Why do people think new build estates are nice when they're not?

[Si1]

I mean, I'm all for housebuilding as it improves the wider market. But there's this one upmanship, status seeking associated with new builds, which turn out to be mediocre if acceptable, but astonishingly overpriced. I don't understand the sentiment.

They're usually inconveniently located and dominated by parking. Local amenities may exist but are not that close. And everything looks the same 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Si1

[ftb_fml]

We live in an economy that's dependent on perpetual consumption, with a population that's been correspondingly conditioned to blindly accept that "newer = better" to keep them buying.

[Si1]

20 minutes ago, ftb_fml said:

We live in an economy that's dependent on perpetual consumption, with a population that's been correspondingly conditioned to blindly accept that "newer = better" to keep them buying.

That has a ring of truth

In fact there seems to be a high correlation between new build estates and new cars on hire purchase 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Si1

[winkie]

People don't like estates because one road in and one road out, lots of houses built close together narrow road and pavements.....not a road that leads to anywhere.....

[Armus]

That song is the most over-used one ever.

A new build estate can be nice. Are the majority of them nice? No.

[scottbeard]

6 minutes ago, Armus said:

A new build estate can be nice. Are the majority of them nice? No.

Exactly.

Plus opinions differ on matters.  For me living in an isolated old cottage would be hell, but for others it's the dream.

[Si1]

4 minutes ago, Armus said:

That song is the most over-used one ever.

A new build estate can be nice. Are the majority of them nice? No.

Praps

It's a devastating critique of western socio economic middle class structure tho, too

Take it or leave it really, the conformity 

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, Si1 said:

It's a devastating critique of western socio economic middle class structure tho, too

Take it or leave it really, the conformity 

But take a look at rows of houses from the 1880s or 1930s and again they all look the same.  The intro to coronation Street is panning down row after row of identical houses.

Think of all the workers in identical flat caps trudging through Lowrys factory gates, or the army of bowler hatted men squeezing onto tube trains in the 1950s.

Conformity has always been part of human civilization.  Are you in our tribe, or a dangerous outsider?

[mynamehere]

Price of land is a big factor? You can buy a largely identical 4 bed new build near me for 250k in one estate, go 10 miles down the road and pay 850k for much the same house.

The quality of the build, materials, finish, plot size, often scales with the land price.

However it's increasingly common that even high end new builds are overlooked and have crappy gardens.

It would help if it was easier to buy a plot of land and hire a company to build a new house on it. 

Nimbys everywhere

 

[Si1]

47 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But take a look at rows of houses from the 1880s or 1930s and again they all look the same.  The intro to coronation Street is panning down row after row of identical houses.

Think of all the workers in identical flat caps trudging through Lowrys factory gates, or the army of bowler hatted men squeezing onto tube trains in the 1950s.

Conformity has always been part of human civilization.  Are you in our tribe, or a dangerous outsider?

True. Hence the song Little Boxes was penned in 1962.

People like new and shiny lots, don't they 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

I live on a (relatively) new build estate, early 00s.

I wouldn't say the houses are all the same. In fact quite the opposite. They made a deliberate attempt to vary the house types, there are about 8 different types maybe intermixed, not in big blocks. I think this is fairly usual.

Parking doesn't seem so much of an issue, most have drive space for at least 2 cars. Gardens do tend to be postage stamp sized, and they didn't really take the opportunity to add enough verges and large trees, the benefit being that no one ends up with their light blocked or innundated with leaves, the drawback being it looks a bit sterile and bleak in winter, although summer is normally pretty green.

The place is generally short of facilities. Basically on new builds I think the developers are normally held responsible for putting in facilities as part of the build. So normally they try to get away with the minimum possible.Stuff like Doctors, Dentists etc short on supply.

 

[MancTom]

1 hour ago, Si1 said:

I mean, I'm all for housebuilding as it improves the wider market. But there's this one upmanship, status seeking associated with new builds, which turn out to be mediocre if acceptable, but astonishingly overpriced. I don't understand the sentiment.

They're usually inconveniently located and dominated by parking. Local amenities may exist but are not that close. And everything looks the same 

 

 

I agree! Saw one near us on a fast a-road supposedly in a village. You can walk to the village shop on a grass verge dodging 60 mph + cars coming into the village! Don't understand how they get planning permission without e.g being forced to put in pavements etc to allow non-driving access to a village.

Also the houses have significant premiums compared to second hand ones. As far as I understand it is boosted by all these government schemes like HTB, to is it just people who can't actually afford a deposit for a second house who buy them? If so, its basically a different market with no overlap?

[BorrowToLeech]

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by BorrowToLeech

[Stewy]

Slums of the future. 

[scottbeard]

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I live on a (relatively) new build estate, early 00s.

I wouldn't say the houses are all the same. In fact quite the opposite. They made a deliberate attempt to vary the house types, there are about 8 different types maybe intermixed, not in big blocks. I think this is fairly usual.

Parking doesn't seem so much of an issue, most have drive space for at least 2 cars. Gardens do tend to be postage stamp sized, and they didn't really take the opportunity to add enough verges and large trees, the benefit being that no one ends up with their light blocked or innundated with leaves, the drawback being it looks a bit sterile and bleak in winter, although summer is normally pretty green.

I think that sums up the good and bad points fairly well.

More recent developments seem (2015+) to be better for driveways and parking than their 2000-2014 counterparts, though small gardens are a huge issue.

Also, houses tend to be RIGHT on the road which gives the developments a bit of a claustrophic air.  I live in one now, but am  looking to move, but ideally to a 1980s say estate where the houses are just more spread out with bigger gardens. 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

My place is not too bad for driveways. Most of the houses have 2x parking spaces (just).

The weird thing is that out the front there is a massive courtyard. This sometimes gets cars parked in the middle yet cars can still travel round the outside of them it is big enough.

So a massive courtyard yet postage stamp size gardens.

They could have moved all the houses 4m forwards, increased the garden size by maybe 25-50% and still had a turnabout at the front much wider than a normal road, but decided not too.

I think it is almost as if they could not contemplate building them with anything other than small gardens - a bloke behind a big desk shouting we will not have houses with gardens bigger than 10m2. Even if that means the street is 40 metres wide.

[scottbeard]

9 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I think it is almost as if they could not contemplate building them with anything other than small gardens - a bloke behind a big desk shouting we will not have houses with gardens bigger than 10m2. Even if that means the street is 40 metres wide.

Sometimes though I think to get planning permission they have to meet targets for "communal green space" or something like that, whereas there is no target for gardens.

Our road (mid 2000s) is chronically short of car parking - most houses have no car parking space at all except for a garage that obviously people fill with junk not cars, and almost no parking on the road.   Including the space in front of people's garages (which technically is not allowed for parking) I'd guess that there are something like 40 car parking spaces in total for 30 houses.  OFFICIALLY I think there are more like 15 spaces for 30 houses, which is sheer madness.  There should be 60 + visitors.  But a modern road would never be allowed like that, because you'd never convince a modern planner today that garages should be regarded as parking.  I think back in the late 90s/early 00s planners would accept that a house with a garage counts as "parking for 1 car".

However, despite having no car parking, it has a landscaped garden and a childrens play area.  Together they could have added about another 8 car parking spaces (a >50% increase on the official 15) but the logic I think is that you can have as tiny a garden as you like so long as you can point to the "communal green space" for kids to play in.

[nightowl]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

Sometimes though I think to get planning permission they have to meet targets for "communal green space" or something like that, whereas there is no target for gardens.

Our road (mid 2000s) is chronically short of car parking - most houses have no car parking space at all except for a garage that obviously people fill with junk not cars, and almost no parking on the road.   Including the space in front of people's garages (which technically is not allowed for parking) I'd guess that there are something like 40 car parking spaces in total for 30 houses.  OFFICIALLY I think there are more like 15 spaces for 30 houses, which is sheer madness.  There should be 60 + visitors.  But a modern road would never be allowed like that, because you'd never convince a modern planner today that garages should be regarded as parking.  I think back in the late 90s/early 00s planners would accept that a house with a garage counts as "parking for 1 car".

However, despite having no car parking, it has a landscaped garden and a childrens play area.  Together they could have added about another 8 car parking spaces (a >50% increase on the official 15) but the logic I think is that you can have as tiny a garden as you like so long as you can point to the "communal green space" for kids to play in.

We viewed a new build about 2005 which suffered from that same lack of realistic parking per house- especially if two working/commuting adults are needed to service the mortgage. The sales guy was adamant it wasn't the developers choice but a councils conditions imposed on them - can't confirm this though but seemed plausible or at least I wasnt the first to query this blunder.

Edited November 23, 2023 by nightowl

[Bob8]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Sometimes though I think to get planning permission they have to meet targets for "communal green space" or something like that, whereas there is no target for gardens.

Our road (mid 2000s) is chronically short of car parking - most houses have no car parking space at all except for a garage that obviously people fill with junk not cars, and almost no parking on the road.   Including the space in front of people's garages (which technically is not allowed for parking) I'd guess that there are something like 40 car parking spaces in total for 30 houses.  OFFICIALLY I think there are more like 15 spaces for 30 houses, which is sheer madness.  There should be 60 + visitors.  But a modern road would never be allowed like that, because you'd never convince a modern planner today that garages should be regarded as parking.  I think back in the late 90s/early 00s planners would accept that a house with a garage counts as "parking for 1 car".

However, despite having no car parking, it has a landscaped garden and a childrens play area.  Together they could have added about another 8 car parking spaces (a >50% increase on the official 15) but the logic I think is that you can have as tiny a garden as you like so long as you can point to the "communal green space" for kids to play in.

I understand the argument, but prioritising kids play over parking space does not sound that bad.

[The Angry Capitalist]

6 hours ago, Si1 said:

I mean, I'm all for housebuilding as it improves the wider market. But there's this one upmanship, status seeking associated with new builds, which turn out to be mediocre if acceptable, but astonishingly overpriced. I don't understand the sentiment.

They're usually inconveniently located and dominated by parking. Local amenities may exist but are not that close. And everything looks the same 

 

 

It's perplexed me for over a decade here in the UK.

I do think the new builds of the last 10 years or so will depreciate significantly in the next decade.

They will struggle to give them away as prices come down in the market generally.

More and more people are aware of the sub standard quality of them.

They look absolutely hideous and are tiny to boot.

I do think older properties prior to WW1 will hold their value much better and most likely will be sought after.

It's usually only a select few who really know their stuff about Britain's housing stock that only buy those older dwellings.

[bodgittandscarper]

You couldn't pay me to live in one of those souless boxes.

 

Others love them. No idea why.

[The Angry Capitalist]

4 hours ago, Stewy said:

Slums of the future. 

The first time I can actually say I agree with you.

Th only intelligent post you have made.

You are not a bot after all.

PS don't pick that bong back up.

[zugzwang]

6 hours ago, Si1 said:

That has a ring of truth

In fact there seems to be a high correlation between new build estates and new cars on hire purchase 

If houses keep shrinking they'll end up smaller than the deathcans stood outside.

 

 

[Social Justice League]

New builds don't have any land.....i.e a decent garden.

Ffs, many council houses built in the 1950's have bigger rooms and gardens than these pish new build sh1tboxes.

Pathetic.

[Gbob]

I hate the way none of the roads go anywhere. There's usually only one way in, often from a main road then lots of twiddly bits ending in cul-de-sacs. How would 10 year old me race my friends round the bock on our bikes?

Plus the gardens are always too small and over looked by a dozen other houses.