessness caused by some of the large modern estates simply falling down or being condemned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a couple of people who build houses for a living, and for themselves they wont touch anything built after the start of WW1.

Its amazing with all the progress thats been made in other areas no-one is even attempting to build better houses, just build them as cheap as possible. Standards have gotten progressively worse. I would not be surprised if we live to see mass homelessness caused by some of the large modern estates simply falling down or being condemned.

I think it's a peculiarly British problem, bought on by our archaic planning system which makes the land the valuable bit. Elsewhere in Europe new houses are modern and people would rather have a new build than a delapidated farmhouse (which they're more than happy to sell to us Brits).

Give me a modern home over an old any day. I'll have to build it myself to get a modern home in the UK though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a couple of people who build houses for a living, and for themselves they wont touch anything built after the start of WW1.

Its amazing with all the progress thats been made in other areas no-one is even attempting to build better houses, just build them as cheap as possible. Standards have gotten progressively worse. I would not be surprised if we live to see mass homelessness caused by some of the large modern estates simply falling down or being condemned.

It's because the cost of the land is too high! The cause of this is the restrictive planning policy.

The land price is so high that we have many houses which are fairly worthless sitting on land worth £100k's. Lower the price of the land then you can increase the build quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a peculiarly British problem, bought on by our archaic planning system which makes the land the valuable bit. Elsewhere in Europe new houses are modern and people would rather have a new build than a delapidated farmhouse (which they're more than happy to sell to us Brits).

Give me a modern home over an old any day. I'll have to build it myself to get a modern home in the UK though.

Quite right, there are some lovely new builds in Ireland, many people wouldn't touch and old damp, cold house with a barge pole.

Old farm houses are left for nature to reclaim them since the building is worthless (actually a liability) - land is so cheap you just throw up a new spec house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same situation in Ireland, you can pick up a house with a few acres in the middle of nowhere dirt cheap.

The problem in the UK is the cost of the land is far more than the cost of the building on top of it.

Buildings can be made cheaply. Land cannot be made and is subject to tight restrictions on where the government want you to live, not where you would like to live. The government dictate where you can and can't build based on some arbitory limits sketched out on some paper in the 1950's.

Land takes a lot of looking after...and forget a swimming pool in the UK a huge hole with a huge cost......people with money but limited money are looking for something easy to keep, maintain and heat, nice surrounding space/garden or countryside that they can use and walk on but are not responsible for looking after.....they want local essential services like surgery, post office shops, school, local activites, clubs, pubs, arts and social events, are fairly close to work with reasonable reliable transport, good roads...peolpe like them, that think like them, similar values and beliefs that they can interact with and understand. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.