Persimmon Homes -- CEO £100m Bonus...

[blueg33]

V8 Fettler said:

blueg33 said:

The change to FH plots from LH plots will be because the whole industry is changing. The change back to FH is because they all tried to get greedy by selling off ground rents that were inflating and suddenly buyers realised what that meant.

I have seen some high quality Persimmon sites and some shoddy ones, you cannot tar the whole of a volume house builder on the basis of one site. Local site management remains the single biggest factor in quality of product.

= cottage industry with little in the way of quality control

I don't think you know what cottage industry means

250k people work in house building, 2.9m people work in construction.

So how do you propose that quality control is deal with on site? (hint, off site production is not the panacea that many people think it is)

Problems on site that impact quality is not solely the preserve of house building, it affects absolutely every type of construction. The fact is that buildings cannot yet be done by robots (don't mention off site construction here either), so people are vital and the failings are usually down to people somewhere.

I cannot think of any other complex mass produced product that doesn't have quality issues some of the time. No take a complex product that has to fit in with environmental factors built by many people who no longer have pride in the job.

Pride in the job is a societal issue, but has a massive impact on construction.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 21st December 09:41

[crankedup]

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

[blueg33]

crankedup said:

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

[crankedup]

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

Wrong imo, first hand experiences from a good pal that worked in the industry tells me just how crap new build is. Not only that I have been around long enough, bought and sold so many properties I have lost count, looked at new builds with my critical eye in. You can use all of the meaningless and inappropriate antecdotes you like, it doesn’t change realities.
So far as the comparison to today’s new build v Victorian, the only thing I can say is that the Victorian build didn’t understand thermal insulation, other than that i torian wins out hands down.

So far as Bovis is concerned, they got caught out this time, who’s next I wonder for they are all ste.

[blueg33]

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

Wrong imo, first hand experiences from a good pal that worked in the industry tells me just how crap new build is. Not only that I have been around long enough, bought and sold so many properties I have lost count, looked at new builds with my critical eye in. You can use all of the meaningless and inappropriate antecdotes you like, it doesn’t change realities.
So far as the comparison to today’s new build v Victorian, the only thing I can say is that the Victorian build didn’t understand thermal insulation, other than that i torian wins out hands down.

So far as Bovis is concerned, they got caught out this time, who’s next I wonder for they are all ste.

It may be your opinion, but quantitatively what you are spouting is plainly wrong.

I am not talking anecdotes as you have, I am not talking about "my mate says" or "I bought a house but..."

I am in the industry and have been for over 30 years, I am a chartered surveyor who has done his fair share of structural surveys when I was in agency, and I have seen good and bad of all types of houses. I have fired construction directors and site managers for crappy build, I have promoted people for good build, I have run house builders with the highest customer care ratings in the industry, I have inspect 1000's of new homes, I know what I am talking about.

Overall, new homes are:

better built
built to a higher standard with better materials (I would probably exclude soft wood skirting boards from the better materials bit)
built with better understanding of ground bearing capabilities,
built with a better understanding of structural loads
built with better moisture management
built with better plumbing and better electrics
built with an understanding of management of radon and ground gasses
built with better heating
built with better insulation
built with better understanding of solar gain
built with wall ties that are properly tested and installed (many properties built from 1910 to 1970's have issues with wall ties failure
built with closer supervision to ensure adherence to building regs

the list goes on

Please don't spout anecdotal crap to people who actually know about this stuff. Anecdotal crap is not fact its just anecdotal crap based on a sample size so small that its insignificant.

[scenario8]

blueg33 said:

It may be your opinion, but quantitatively what you are spouting is plainly wrong.

I am not talking anecdotes as you have, I am not talking about "my mate says" or "I bought a house but..."

I am in the industry and have been for over 30 years, I am a chartered surveyor who has done his fair share of structural surveys when I was in agency, and I have seen good and bad of all types of houses. I have fired construction directors and site managers for crappy build, I have promoted people for good build, I have run house builders with the highest customer care ratings in the industry, I have inspect 1000's of new homes, I know what I am talking about.

Overall, new homes are:

better built
built to a higher standard with better materials (I would probably exclude soft wood skirting boards from the better materials bit)
built with better understanding of ground bearing capabilities,
built with a better understanding of structural loads
built with better moisture management
built with better plumbing and better electrics
built with an understanding of management of radon and ground gasses
built with better heating
built with better insulation
built with better understanding of solar gain
built with wall ties that are properly tested and installed (many properties built from 1910 to 1970's have issues with wall ties failure
built with closer supervision to ensure adherence to building regs

the list goes on

Please don't spout anecdotal crap to people who actually know about this stuff. Anecdotal crap is not fact its just anecdotal crap based on a sample size so small that its insignificant.

Sounds about right to me. People do seem to want to view the World in a very binary way. Loads of old stock is terrible. Loads of new builds are mediocre, many are poor. A lot of new stock is as you describe and I would be very happy to recommend or purchase/live in myself.

Horses for courses in many ways, I suppose.

[Gunk]

blueg33 said:

It may be your opinion, but quantitatively what you are spouting is plainly wrong.

I am not talking anecdotes as you have, I am not talking about "my mate says" or "I bought a house but..."

I am in the industry and have been for over 30 years, I am a chartered surveyor who has done his fair share of structural surveys when I was in agency, and I have seen good and bad of all types of houses. I have fired construction directors and site managers for crappy build, I have promoted people for good build, I have run house builders with the highest customer care ratings in the industry, I have inspect 1000's of new homes, I know what I am talking about.

Overall, new homes are:

better built
built to a higher standard with better materials (I would probably exclude soft wood skirting boards from the better materials bit)
built with better understanding of ground bearing capabilities,
built with a better understanding of structural loads
built with better moisture management
built with better plumbing and better electrics
built with an understanding of management of radon and ground gasses
built with better heating
built with better insulation
built with better understanding of solar gain
built with wall ties that are properly tested and installed (many properties built from 1910 to 1970's have issues with wall ties failure
built with closer supervision to ensure adherence to building regs

the list goes on

Please don't spout anecdotal crap to people who actually know about this stuff. Anecdotal crap is not fact its just anecdotal crap based on a sample size so small that its insignificant.

This is all true, however I think we are at an all time low with the quality of architecture on new home developments, most are derivative, designed on a computer to get through planning and produce the largest yield per acre. The result are housing estates with boring three storey town houses and double fronted detached houses all nodding to the past with fake tiny sash windows and pseudo period features. Where is the flair, imagination or progression?

Edited by Gunk on Thursday 21st December 17:04

[V8 Fettler]

blueg33 said:

V8 Fettler said:

blueg33 said:

The change to FH plots from LH plots will be because the whole industry is changing. The change back to FH is because they all tried to get greedy by selling off ground rents that were inflating and suddenly buyers realised what that meant.

I have seen some high quality Persimmon sites and some shoddy ones, you cannot tar the whole of a volume house builder on the basis of one site. Local site management remains the single biggest factor in quality of product.

= cottage industry with little in the way of quality control

I don't think you know what cottage industry means

250k people work in house building, 2.9m people work in construction.

So how do you propose that quality control is deal with on site? (hint, off site production is not the panacea that many people think it is)

Problems on site that impact quality is not solely the preserve of house building, it affects absolutely every type of construction. The fact is that buildings cannot yet be done by robots (don't mention off site construction here either), so people are vital and the failings are usually down to people somewhere.

I cannot think of any other complex mass produced product that doesn't have quality issues some of the time. No take a complex product that has to fit in with environmental factors built by many people who no longer have pride in the job.

Pride in the job is a societal issue, but has a massive impact on construction.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 21st December 09:41

Cottage industry meaning that quality varies from location to location, just as it did for the manufacturing sector pre-industrial revolution when goods were manufactured in the workers cottages

[blueg33]

Gunk said:

This is all true, however I think we are at an all time low with the quality of architecture on new home developments, most are derivative, designed on a computer to get through planning and produce the largest yield per acre. The result are housing estates with boring three storey town houses and double fronted detached houses all nodding to the past with fake tiny sash windows and pseudo period features. Where is the flair, imagination or progression?

Edited by Gunk on Thursday 21st December 17:04

I agree, but I think you will find the same with all volume housing, every town has identikit Victorian housing, identikit 1930's, identikit 1950's etc

Volume housing is like volume cars to that extent, it is not economic to be radically different, or architecturally interesting beyond the basic stuff, and plotting efficiency is vital, if you don't get that you don't buy the land and you are very quickly out of business.

To prove things can be better, though here are some I did earlier:




This won architectural awards


And then there are those built for a wider market, eg volume



and then there are the ones where the tax payer is footing the bill



Basically, the less money the customer has the less interesting the architecture.

[Gunk]

It’s not all doom and gloom, there are some good quality smaller developments, this is in Cambridgeshire

[PugwasHDJ80]

Gunk said:

It’s not all doom and gloom, there are some good quality smaller developments, this is in Cambridgeshire

What we need to get back to is lot of smaller owner managed medium sized business who build high quality homes- it's what happened in the thirties and forties and worked really well.

The local house builders near us buid lovely homes- they just can't get the land or funding to build more!

[blueg33]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

What we need to get back to is lot of smaller owner managed medium sized business who build high quality homes- it's what happened in the thirties and forties and worked really well.

The local house builders near us buid lovely homes- they just can't get the land or funding to build more!

They cznt get the Land because their build cost is too high. Lanc is competitive and land value equals sales price less costs. So costs have to be kept down and architectural detail is expensive.

[crankedup]

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

Wrong imo, first hand experiences from a good pal that worked in the industry tells me just how crap new build is. Not only that I have been around long enough, bought and sold so many properties I have lost count, looked at new builds with my critical eye in. You can use all of the meaningless and inappropriate antecdotes you like, it doesn’t change realities.
So far as the comparison to today’s new build v Victorian, the only thing I can say is that the Victorian build didn’t understand thermal insulation, other than that i torian wins out hands down.

So far as Bovis is concerned, they got caught out this time, who’s next I wonder for they are all ste.

It may be your opinion, but quantitatively what you are spouting is plainly wrong.

I am not talking anecdotes as you have, I am not talking about "my mate says" or "I bought a house but..."

I am in the industry and have been for over 30 years, I am a chartered surveyor who has done his fair share of structural surveys when I was in agency, and I have seen good and bad of all types of houses. I have fired construction directors and site managers for crappy build, I have promoted people for good build, I have run house builders with the highest customer care ratings in the industry, I have inspect 1000's of new homes, I know what I am talking about.

Overall, new homes are:

better built
built to a higher standard with better materials (I would probably exclude soft wood skirting boards from the better materials bit)
built with better understanding of ground bearing capabilities,
built with a better understanding of structural loads
built with better moisture management
built with better plumbing and better electrics
built with an understanding of management of radon and ground gasses
built with better heating
built with better insulation
built with better understanding of solar gain
built with wall ties that are properly tested and installed (many properties built from 1910 to 1970's have issues with wall ties failure
built with closer supervision to ensure adherence to building regs

the list goes on

Please don't spout anecdotal crap to people who actually know about this stuff. Anecdotal crap is not fact its just anecdotal crap based on a sample size so small that its insignificant.

You are stating technical improvements that are built into houses, what I am saying is the houses built are rubbish. New shiny copper pipes are fine if the walls underneath the plaster are well built, they are not in too many instances.. The other stuff you mention is fine on paper, it just don’t get built to the standard required. You can stamp your feet all day and tell me how good an expert you think you are, but the houses are rubbish. now advise me why new build mass market homes are built like ste You could be god almighty for all I care the fact remains that new builds are thrown up by tradespeople who just want to earn and go. No interest in the product at all, designed down to a cost for max profit.
So far as design is concerned, what you spout is simply regulatory ‘as long as it complies ‘ it will do. Maybe you should get out more and have a close look at these new builds from the customers pov.

[crankedup]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Gunk said:

It’s not all doom and gloom, there are some good quality smaller developments, this is in Cambridgeshire

What we need to get back to is lot of smaller owner managed medium sized business who build high quality homes- it's what happened in the thirties and forties and worked really well.

The local house builders near us buid lovely homes- they just can't get the land or funding to build more!

Agreed, trouble is the big boys snap up decent bits of land and sit on it for years. Add to that the 106 agreements, time and again the big boys sign up to these and delivery comes years after the development is built out, if at all.
In my opinion the only new build worth owning is one that is self build.

[wc98]

blueg33 said:

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

i worked on new build homes many years ago. the standard homes built by the bigger developers that i have seen these days are all crap, imo of course. a friend was working on a new build site a mile along the road a few years ago and actually phoned me to come and have a look at some of the finished homes for a laugh.the standard of workmanship was a complete joke. driven by st prices being paid to the sub/contractors doing the work. the site agent must have been blind.

this is in scotland so things may well be different down south.

[blueg33]

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup said:

An old pal who worked in the construction industry some thirty years ago simply said to me
‘whatever you buy never buy a new build’.
Meanwhile Bovis Homes have made it into our BBC regional news broadcast. Building site at
Milton Keynes has twenty or so new home owners fairly disgruntled at the state of thier new homes. In some cases fire risk is apparent and a threat. Bouncy floors, gutter down pipes leading down to and adjacent to airbricks but no drain. Removal of a section of external walling revealed a truely shocking Just some of the snags that two years after complaints by owners still have to be resolved. On site quality control can be blamed but are the target demands unreasonable for the reward? Why people still decide to buy new houses remains a mystery to me, other than because it’s an easier less stressful process than buying an established older home.
I expect their company profits are climbing nicely, shame about the customer services though.

A friend said to me "never pay taxes", another said "never buy a Ford" that sort of stuff is meaningless.

Its well known that Bovis had issues caused by rushing jobs through for the year end, it cost the CEO his job earlier this year and they are playing catch up to sort them out. That doesn't mean that all new builds are a problem, its like saying "I bought a mouldy tomato from Tesco, therefore all tomatoes are mouldy". Its an idiotic statement to make.

Generally new builds are built to a higher standard than any volume houses for the masses have ever been built to, but on the basis of a few anecdotes and perceived bks people think that a Victorian Terrace or a 1930's semi is better built

Wrong imo, first hand experiences from a good pal that worked in the industry tells me just how crap new build is. Not only that I have been around long enough, bought and sold so many properties I have lost count, looked at new builds with my critical eye in. You can use all of the meaningless and inappropriate antecdotes you like, it doesn’t change realities.
So far as the comparison to today’s new build v Victorian, the only thing I can say is that the Victorian build didn’t understand thermal insulation, other than that i torian wins out hands down.

So far as Bovis is concerned, they got caught out this time, who’s next I wonder for they are all ste.

It may be your opinion, but quantitatively what you are spouting is plainly wrong.

I am not talking anecdotes as you have, I am not talking about "my mate says" or "I bought a house but..."

I am in the industry and have been for over 30 years, I am a chartered surveyor who has done his fair share of structural surveys when I was in agency, and I have seen good and bad of all types of houses. I have fired construction directors and site managers for crappy build, I have promoted people for good build, I have run house builders with the highest customer care ratings in the industry, I have inspect 1000's of new homes, I know what I am talking about.

Overall, new homes are:

better built
built to a higher standard with better materials (I would probably exclude soft wood skirting boards from the better materials bit)
built with better understanding of ground bearing capabilities,
built with a better understanding of structural loads
built with better moisture management
built with better plumbing and better electrics
built with an understanding of management of radon and ground gasses
built with better heating
built with better insulation
built with better understanding of solar gain
built with wall ties that are properly tested and installed (many properties built from 1910 to 1970's have issues with wall ties failure
built with closer supervision to ensure adherence to building regs

the list goes on

Please don't spout anecdotal crap to people who actually know about this stuff. Anecdotal crap is not fact its just anecdotal crap based on a sample size so small that its insignificant.

You are stating technical improvements that are built into houses, what I am saying is the houses built are rubbish. New shiny copper pipes are fine if the walls underneath the plaster are well built, they are not in too many instances.. The other stuff you mention is fine on paper, it just don’t get built to the standard required. You can stamp your feet all day and tell me how good an expert you think you are, but the houses are rubbish. now advise me why new build mass market homes are built like ste You could be god almighty for all I care the fact remains that new builds are thrown up by tradespeople who just want to earn and go. No interest in the product at all, designed down to a cost for max profit.
So far as design is concerned, what you spout is simply regulatory ‘as long as it complies ‘ it will do. Maybe you should get out more and have a close look at these new builds from the customers pov.

You remain wrong and easily led by popularist modern myth.

I or one of the other directors personally visit every plot during build and post snagging prior to handover and have fond for 20 years. We can spot stuff that the average buyer will never see. The vast majority of plots handed over are good. The fact that you think that senior management doesn't visit sits shows how far away from reality your stance is.

We have converted Victorian properties. Strip off the pretty corniced and deep skirting and a world of horrors awaits .

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 21st December 20:20

[crankedup]

we are not going to agree, if as you suggest senior management site visit all I can suggest is thier expectation of quality must be very low. Have a look at the Bovis Milton Keynes current build.
How many trades go onto site, do the work, stand back and say ‘I built that’ with a sense of pride. I wager none, it’s job and finish as quickly as possible, if a shortcut can be found it’s used.
I do agree that materials available are far superior to the pre 40’s, so it should be. The problem I have is the poor build quality evident in far to many new builds. People spend hundreds of thousands pounds to purchase a new home deserve better imo.
Like much in life perceptions tainted by earlier experiences, reinforced by media reports. Very difficult to win back from that.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

we are not going to agree, if as you suggest senior management site visit all I can suggest is thier expectation of quality must be very low. Have a look at the Bovis Milton Keynes current build.
How many trades go onto site, do the work, stand back and say ‘I built that’ with a sense of pride. I wager none, it’s job and finish as quickly as possible, if a shortcut can be found it’s used.
I do agree that materials available are far superior to the pre 40’s, so it should be. The problem I have is the poor build quality evident in far to many new builds. People spend hundreds of thousands pounds to purchase a new home deserve better imo.
Like much in life perceptions tainted by earlier experiences, reinforced by media reports. Very difficult to win back from that.

How many new builds do you analyse on a regular basis?

[Yipper]

Must admit, a lot of newbuild homes, nowadays, do seem a bit sh*t.

Knocked up quick and offski to the next building site.

Just a quick visit to one of those cringey newbuild estates for middleclass professionals shows up thin walls, nasty kitchens, badly-designed driveways, etc.

[SpeckledJim]

I can appreciate the list of benefits to modern houses is very long.

But why does an interior wall have to flex when you lean on it? When a door shuts the whole room shudders.

It makes the whole house feel like it was lobbed-up, and it's why I won't buy one.