Who will buy these homes?

CariadAgain

Doodledog - Though we're both speaking English....I'm blowed if I can understand what you're saying basically. Even though my family is "many generations English" on both sides and so I obviously speak perfect English.

You seem to be going off at a tangent and confusing the whole issue.....and I don't wish to go off at all sorts of tangents in a bid to try and understand what you're saying.

I understand what Doodledog is saying. It’s written in clear English. I see no tangents or confusion.
I’m afraid I find your comments incomprehensible carriadagain. Many tangents, much confusion.

Immigration, asylum seeking, lack of affordable housing are key points for all of us, it’s important to try and avoid posting things that just aren’t true

Just a variation on the old chestnut " They come here and take our jobs"

Only they don't.

On and on it goes, like a ghastly machine pumping out half truth and fear.

Thank you, Iam.

CariadAgain

Doodledog - Though we're both speaking English....I'm blowed if I can understand what you're saying basically. Even though my family is "many generations English" on both sides and so I obviously speak perfect English.

You seem to be going off at a tangent and confusing the whole issue.....and I don't wish to go off at all sorts of tangents in a bid to try and understand what you're saying.

No.

*Doodledog was and always is clear, but you may be confused.

Who will buy? Those who want them and can afford.

* on and on it goes, like a ghastly machine pumping out half truth and fear *

It is dangerous and stokes hatred and fear. It is so important not to distort or misrepresent the facts about refugees, asylum seekers, their impact on the European countries where they seek help, asylum or even (how very dare they) the possibility to build a better life for their families

I come from a largely white British background. We now include the sons and grandchildren of a polish man who escaped a concentration camp and fought with the free polish army. My soon to be grand daughter in law has a white British father, Burmese/ Myanmar mother. My DNA is a mix of northern English, French, Danish , Irish and Scottish. Let’s not lose humanity when considering our Housing and other needs

fancythat

Someone on this forum said even recently, what did it matter if China bought this that and the other.

It was probably me. Well, why does it matter? What it actually means is that China is investing in the UK ie pumping money into the UK economy.

CariadAgain

Doodledog - Though we're both speaking English....I'm blowed if I can understand what you're saying basically. Even though my family is "many generations English" on both sides and so I obviously speak perfect English.

You seem to be going off at a tangent and confusing the whole issue.....and I don't wish to go off at all sorts of tangents in a bid to try and understand what you're saying.

I understood Doodledog's post too. At least she manages to stick to the topic without going off on a tangent to bring up a favourite agenda item.

Norah

Who will buy? Those who want them and can afford.

Norah You should know that a straight answer isn't the one required.

“They come and take our jobs”

Yes, look at the health and cares service it couldn’t run without migrants at every level from consultants right down to care workers and cleaners.
Delivery drivers also a very high proportion of migrant workers, vegetable pickers, many other jobs that we don’t want to do.
I don’t support uncontrolled migration but we do need migrants.

M0nica

All this nonsense about housing for the elderly, why should it be assumed that we all want to downsize to one or two bedroom flats/bungalows in our old age. many of us are relieved to have lots of extra space in our houses when our children move out. Space for hobby and craft rooms, studies, space to house gym equipment, the ability to have seperate bedrooms.

Why is it always elderly small households that must downsize what about the several million households of people under retirement ages who live in three, four or more bedroomed homes? Why aren't they expected to downsize?

I have yet to meet a younger couple or singleton who did not aspire to owning a three bedroomed house. I am not talking of couples of family formation age.

We are staying with our DD at the moment, a lifelong singleton. She has just bought a five bedroomed house, Two of those bedrooms, on the same floor as her living room have been turned, one into an office for WFH and the other into a craft room. As far as she is concerned it is a three bedroomed house.

I quite agree that for many people downsizing to a flat or bungalow may be the ideal life style, and I am certainly not criticising it. Flats for the elderly seem to be going up everywhere. One area of the town I live in has almost become Twilight Quarter. There must be four or five developments for older people cheek by jowl, with another 100 just been given planning consent.

But for many older people, this is not what they want. We are both on the cusp of 82. We have just downsized to a 3-400 year old listed building needing renovation. It is ideally situated close to the town centre where all services are town service based and everything is within walking distance. We enjoy house renovation. Not everybody wants to do what we are doing, but neither does everyone want a nice flat in a retirement development.

All this nonsense about housing for the elderly, why should it be assumed that we all want to downsize to one or two bedroom flats/bungalows

It's not nonsense as you call it. Perhaps you can afford to heat and maintain, pay the Council tax etc for your large house with craft, hobby, gym rooms. Then to pay for cleaners, gardeners when you are unable to do all that for yourselves.
Many cannot.

And downsizing does not necessarily mean downsizing to a one-bedroom flat or bungalow with four rooms. Not everyone wants to buy a large, old property needing extensive renovation in their 70s or 80s either.

We don't want a nice flat in a retirement development either. Why assume that?

There is a dearth of single storey, reasonably sized homes as few have been built for many years.

growstuff

SueDonim

I had a wry smile at Toetoe’s comment comparing the quality of new builds today with those of 45 years ago. We bought a new build about 50 years ago and I remembered people saying they wouldn’t live in such a house, it would fall down in ten years time as it was cheap rubbish. Guess what, the house is still there and still lived in as are all the others in the area! People do love to decry anything new.

We now live in a very comfortable newbuild on a brownfield site on the edge of a large town. We are steps away from countryside but also close to amenities. It’s a small development but there are other massive new developments in the area. There don’t seem to be any empty houses but what does baffle me is that the population has only gone up by about 3% in 20 years. Maybe everyone is living in single-person households.

In a nostalgia trip, I recently visited the new build my family moved into in 1955 and the one they later moved to in 1961. Both houses are still there (been extended slightly), have mature gardens and look well-loved.

My parents bought their first house in the late 1930s after moving around, living in married quarters and rented accommodation.

They were told the houses were 'Jerry-built' ie shoddy. Those sturdy little semi-detached houses are still going strong, unlike many of our public buildings such as schools built in more recent times.

1930’s houses are well built. One of our family just bought their first house, a 1940s former council house. Well built, three bedrooms, good size garden. We need to build good quality social housing, with good social landlords as happened after ww2

Iam64

1930’s houses are well built. One of our family just bought their first house, a 1940s former council house. Well built, three bedrooms, good size garden. We need to build good quality social housing, with good social landlords as happened after ww2

But not prefabs, although I have visited family who lived in prefabs and they were quite large, warm and comfortable with good-sized gardens!

Our home built in the 1800s is still standing. I think all decades have good and bad. It's down to what people desire and want to afford.

We want to de-clutter, not to downsize, rather so our children have less trips to a tip. Our home has no value, the land is the bit anyone would purchase. Many old homes will be torn down soon, imo, for new builds.

^It's not nonsense as you call it. Perhaps you can afford to heat and maintain, pay the Council tax etc for your large house with craft, hobby, gym rooms. Then to pay for cleaners, gardeners when you are unable to do all that for yourselves.
Many cannot.^

And downsizing does not necessarily mean downsizing to a one-bedroom flat or bungalow with four rooms. Not everyone wants to buy a large, old property needing extensive renovation in their 70s or 80s either. We don't want a nice flat in a retirement development either. Why assume that?

There is a dearth of single storey, reasonably sized homes as few have been built for many years.

Allira Please read what I actually said. What you say is exactly what I am saying.

There are 11 million people over 65 in the UK and we are as diverse as the rest of the population. Quite a number are on low incomes and pension credit, but many also have comfortable retirement incomes and there are of course plenty of millionaaires over 65.

And if many cannot afford to maintain houses with three bedrooms and 2 or more living rooms, many can also not afford the managemnt charges associated with living in retirement complexes.

The problem is that there seems to be a belief - even among some older people that there is a one size fits all solution to housing elderly people - pack them all into small flats and bungalows, forget their diversity, individuality, varying lifestyles and preferences.

I am shouting out for saying older people are not all clones, Stepford retirees, carefully programmed to fit the holes governments and younger people think we ought to fill.

We are all different, our incomes vary from poverty to immense wealth, our housing needs and wants are various, our health can be excellent to terminally ill or seriously disabled. So trying to suggest, as so many do, that we all find ourselves a nice little flat is fatuous. For some people, incuding very good friends these retirement flats are ideal, but equally few people would want to do what we are doing at our age, but it suits us, we would never suggest this is what everyone should do, neither would we suggest anyone doing what we are doing should be stopped.

There seems to be no alternative in new building between the one or two bedrooms flats in retirement complexes or tiny bungalows and large 4 or possibly 5 bedrooms houses!

If someone has a small house then all they might want or need is perhaps a stair lift if the need arose.

Of course there is not one size fits all but there is a complete lack of reasonably sized single storey properties with a good layout and design on the market and certainly absolutely nothing of that type has been built for many years.
Perhaps it is just this area? I don't know but certainly it's very short-sighted.

Of course, builders do like to cram as many homes as possible into the space available and bungalows are presumably not cost-effective.

There are 11 million people over 65 in the UK and we are as diverse as the rest of the population. Quite a number are on low incomes and pension credit, but many also have comfortable retirement incomes and there are of course plenty of millionaaires over 65.

But some of us would have liked to downsize because a larger house and garden all becomes rather too much to cope with as we get older. There should be a middle way.

It would be good if there were more choice, and if stamp duty didn't get in the way of those who do want to downsize doing so and freeing up family-sized houses for families. In my area the majority of bungalows are on the peripheral estates, which means up a hill, as the town centre is in a valley. As the estates rarely have shops or medical provision, they are not attractive to people who are looking ahead to not driving and needing facilities in walking distance. There are lots of conveniently placed retirement flats, but there are many problems associated with them (high service charges continuing when they are for sale, small rooms and difficulties in selling them on), and not everyone wants to live surrounded by other older people.

I'm not suggesting that only the over 60s (or whatever) be exempt from stamp duty as working people carry too much of the burden of taxation as it is, but I do feel that something should be done to help houses to circulate more, and that a much more holistic view of the housing situation should be taken. That is not to stop anyone doing what they like with their own properties, or buying what suits them, but to offer genuine choice at all price points.

I used to think that the idea of home ownership was pretty unique and overrated in the UK - an English man and his castle - until I read that we are some way behind other countries like Italy, Spain, France, Romania etc and of course outside Europe too.
Yet, other countries aren't so hung up on the type of homeownership being a mark of financial success. I'm guessing owning a big or posh home is a sign of stability and good planning to most British people, but the constant climbing of the property ladder in our society has become all-consuming, and significantly detrimental to the way prices have increased.

The buyer pays the stamp duty but just like VAT it’s really a tax on sales because it’s taken into account on the overall cost of a property. If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.

If you’re downsizing to a smaller property stamp duty would be modest compared to that on your former home.
But downsizing isn't always down*costing*. When we downsized from 5 bedrooms, the price of the next property although with fewer bedrooms, was similar due to the chosen location. So no savings in terms of stamp duty

By definition, all houses must be “affordable” to someone as opposed to unaffordable-in which case no one could buy them …..why not just call them cheap, and, if they really are cheap why aren’t councils/ housing associations snapping them up to house those who need them.

escaped

I used to think that the idea of home ownership was pretty unique and overrated in the UK - an English man and his castle - until I read that we are some way behind other countries like Italy, Spain, France, Romania etc and of course outside Europe too.
Yet, other countries aren't so hung up on the type of homeownership being a mark of financial success. I'm guessing owning a big or posh home is a sign of stability and good planning to most British people, but the constant climbing of the property ladder in our society has become all-consuming, and significantly detrimental to the way prices have increased.

That’s largely because of our taxation system where all gains on your home are tax free and inheritance tax has a very high threshold. It encourages putting most saving into your dwelling rather than pensions or other investments just because it’s not going to be taxed.

Of course one size doesn't fit all. Sadly for many people, no size fits.

They don't have big properties to cash in, second homes and so on. They can't click their fingers and buy in help. They are getting by day by day.

My AC will never be able to buy until we die, but where are we supposed to live?