Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

How Family Homes Have Halved In Size By Over 700-Square Feet In A Century

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711257/The-space-age-long-way-How-family-homes-halved-size-700-square-feet-century.html

The average size of a family home has almost halved over the past 90 years, a report reveals today.

Families are increasingly being forced to squeeze into smaller spaces, with many children forced to share a bedroom and many new homes not having a garden or adequate storage space.

The report from the Post Office compared newly-built, semi-detached houses in 1924 with the average home being built today.

It found many of the former had four bedrooms and an average size of 1,647sq ft, while today’s typical home is almost half that size – with three bedrooms and only 925sq ft.

The difference, of 722sq ft, is the equivalent of two double-bedrooms.

Nearly a third of parents said they have sacrificed, or are willing to give up, their home’s largest bedroom for their children, the report said.

1406760255228_wps_1_composite_jpg.jpg

And prices have gone up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, a modest family home looks like an amazing prospect compared to today's dross,sad what restrictive planning policies have done and the actions of spivs turning homes into a commodity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1924,most people were living in three up two down housing,which were probably smaller than modern day semi's.

Back in 1924 a lot of people were living in slums.

A spacious 4 bed home was nothing like the norm. Far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this whole 'but in ancient times people lived with their granny in shacks with the cow downstairs' nonsense comes up every time. Living standards are supposed to increase - why is everyone so keen to throw them away and return to the Dark Ages?

The truth is that if we wanted we could build everyone in Britain a 4-bed house - we have the technology and the materials and the labour force. Shrinking rooms and cardboard walls are not an inevitable progression, and we shouldn't just shrug and accept them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big homes of yesteryear existed to accommodate not just bigger (extended) families, but also the servants.

A working class family would have a cottage in the 50 sq m ballpark, if they were fortunate enough to have a philanthropic employer who built workers cottages. Though it is ironic that some of those cottages - extended and modernised - are now desirable places to live.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this whole 'but in ancient times people lived with their granny in shacks with the cow downstairs' nonsense comes up every time. Living standards are supposed to increase - why is everyone so keen to throw them away and return to the Dark Ages?

The truth is that if we wanted we could build everyone in Britain a 4-bed house - we have the technology and the materials and the labour force. Shrinking rooms and cardboard walls are not an inevitable progression, and we shouldn't just shrug and accept them.

We also haev the land, but the government and their backers won;t allow it to be built on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trust the mail, that graphic is shit and wrong. Do they not employ checkers/proof readers?

Too busy absorbed in celebrity titilation?

Misinformation followed us like a plague.

:)

Glad you mentioned it cos it didn't make sense to me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big homes of yesteryear existed to accommodate not just bigger (extended) families, but also the servants.

A working class family would have a cottage in the 50 sq m ballpark, if they were fortunate enough to have a philanthropic employer who built workers cottages. Though it is ironic that some of those cottages - extended and modernised - are now desirable places to live.

Tied cottages and worker accommodation are a good example of HPI and degradation in the relative quality of accommodation. There are 1000s of example properties which were occupied by people doing regular jobs which can today only be afforded by very high earners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this whole 'but in ancient times people lived with their granny in shacks with the cow downstairs' nonsense comes up every time. Living standards are supposed to increase - why is everyone so keen to throw them away and return to the Dark Ages?

The truth is that if we wanted we could build everyone in Britain a 4-bed house - we have the technology and the materials and the labour force. Shrinking rooms and cardboard walls are not an inevitable progression, and we shouldn't just shrug and accept them.

Spot -on. In no other area are we prepared to accept going backwards, but in the case of housing we are always told that we should just accept things the way they are. As you say, the whole purpose of technological advancement is improve our living standards. It has never been easier to build quality and cost effective accommodation. The only thing stopping it is proper market competition in the provision of accommodation and the rationing of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trust the mail, that graphic is shit and wrong. Do they not employ checkers/proof readers?

Too busy absorbed in celebrity titilation?

I did a quick look on the amount of spelling mistakes, pictures not matching captions and other mistakes on the DM web home page today. I gave up after reaching triple figures and not getting half way down the page. Wonder how many of their own staff are the same foreigners with the crap english they so bemoan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first it looks like the caption is wrong, but actually the problem is that the two houses are supposed to represent the 1924 house....note the extension of the arrow over the 2014 house....but a very confusing graphic.

Edit. Ah I see the plan below is indeed transposed, never mind the confusing graphic.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first it looks like the caption is wrong, but actually the problem is that the two houses are supposed to represent the 1924 house....note the extension of the arrow over the 2014 house....but a very confusing graphic.

pay summer interns < peanuts, you get < monkeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first it looks like the caption is wrong, but actually the problem is that the two houses are supposed to represent the 1924 house....note the extension of the arrow over the 2014 house....but a very confusing graphic.

I agree terrible diagram....and yes that 1924 house looked very much like the two up two down terrace with back yard built at the turn of the 20th century....a place where six kids may well have been brought up in.

Kids sharing bedrooms......heaven forbid, what is the country coming to. :o

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   205 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.