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

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, Pmax2020 said:

Look at the houses many of our parents have, as well as those of friends and colleagues. Look at their lifestyles and careers. More often than not it’s at odds with the circumstances young people today are in. 

When a massive 500-600k Victorian dream home invariably appears near me, a friend will confirm “she was a teacher and he was a postman”…

Could a 30-something couple comprising of a teacher and postman afford that today? With kids? With career breaks for raising kids? Will todays couple afford all that and then retire in their late 50s?! 

Er… naw… 

Very true. I had a colleague who bought in the 90s  got promoted several times and said that as a senior manager in IIRC 2002/2003 she wouldn't be able to buy the same as a senior manager she could as a graduate employee.

[winkie]

14 hours ago, Si1 said:

This situation was caused by lenders and regulators permitting lending on such properties in the first place. From perspective of looking at government and regulation it's a disgrace. Buying houses should not have similar levels of regulation to buying dvd players. At the national level this is appalling.

Agree.......should never have been allowed to happen.....only ground rent should be peppercorn...... leasehold is archaic, and should be changed, so much about it is wrong. 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/commonhold-property

[regprentice]

On 27/11/2023 at 11:52, dryrot said:

Thx for reply! You may be right, but the lyrics scream "bohemian sneering" to me!

And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.

https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/MALVINA/mr094.htm

to be fair you could say exactly the same thing about a lot of posts you see on HPC about people who are living a life they didnt grow up in, and can't afford... typified by the new build house, the while land rover, kids in a private school, turkish teeth,  2 or 3 foreign holidays a year, a new iphone every year etc etc

The only line above there that i really struggle to understand that people would see as "bad" is "and the children go to school"... but I remember my grandfather telling me it was awful i couldnt leave school at 13 like he did and how "they" were wasting 3 or 4 years of my life. 

[scottbeard]

On 27/11/2023 at 18:44, Insane said:

More average than now. The houses in those adverts were being build in the London Suburbs today they would be £500,000 and over. If the average wage is now £35,000 it would be 14x the average wage to buy one.  

On 27/11/2023 at 19:38, Pmax2020 said:

Look at the houses many of our parents have, as well as those of friends and colleagues. Look at their lifestyles and careers. More often than not it’s at odds with the circumstances young people today are in. 

I agree that houses are vastly more unaffordable now - but that's a different question to whether that house was "typical" in the 1930s or "nicer than average".

On 27/11/2023 at 20:02, Fishfinger said:

So all those 3 bed semi detached 1930's estates in "metro land" were for the landed gentry or the upper middle classes? I think not. Somebody must have been buying them and there must have been a market for them!

Of course not - but they were mainly for the middle classes, which back in the 1930s was a far smaller part of the population than it is today, as there were a lot more manual workers. 

My own grandparents are a great case in point - my middle class grandparents (bank manager) had a house like that.  My other grandparents (cleaner/farmworker/factory worker) had a tiny house by comparison.

[Fishfinger]

On 29/11/2023 at 10:55, scottbeard said:

I agree that houses are vastly more unaffordable now - but that's a different question to whether that house was "typical" in the 1930s or "nicer than average".

Of course not - but they were mainly for the middle classes, which back in the 1930s was a far smaller part of the population than it is today, as there were a lot more manual workers. 

My own grandparents are a great case in point - my middle class grandparents (bank manager) had a house like that.  My other grandparents (cleaner/farmworker/factory worker) had a tiny house by comparison.

  The 30's house I languished in my teenage years has a foot print of a modern semi albeit with a long garden. I suspect it was aimed at the common man (account clerks perhaps foreman level) who had next to no furniture to fill it with but could grow their own food in the garden (which my father did as well). Literally the other side of the railway tracks is the 4/5 bedroom tudorbethan detached estate where your middle classes would buy and where you would have lived!

Please remember even back then before marriage, women did work so you would have a dual income to save up for the deposit. That's how my parents afforded their very modest 30's pile.

[scottbeard]

21 minutes ago, Fishfinger said:

 The 30's house I languished in my teenage years has a foot print of a modern semi albeit with a long garden. I suspect it was aimed at the common man (account clerks perhaps foreman level) who had next to no furniture to fill it with but could grow their own food in the garden (which my father did as well). Literally the other side of the railway tracks is the 4/5 bedroom tudorbethan detached estate where your middle classes would buy and where you would have lived!

That's probably fair - maybe closer to average than I first said.

21 minutes ago, Fishfinger said:

Please remember even back then before marriage, women did work so you would have a dual income to save up for the deposit. That's how my parents afforded their very modest 30's pile.

Yes - but not necessarily in jobs that would lead to a big pile of savings.  My grandma was a typist I think.

[Nick Cash]

31 minutes ago, Fishfinger said:

  The 30's house I languished in my teenage years has a foot print of a modern semi albeit with a long garden. I suspect it was aimed at the common man (account clerks perhaps foreman level) who had next to no furniture to fill it with but could grow their own food in the garden (which my father did as well). Literally the other side of the railway tracks is the 4/5 bedroom tudorbethan detached estate where your middle classes would buy and where you would have lived!

Please remember even back then before marriage, women did work so you would have a dual income to save up for the deposit. That's how my parents afforded their very modest 30's pile.

Yes the 30s house we lived in was very similar. 2 bedrooms and a box room. Long garden for growing veg. No garage - no need as cars weren’t ubiquitous. 6 houses in a terrace with an alleyway running through to another road at either end of the terrace.

In the late 60s, early 70s these were filled with working class semi skilled or low level admin people. 
 

[Fishfinger]

On 30/11/2023 at 14:28, scottbeard said:

That's probably fair - maybe closer to average than I first said.

Yes - but not necessarily in jobs that would lead to a big pile of savings.  My grandma was a typist I think.

Do bear in mnd there wasn't a lot a typist could spend their money on and teenagers weren't invented then.

Your grandmother would be living at home until the wedding. There was no foreign holidays and she might have been working from the age of 14/15 (my father left skool at 14). There was no records to buy or clothes aimed at her demographic. I suspect a lot of her free cash was spent down the cinema watching Errol Flynn😊

 

[Riedquat]

Beats me why anyone thinks they're nice, but then again I'm of the opinion that the last century of building has been an absolute destructive disaster, far, far too much and almost all of it abhorrent crap.

That said of course beauty's in the eye of the beholder, so if someone likes modern stuff on the aesthetic point of view, well, that's just what they like. It's rather disappointing though in this incredibly over-regulated age just how badly built a lot of it is, I've known more than one person have no end of trouble with a newbuild. Of course old stuff was often badly built but most of that's probably fallen down by now, so there's some survivor bias there.

On the aesthetic front, so in to personal opinion territory, there's something very fake and lifeless about it all. It very rarely feels like it belongs, almost always an out-of-place obnoxious intrusion. Both design and overall layout contribute to that I think - the designs feel like mass produced by machine tat, and even when a half-hearted attempt with something like stone cladding is made the usual impression is of Ikea furniture - chipboard underneath with some veneer on top (and they've gone to printed paper foil now), rather than the real thing. Isolating layouts with one entrance don't help the "don't fit in" part at all, and the curvy streets somehow add to that. Having to provide space for cars doesn't help.

Back early in the thread there was a "all look the same" comment. That was interesting, because quite often they don't, more so than older areas. But they somehow all feel the same, plonked down, could be anywhere. This frequently isn't the case with, say, Victorian streets, which often do all look the same but don't feel it.

[Si1]

36 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Beats me why anyone thinks they're nice, but then again I'm of the opinion that the last century of building has been an absolute destructive disaster, far, far too much and almost all of it abhorrent crap.

That said of course beauty's in the eye of the beholder, so if someone likes modern stuff on the aesthetic point of view, well, that's just what they like. It's rather disappointing though in this incredibly over-regulated age just how badly built a lot of it is, I've known more than one person have no end of trouble with a newbuild. Of course old stuff was often badly built but most of that's probably fallen down by now, so there's some survivor bias there.

On the aesthetic front, so in to personal opinion territory, there's something very fake and lifeless about it all. It very rarely feels like it belongs, almost always an out-of-place obnoxious intrusion. Both design and overall layout contribute to that I think - the designs feel like mass produced by machine tat, and even when a half-hearted attempt with something like stone cladding is made the usual impression is of Ikea furniture - chipboard underneath with some veneer on top (and they've gone to printed paper foil now), rather than the real thing. Isolating layouts with one entrance don't help the "don't fit in" part at all, and the curvy streets somehow add to that. Having to provide space for cars doesn't help.

Back early in the thread there was a "all look the same" comment. That was interesting, because quite often they don't, more so than older areas. But they somehow all feel the same, plonked down, could be anywhere. This frequently isn't the case with, say, Victorian streets, which often do all look the same but don't feel it.

I wonder is there regional variation in older building styles? Scottish Edwardian tenements looking different to southern townhouses, and the building materials and methods being adjusted to the local materials and environment?

Any given new build estate is basically indistinguishable geographically from any other. Apart from the weather one in Inverness will look pretty indistinguishable from one in Sheffield?

[Riedquat]

19 hours ago, Si1 said:

I wonder is there regional variation in older building styles? Scottish Edwardian tenements looking different to southern townhouses, and the building materials and methods being adjusted to the local materials and environment?

Any given new build estate is basically indistinguishable geographically from any other. Apart from the weather one in Inverness will look pretty indistinguishable from one in Sheffield?

Local materials will certainly make quite a lot of difference. There'll probably have been more subtle individual local variations on broadly common designs too, and overall decisions and approaches were more likely to be more locally decided.

[Bob8]

20 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Beats me why anyone thinks they're nice, but then again I'm of the opinion that the last century of building has been an absolute destructive disaster, far, far too much and almost all of it abhorrent crap.

That said of course beauty's in the eye of the beholder, so if someone likes modern stuff on the aesthetic point of view, well, that's just what they like. It's rather disappointing though in this incredibly over-regulated age just how badly built a lot of it is, I've known more than one person have no end of trouble with a newbuild. Of course old stuff was often badly built but most of that's probably fallen down by now, so there's some survivor bias there.

On the aesthetic front, so in to personal opinion territory, there's something very fake and lifeless about it all. It very rarely feels like it belongs, almost always an out-of-place obnoxious intrusion. Both design and overall layout contribute to that I think - the designs feel like mass produced by machine tat, and even when a half-hearted attempt with something like stone cladding is made the usual impression is of Ikea furniture - chipboard underneath with some veneer on top (and they've gone to printed paper foil now), rather than the real thing. Isolating layouts with one entrance don't help the "don't fit in" part at all, and the curvy streets somehow add to that. Having to provide space for cars doesn't help.

Back early in the thread there was a "all look the same" comment. That was interesting, because quite often they don't, more so than older areas. But they somehow all feel the same, plonked down, could be anywhere. This frequently isn't the case with, say, Victorian streets, which often do all look the same but don't feel it.

Yes, the critcism of all looking the same in comparison to older housing is unfair. That we can age pretty housing to about ten years shows that housing of specific periods has always tended to look the same.

[TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack]

I can think of one advantage of new build houses which is the number of toilets in en-suites etc. Ironically the only time I have lived in a property with two toilets was when I lived on my own in the 1960s bungalow I rented and bizarrely that had a second toilet, with no washbasin or anything else right next to the main bathroom. It must have seemed a good idea to the Architect at the time.

[Si1]

22 hours ago, TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack said:

I can think of one advantage of new build houses which is the number of toilets in en-suites etc. Ironically the only time I have lived in a property with two toilets was when I lived on my own in the 1960s bungalow I rented and bizarrely that had a second toilet, with no washbasin or anything else right next to the main bathroom. It must have seemed a good idea to the Architect at the time.

Council houses of 3 bedrooms+ tend to have two sh#tters owing to being practically designed for families. Yeah new builds often do have ludicrous toilet provision too 

[Fishfinger]

22 hours ago, TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack said:

I can think of one advantage of new build houses which is the number of toilets in en-suites etc.

The footprint of new builds are pathetically small so the last thing you need is a glut of loos. Also the en suite ones have cardboard walls so you can hear everything going on! I've got IBS so I'm the last person you want to hear or smell in the bedroom!

Does everyone make a rush for the loo at the same time? Is there a hidden dysentry epidemic going on?😀

I can only assume these multi loos are popular with diabetics as that condition used to be known as the "peeing disease" (hopefully that got throught the censor!)

[winkie]

22 hours ago, TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack said:

I can think of one advantage of new build houses which is the number of toilets in en-suites etc. Ironically the only time I have lived in a property with two toilets was when I lived on my own in the 1960s bungalow I rented and bizarrely that had a second toilet, with no washbasin or anything else right next to the main bathroom. It must have seemed a good idea to the Architect at the time.

Lots of 1930s properties were build with bath and wash basin separate from the toilet next door......I kind of prefer that, the in thing was to knock the wall down to make the loo sit next to the bath/shower in the same room......seen a shower actually fitted in a bedroom, what is that all about?

[Riedquat]

52 minutes ago, winkie said:

Lots of 1930s properties were build with bath and wash basin separate from the toilet next door......I kind of prefer that, the in thing was to knock the wall down to make the loo sit next to the bath/shower in the same room......seen a shower actually fitted in a bedroom, what is that all about?

My grandparents' house was like that, I always found it a bit odd (separate toilet and basin, not shower in a bedroom!)

[Si1]

1 hour ago, Fishfinger said:

The footprint of new builds are pathetically small so the last thing you need is a glut of loos. Also the en suite ones have cardboard walls so you can hear everything going on! I've got IBS so I'm the last person you want to hear or smell in the bedroom!

Does everyone make a rush for the loo at the same time? Is there a hidden dysentry epidemic going on?😀

I can only assume these multi loos are popular with diabetics as that condition used to be known as the "peeing disease" (hopefully that got throught the censor!)

I've got 2 loos and it's effing fantastic when multiple people need a pee just before we all leave the house as a family at 8 in the morning for school and work. 

[TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack]

12 hours ago, Fishfinger said:

Does everyone make a rush for the loo at the same time? 

It often seems like it

12 hours ago, winkie said:

Lots of 1930s properties were build with bath and wash basin separate from the toilet next door.

A friend has a house on an estate which I would guess is late 60s or early 70s built like that. To try and narrow down the era it was also built with that warm air heating which was fashionable for a while.

11 hours ago, Si1 said:

I've got 2 loos and it's effing fantastic when multiple people need a pee just before we all leave the house as a family at 8 in the morning for school and work. 

I bet it is. A second loo would be a top priority for any kind of extension here. Here, both neighbours have put loos in their garages which are probably too small for anything larger than a Ford Anglia.

[regprentice]

12 hours ago, winkie said:

Lots of 1930s properties were build with bath and wash basin separate from the toilet next door......I kind of prefer that, the in thing was to knock the wall down to make the loo sit next to the bath/shower in the same room......seen a shower actually fitted in a bedroom, what is that all about?

i visited a friend in Edinburghs old town who was in a flatshare. Their toilet was right in the middle of a large room that could have been a  bedroom. mo bath or shower just a toilet in the middle of the room with 2m of clear floor all around it for 360 degrees like a proverbial throne . Most other flats i had seen had squeezed toilets and showers into cupboards and you often had to step up into the shower.

 

On 04/12/2023 at 20:01, TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack said:

I can think of one advantage of new build houses which is the number of toilets in en-suites etc. 

Disabled regs require all new homes to have a downstairs toilet. whenever my council builds new council homes they get allocated to people already in a council house who have a disability and those peoples older,crappier , council homes get given to new tenants ... most of whom have disability needs to be at the top of the waiting list so could have better used the newer housing stock.

[TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack]

34 minutes ago, regprentice said:

i visited a friend in Edinburghs old town who was in a flatshare. Their toilet was right in the middle of a large room that could have been a  bedroom. mo bath or shower just a toilet in the middle of the room with 2m of clear floor all around it for 360 degrees like a proverbial throne . Most other flats i had seen had squeezed toilets and showers into cupboards and you often had to step up into the shower.

My sister rented a Victorian house in which, from the size, it was obvious that a bedroom had been converted into a bathroom. 

On the subject of strange layouts, a friend rented a downstairs flat. When I first visited I didn't realise it was a bedsit as there was a door going off from the kitchen to what I initially guessed would be the rest of the flat. No it turned out to be the bathroom in the literal sense of the word. A small room with nothing but a bath in it. The toilet and was-basin were at the opposite end of the flat ! 

[Bob8]

13 hours ago, winkie said:

Lots of 1930s properties were build with bath and wash basin separate from the toilet next door......I kind of prefer that, the in thing was to knock the wall down to make the loo sit next to the bath/shower in the same room......seen a shower actually fitted in a bedroom, what is that all about?

They were often built with the sink and bath together and the toilet without a sink in the next room. Seems bonkers.

[a5042680]

Depends where you look, in Shropshire we have Shropshire Homes who build small estates, 20-25 houses say with large gardens.  Decent quality/size.

[Si1]

21 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

They were often built with the sink and bath together and the toilet without a sink in the next room. Seems bonkers.

In the days before daily quick showers it meant you might get a bath several times a week instead, spend half an hour or more in there. Having a loo in its own room saved someone else taking a poo in the same room as you having your relaxing bath. That's my take anyway.

[Si1]

15 minutes ago, a5042680 said:

Depends where you look, in Shropshire we have Shropshire Homes who build small estates, 20-25 houses say with large gardens.  Decent quality/size.

That's really interesting. All power to them.