Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 11:29:14 GMT
Is it just me, or is nearly £1m a lot of money to pay for a house that looks just like all the others? I think you could say that about any "Executive" development anywhere in the country. They all look a bit IKEA flatpak. They even have the same cars on the driveways and orange people inside the houses. |
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Dec 14, 2019 18:54:10 GMT
I hate modern developments. Poorly built, poorly designed, dull environment. Somehow the rows of early 20th century terraces or inter-war semis have more individuality that cul-de-sacs of detached houses from the 1990s and later.
Anyway thank you for your welcome back.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778 
|
Post by Rob on Dec 14, 2019 22:58:18 GMT
Of the modern developments we've looked at occasionally it seems they try to fit too many rooms in a home that is not big enough. So no room in bedrooms for storage etc. It seems very common.
The ones we happened to look at recently were a good size although the price reflected that. Two developments next to each other basically and for another £60k you could get a good sized 4 bedroom house. Or so it seemed.
Not sure about the quality of construction etc. though.
|
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Dec 15, 2019 19:13:28 GMT
The real issue for me is that a double bedroom needs to be able to fit a 5' bed with space for furniture storage for two people and there must be at least 2'6" from window reveals to the perpendicular wall to enable the installation of wardrobes without fouling the windows and enabling the fitment of curtains. Anything else is very bad design.
Usually they have double garage which is barely used and not enough reception space for the number of bedrooms. "If I ran the world....."
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778
|
Post by Rob on Dec 15, 2019 20:10:32 GMT
Doesn't sound like the ones I've seen recently are likes the ones you describe apart from a couple of Barrat Homes. I swear one double bed was short and if it was a normal size the door couldn't open into the room properly.
Some we've looked at recently had the 'additional' built in wardrobes and the room was still plenty big enough. Two variants of one house with either 3 or 4 beds.... the 3 bed version had 3 on-suite bathrooms. A lot seem to get the extra space for upstairs by building on top of the garage(s).
Developments in no particular order that we've looked at have been by:
- Barratt (too small)
- Eccleston
- Redrow
One of the homes was creaking from upstairs when people were walking around up there when we were downstairs.... doesn't bode well for long term??
|
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Dec 15, 2019 22:44:49 GMT
Thin timber floor joists (or trusses), cheap flooring materials and inadequate sound insulation. Houses from the 1930s are so much better. Even 1950s council houses are well designed and built in comparison with modern houses.
The only houses that need en-suite bathrooms for every bedroom are very large and luxurious homes in expensive areas. Not required for 99.9% of UK homes including my own.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on Dec 15, 2019 23:20:43 GMT
Fetched Boy1 back from Southampton today. His comment from some years ago — I think he was 5 — on the ‘en suite’ bathroom was:
“Does that mean that if one of you is having a poo, the other has to lie there and smell it?”
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,778
|
Post by Rob on Dec 16, 2019 0:03:53 GMT
Our house is of Edwardian design (1930s?) but I think was built a little later than planned due to the war. It is a semi-detached and when next door is shouting at his kids you can clearly hear him :-) Our thoughts on a newer house include going detached to not hear neighbours  and also to avoid costly maintenance in future. The plan is still to move to Greece if we can and rent out the UK home for income. But I do know of problems with 'new builds' and would want to avoid that. And of course many freehold developments now don't get taken on by councils and have some site management fees. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 9:11:02 GMT
I moved from a 1910 semi to a 1971 detached 10 years ago. I know 60s/70s have a bad reputation for build quality and materials, but this little Close of houses we found is a bit of an exception. Very high quality construction, for example all interior walls are solid block walls, not flimsy partition stuff. Beautiful parquet throughout the ground floor, which the previous owners had covered in dreadful carpet, and came as a lovely surprise after we moved in.
Honestly it's like night and day. I'd be really reluctant to go back to Victorian/Edwardian property again, this one is so much better laid out, and so much lighter thanks to the large windows. Heating/electric costs, despite being twice the size of the old place, are roughly half. Even though we are still running a boiler from the 1980s, and our old house had a new one in 2000. Built in double garage as opposed to no off-street parking at all - no contest. And because the "looK" of the building is a bit unfashionable compared to Victorian stuff, there's no "period features premium" when you buy them. Far bigger house, but not that much more money than the old one. We could have converted the loft, built an extension etc at the old place and spent even more money then we did moving to a bigger house, to be left with an awkward house with no parking.
I have looked at some new builds recently with my Mum who might be moving back from Wales finally, in the huge developments springing up to the south of the M4 in Berkshire, and I was quite impressed with the quality and finish I have to say. Good layouts for modern family living, but bedroom sizes would be the biggest concern for me, especially those trying to cram 5 bedrooms in. The 4 bedroom houses of similar square footage are far more comfortable and useable.
|
|
and also to avoid costly maintenance in future. The plan is still to move to Greece if we can and rent out the UK home for income.