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

[jiltedjen]

I think the appeal of new builds was due to lack of availability of quality housing stock, mainly due to rapid increases of longer life-spans and an outsized big older generation, many decent houses have just not been on the market. The increase in lifespans over a relatively short period has caused a temporary drought of homes. 

Newer built houses which may of been ‘worth’ their sticker price when new (as there was not a lot of other better choices), however they will plummet in value as actually decent decent housing stock becomes available probably for the first time in 30 odd years. 

new build estates are the negative equity slums of the future. they may of made sense briefly, but not in a more normalised market.

also interestingly in a more normalised market (regarding interest rates) any houses being built will have to actually be quality with nice features to sell, a world away from ‘stack em high, build them cheap, sell to any old mug’.

the tiny poorly built rabbit hutches of recent years will fair very badly moving forward.

now the 20 year additional life span was passed, we will have a constant dribble of quality houses feeding into the market, better quality, size and location. new build asking prices will look like a bad joke in comparison of the volume of decent quality houses finally becoming available.

the price and demand of new build houses, was a 20 year never-to-be repeated one time thing. those values are dropping and will never return.

but people did buy them. they will regret it in time. 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by jiltedjen

[TheResponsibleHouseBuyer]

7 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 

Yeah cos the tory party has been in bed with housebuilders since time began.

[fellow]

7 hours ago, winkie said:

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.....

What annoys me are the narrow, continuously winding roads (just because?) which then have super harsh speed bumps every 50 yards when you couldn't even get above 20mph anyway. What's wrong with normal straight roads?

[A.steve]

42 minutes ago, fellow said:

What's wrong with normal straight roads?

It's said they aren't inclusive enough.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, fellow said:

What annoys me are the narrow, continuously winding roads (just because?) which then have super harsh speed bumps every 50 yards when you couldn't even get above 20mph anyway. What's wrong with normal straight roads?

Agree, once enter not a pleasant place to visit.

[steve99]

There is a newer and quite acceptable estate near where we live. Over the decade since it started had become more refined with lots of shrubs etc and well cared for houses etc and massive park, brook and trees through the middle of it.  (nothing like some of the mega estates) However the major drawback to nearly all new estates now is the fact that councils will not adopt the roads and green spaces which the builders then sell on (another housing con) to a corrupt rapacious management company who then game it for every penny.  The so called freeholders of these houses are completly at the mercy of these management companies and what they choose to charge. These management companies have site managers that have their patch which might cover a dozen estates and their sole remit is to generate income by finding as many faults and issues of possible to charge the estate with, all at inflated prices with kickbacks from the contractors of course. Of course, none of this comes under consumer law so there is little the house 'owners' can do about it. The government is not interested of course as they are up to their necks in such schemes and scams.  Many of these management companies operate from offshore for tax purposes of course. 

[Armus]

1 hour ago, steve99 said:

There is a newer and quite acceptable estate near where we live. Over the decade since it started had become more refined with lots of shrubs etc and well cared for houses etc and massive park, brook and trees through the middle of it.  (nothing like some of the mega estates) However the major drawback to nearly all new estates now is the fact that councils will not adopt the roads and green spaces which the builders then sell on (another housing con) to a corrupt rapacious management company who then game it for every penny.  The so called freeholders of these houses are completly at the mercy of these management companies and what they choose to charge. These management companies have site managers that have their patch which might cover a dozen estates and their sole remit is to generate income by finding as many faults and issues of possible to charge the estate with, all at inflated prices with kickbacks from the contractors of course. Of course, none of this comes under consumer law so there is little the house 'owners' can do about it. The government is not interested of course as they are up to their necks in such schemes and scams.  Many of these management companies operate from offshore for tax purposes of course. 

I don’t know how true it is but I heard something about mortgage companies refusing to lend unless there is a cap on the potential increase of those service charges.

Edit - found this MSE thread on it. The MSE posters seem to think the principle is stupid but I think there should be a cap, especially for houses. Yes, there will be increases in labour and material costs but the increases shouldn’t be infinite. You could even put a review period in the contract to reflect inflation.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6452565/lender-treating-service-charge-like-ground-rent

Edited November 24, 2023 by Armus

[dryrot]

On 23/11/2023 at 12:07, Si1 said:

 

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

Little Boxes is one of the snobbiest songs I know. Building houses that people can own and live and have families is a good thing.

And if it impacts my privelege...

"A giant sneer at so-called suburban conformity. Tom Lehrer, a far more gifted social observer, called it "the most sanctimonious song ever written". If you go to those post-war sub-divisions now, the little boxes are individualized with dormers and porches and bay windows and a spare room above the garage and climbing ivy up to the roof. If Malvina Reynolds wanted to see little people living little lives in little boxes, she should have seen the totalitarian housing the Communists warehoused their citizens in throughout the Warsaw Pact: two-room flats, seriously little boxes, and all identical."

https://www.steynonline.com/11116/morningtown-ride

Edited November 24, 2023 by dryrot

[zugzwang]

14 minutes ago, dryrot said:

Little Boxes is one of the snobbiest songs I know. Building houses that people can own and live and have families is a good thing.

And if it impacts my privelege...

"A giant sneer at so-called suburban conformity. Tom Lehrer, a far more gifted social observer, called it "the most sanctimonious song ever written". If you go to those post-war sub-divisions now, the little boxes are individualized with dormers and porches and bay windows and a spare room above the garage and climbing ivy up to the roof. If Malvina Reynolds wanted to see little people living little lives in little boxes, she should have seen the totalitarian housing the Communists warehoused their citizens in throughout the Warsaw Pact: two-room flats, seriously little boxes, and all identical."

https://www.steynonline.com/11116/morningtown-ride

 

And modern America's tent cities? Are they too immortalised in song?

Perhaps Steyn and his free market gallants could knock up a stage musical?

[dryrot]

4 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

And modern America's tent cities? Are they too immortalised in song?

Perhaps Steyn and his free market gallants could knock up a stage musical?

??? The snobbish Little Boxes song is an attack on poor people buying simple houses. And you don't like them doing that? (Sheesh...)

[Si1]

3 hours ago, dryrot said:

??? The snobbish Little Boxes song is an attack on poor people buying simple houses. And you don't like them doing that? (Sheesh...)

(It's an attack on university educated business men, engineers and doctors buying boxy houses but at the same time it's their perogative. It's also a metaphor for the literal and cultural fragility of their lives)

 

Is it an attack or a wry observation? It's certainly social commentary.

Yeah it's also reasonable to call it academically elitist true.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Si1

[TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack]

On 11/23/2023 at 3:12 PM, scottbeard said:

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. 

As others have said it is due to planning permission requiring a certain density.
I find it annoying that they make a huge deal about protecting mono-culture "Green Belt" yet decent size gardens can be far more wildlife friendly. There are quite a few estates around here, built in the 1960s with a density of about 1/3rd of that expected these days. The same with low blocks of flats. Many of the 1960s and 1970s ones have communal gardens bigger than the footprint of the flats.  

Edited November 24, 2023 by TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack
typo

[zugzwang]

3 hours ago, dryrot said:

??? The snobbish Little Boxes song is an attack on poor people buying simple houses. And you don't like them doing that? (Sheesh...)

Buying simple houses is not what poor people are doing. There is no spare room above the ivy covered garage for this generation. Increasingly they're being priced out of the housing market altogether by Wall Street bankers and institutional landlords. By the kind of Social Darwinism that Mark Steyn exults.

Edited November 24, 2023 by zugzwang

[steve99]

19 hours ago, Armus said:

I don’t know how true it is but I heard something about mortgage companies refusing to lend unless there is a cap on the potential increase of those service charges.

Edit - found this MSE thread on it. The MSE posters seem to think the principle is stupid but I think there should be a cap, especially for houses. Yes, there will be increases in labour and material costs but the increases shouldn’t be infinite. You could even put a review period in the contract to reflect inflation.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6452565/lender-treating-service-charge-like-ground-rent

Quite right that lenders are getting wary of such onerous obligations attached to a property.  It is the never ending gaming of housing in all its forms that has been expanding exponentially over the last 20 years.  Too much money is being made, mostly on the lack of consumer rights in housing/real-estate law. As it stands such contracts for houses on private roads managed by management companies are open ended contracts.  Here is the campaign site re this issue.

https://www.homeownersrights.net/

[Armus]

1 hour ago, steve99 said:

Quite right that lenders are getting wary of such onerous obligations attached to a property.  It is the never ending gaming of housing in all its forms that has been expanding exponentially over the last 20 years.  Too much money is being made, mostly on the lack of consumer rights in housing/real-estate law. As it stands such contracts for houses on private roads managed by management companies are open ended contracts.  Here is the campaign site re this issue.

https://www.homeownersrights.net/

Seems a good campaign. I wonder what difference it makes to costs to make roads and paths up to “adoptable” standards.

[Money Frugality]

Mmm depends. 
 

I have an early 00 new build 4 bed.. Decent parking (two car driveway easily get rid of grass for 4.) Large enough garden to not enjoy mowing the grass. Nice mixture of house types. 
 

The issue I have is the roof is garbage (get a wasp nest in the loft each year) & living next to a large green space brings all the critters close and sometimes they find their way in.. 

Seen some new builds which are built like garbage, all depends on the builder tbh. Would I buy another new build, yes, but the right kind but I’d like somewhere bigger which kind of limits the pool as new builds tend to top out in total floor space. 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Money Frugality

[Bob8]

Living in Europe, preferring new homes makes sense.

They are made to higher standard, they are designed specifically with contemporary life in mind, typically they have more room and far more energy efficient with far, far fewer maintenance issues.

The question really is why this is not the case in the UK.

[Fishfinger]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

Living in Europe, preferring new homes makes sense.

They are made to higher standard, they are designed specifically with contemporary life in mind, typically they have more room and far more energy efficient with far, far fewer maintenance issues.

The question really is why this is not the case in the UK.

I would imagine there's a dearth of pre war stock in Germany and Poland. We, the Yanks, the Russians and the Germans saw to that😄

[Si1]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

Living in Europe, preferring new homes makes sense.

They are made to higher standard, they are designed specifically with contemporary life in mind, typically they have more room and far more energy efficient with far, far fewer maintenance issues.

The question really is why this is not the case in the UK.

That's a very good point. 

[Bob8]

30 minutes ago, Fishfinger said:

I would imagine there's a dearth of pre war stock in Germany and Poland. We, the Yanks, the Russians and the Germans saw to that😄

Yet, still the case in the very many nations that were either more or less affected by WW2.

5 minutes ago, Si1 said:

That's a very good point. 

Thank you.

[jiltedjen]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

Living in Europe, preferring new homes makes sense.

They are made to higher standard, they are designed specifically with contemporary life in mind, typically they have more room and far more energy efficient with far, far fewer maintenance issues.

The question really is why this is not the case in the UK.

Agree with this.

very very cheap to run houses do pay for themselves in savings.

but UK houses are not to this level. 

[scottbeard]

On 23/11/2023 at 18:55, Bob8 said:

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

But why not grant planning permission only if it does BOTH?

[Si1]

3 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

Agree with this.

very very cheap to run houses do pay for themselves in savings.

but UK houses are not to this level. 

Low rise council housing built since the 70s energy crisis is in that ballpark. Bit plain looking but well designed built and engineered. The trick is finding some with a good social mix.

Obviously they stopped building thus stuff in the 90s when RTB was introduced.

[Bob8]

4 hours ago, scottbeard said:

But why not grant planning permission only if it does BOTH?

I don't know. Genuinely rather than rhetorically.

[steve99]

On 25/11/2023 at 15:46, Armus said:

Seems a good campaign. I wonder what difference it makes to costs to make roads and paths up to “adoptable” standards.

It has little to do with it. The builders like it like this and the councils don't want builders to put in up to standard roads. This way the councils absolve themselves from responsibility for roads, lighting and even more so, maintaining green spaces etc, whilst garnering new council tax, at full price of course. To top it off, builders have to pay councils quite a lot of money in order to get permission to build on a site which is then loaded onto the new home prices. Much of this is supposedly for the extra infrastructure, but in reality all they do is stick up another couple of road signs and the rest of the infrastructure just suffers under pressure.  (like the town I live in where not only have they been building another mega estate, they have also allowed the building of 100s of homes for the very elderly without any consideration to the extra medical services etc needed. A tory council with a Tory MP has much to do with the state of my town. They even bulldozed down the swimming pool, are about to close the remaining gym/sports centre for lack of money but a the same time have frittered the £25million leveling up fund on a handfull of pointless projects, eg a £2million It project for the local museum that nobody visits)