Buying land to build a house
Discussion
robinessex said:
Just go looking at France, Normandy area. Buy a mansion for £1,000,000
You don't even need to leave England...How about a 515m2 (5,600sqft) listed 16th century manor house, already restored, 19 acres including a swimming lake and a walled garden, 8 bedrooms?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prop...
Porridge GTI said:
Here in the Gulf you can get a centrally located brand new 6,000 sq ft detached house for a million pounds. Rectangular, concrete, modern, flooded with light, well-finished and energy-efficient. That’s what the UK needs.
Size isn’t the issue, good design is.Anyone can make a half decent house from 6000 sq feet, not so easy to make it a great home to live in mind you. I’ve seen so many large houses that are soulless.
The real skill is taking a small sq footage and turning that into usable, practical and welcoming space.
Quality over quantity every day of the week for me.
garyhun said:
Quality over quantity every day of the week for me.
I much prefer smaller houses myself. No way would I want to live in something that big. I think the biggest house I've lived in myself would probably have been about 1,300ft2, and in that place I ended up using two of the 5 habitable rooms, while the rest just basically gathered dust.
I actually got the right hump when they decided to bring in the NSS, 'cos I couldn't see why LPA's should be allowed to tell me I had to live in a bigger house than I wanted to. Fortunately, they decided to make it non-mandatory.
Equus said:
mcg_ said:
Equus - just curious as to the main reasons why the flats are been specified as timber frame, rather than traditional?
Honest answer in that particular case is that I haven't a clue. We (my practice) were employed to detail the TF structure. That's the limit of our involvement, and I haven't asked questions.The developers I've worked for directly used to use TF for flats and affordable housing, however, because it allows you to get a watertight envelope up quickly.
For affordable housing, that allows you to get a whole 'tranche' of plots finished quickly , sold to the HA (transfers to the HA usually happen a group of plots at a time) and cash in the bank, so it minimises the amount of cash tied up in WIP (work in progress).
On flats, it allows you to get the envelope up and watertight, so that it's protected from the weather, then finish the internals at your leisure. Quite often a BTL investor will come along and buy the whole block from you, too, in which case the quick cash turnover arguments that apply to affordable housing kick in, similarly.
As I've said before, at a basic level, TF is more expensive than masonry. Its advantage is speed of build (thus shortening your build programme and the amount of cash committed in WIP), but that's only an advantage if you can sell 'em as fast as you can build 'em, and that's usually only true for HA's, block buys by BTL investors, or in a fiercely booming market. In an average or slow market there's no point in building houses faster than you can sell them, as you're then just laying out money for them to stand empty, looking for a buyer.
It depends on location and market, of course, but the 'normal' rule of thumb is that you can't sell more than about 100 houses a year on any one site, as there simply isn't the local demand to sustain optimum prices. It's expensive to have a site (with site manager, compound etc.) sitting around doing nothing, or not working to full capacity, or intermittently stopping and starting. so normally you want to match the rate of build to the optimum demand, and except in special cases, masonry is usually the most cost-effective way of doing that.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 23 October 23:50
mcg_ said:
Equus said:
mcg_ said:
Equus - just curious as to the main reasons why the flats are been specified as timber frame, rather than traditional?
Honest answer in that particular case is that I haven't a clue. We (my practice) were employed to detail the TF structure. That's the limit of our involvement, and I haven't asked questions.The developers I've worked for directly used to use TF for flats and affordable housing, however, because it allows you to get a watertight envelope up quickly.
For affordable housing, that allows you to get a whole 'tranche' of plots finished quickly , sold to the HA (transfers to the HA usually happen a group of plots at a time) and cash in the bank, so it minimises the amount of cash tied up in WIP (work in progress).
On flats, it allows you to get the envelope up and watertight, so that it's protected from the weather, then finish the internals at your leisure. Quite often a BTL investor will come along and buy the whole block from you, too, in which case the quick cash turnover arguments that apply to affordable housing kick in, similarly.
As I've said before, at a basic level, TF is more expensive than masonry. Its advantage is speed of build (thus shortening your build programme and the amount of cash committed in WIP), but that's only an advantage if you can sell 'em as fast as you can build 'em, and that's usually only true for HA's, block buys by BTL investors, or in a fiercely booming market. In an average or slow market there's no point in building houses faster than you can sell them, as you're then just laying out money for them to stand empty, looking for a buyer.
It depends on location and market, of course, but the 'normal' rule of thumb is that you can't sell more than about 100 houses a year on any one site, as there simply isn't the local demand to sustain optimum prices. It's expensive to have a site (with site manager, compound etc.) sitting around doing nothing, or not working to full capacity, or intermittently stopping and starting. so normally you want to match the rate of build to the optimum demand, and except in special cases, masonry is usually the most cost-effective way of doing that.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 23 October 23:50
Equus said:
I will just add, for anyone who doesn't believe me on this point, (and to prove that I took the time to look at the link) that these are the Urban Splash 2 storey floorplan options, which Ben is putting forward as 'proof of concept':
The house type is described as the 'House 1000', so I take it to be 1000ft2 GIA. For reference, it's possible to design a perfectly functional 3 bed at 830ft2 GIA. Here's one I did earlier (it even gives an En Suite to the master bedroom, which the Urban Splash effort lacks):
...so far from being a paragon of efficiency, the Urban Splash house type is 20% bigger than it needs to be (which means it occupies 20% more precious building land), even in its 'maximum bedrooms' configuration.
We can build 2 bed houses down to 650ft2, and a 1 bed flat can be ~450ft2, so in either of those configurations, the Urban Splash design would be VERY inefficient.
Now look at the options on the Urban Splash (top) set of plans :
The '1 bed' configuration isn't really 1 room. It's 2 rooms, just without any doors to separate them (though the bathroom interrupts the continuity of space). Describing that layout as '1 room' has gotta be bordering on Property Misdescriptions Act territory, had the Act not been repealed?
But, hey, look on the bright side, because if you want it to become 2 actual rooms, with doors for privacy, Urban Splash will only charge you an extra £4,000 for a couple of cheap doors and a bit of stud wall. The front bedroom in 2-bed configuration is heavily compromised, though, since it consists of two different volumes, making up an L-shaped room, on account of being designed as a 3-bed, with a wall omitted. And if you want 3 bedrooms, they'll only charge you another £3K for one more door and another bit of stud wall. Bargain!!! (for the avoidance of doubt: yes, I'm being facetious).
What Urban Splash are actually doing is charging people an extra £7,000 to deliver what any 'normal' developer would have built as a 3-bed in the first place.
If that's the way to fix a broken and dysfunctional housing market, you can keep it, thanks...
]
Without commenting on the pricing structure, while I agree the 1 room layout is clearly basically two rooms, and the three room clearly has a fairly small 3rd room, I don't think there is anything wrong with offering a slightly larger floor plan or an L shaped bedroom?The house type is described as the 'House 1000', so I take it to be 1000ft2 GIA. For reference, it's possible to design a perfectly functional 3 bed at 830ft2 GIA. Here's one I did earlier (it even gives an En Suite to the master bedroom, which the Urban Splash effort lacks):
...so far from being a paragon of efficiency, the Urban Splash house type is 20% bigger than it needs to be (which means it occupies 20% more precious building land), even in its 'maximum bedrooms' configuration.
We can build 2 bed houses down to 650ft2, and a 1 bed flat can be ~450ft2, so in either of those configurations, the Urban Splash design would be VERY inefficient.
Now look at the options on the Urban Splash (top) set of plans :
The '1 bed' configuration isn't really 1 room. It's 2 rooms, just without any doors to separate them (though the bathroom interrupts the continuity of space). Describing that layout as '1 room' has gotta be bordering on Property Misdescriptions Act territory, had the Act not been repealed?
But, hey, look on the bright side, because if you want it to become 2 actual rooms, with doors for privacy, Urban Splash will only charge you an extra £4,000 for a couple of cheap doors and a bit of stud wall. The front bedroom in 2-bed configuration is heavily compromised, though, since it consists of two different volumes, making up an L-shaped room, on account of being designed as a 3-bed, with a wall omitted. And if you want 3 bedrooms, they'll only charge you another £3K for one more door and another bit of stud wall. Bargain!!! (for the avoidance of doubt: yes, I'm being facetious).
What Urban Splash are actually doing is charging people an extra £7,000 to deliver what any 'normal' developer would have built as a 3-bed in the first place.
If that's the way to fix a broken and dysfunctional housing market, you can keep it, thanks...
]
I've managed to always have larger rooms, a 4bed 1938 LA build that was converted into a 3bed, my partners flat in a converted warehouse, and now an small Edwardian mansion that's been split into two semis. There is a cost in the increased plot size, but the payback in terms of the feel of the property is immense.
Daniel
dhutch said:
I don't think there is anything wrong with offering a slightly larger floor plan...
Yes, nothing wrong at all.But 'normal' developers will do this, anyway.
The developer whose 830ft2 3-bed house type I showed plans for above, for example, also offered a ~1000ft2 3 bed house type, which we'd plot on the same sites. Purchasers would have the choice, if they could afford it. Actually, we had several house types at 830ft2, and several at ~1000ft2, with different internal arrangements to take account of differing plot and solar orientation.
Surely a better, more real choice than one house type with one larger, more expensive floor plan, take it or leave it, and charging £7,000 to have a few stud walls erected?
Equus said:
Yes, nothing wrong at all.
But 'normal' developers will do this, anyway.
The developer whose 830ft2 3-bed house type I showed plans for above, for example, also offered a ~1000ft2 3 bed house type, which we'd plot on the same sites. Purchasers would have the choice, if they could afford it. Actually, we had several house types at 830ft2, and several at ~1000ft2, with different internal arrangements to take account of differing plot and solar orientation.
Surely a better, more real choice than one house type with one larger, more expensive floor plan, take it or leave it, and charging £7,000 to have a few stud walls erected?
Fair enough. Just had a look and from the EPC by previous 3bed semi was 1055 sqft [100m^] which was a nice size, smallish dinning room but large kitchen, bathroom, and three double rooms. Corner plot and the way it fell on that corner, the garden was also bigger than all the others in the street. Due to location and not being a new build it was also cheap as chips, sold it for £160k a fortnight ago.But 'normal' developers will do this, anyway.
The developer whose 830ft2 3-bed house type I showed plans for above, for example, also offered a ~1000ft2 3 bed house type, which we'd plot on the same sites. Purchasers would have the choice, if they could afford it. Actually, we had several house types at 830ft2, and several at ~1000ft2, with different internal arrangements to take account of differing plot and solar orientation.
Surely a better, more real choice than one house type with one larger, more expensive floor plan, take it or leave it, and charging £7,000 to have a few stud walls erected?
New house is a 4bed and from the EPC is 2640 sqft [245m^2] which does feel properly spacious and does require a larger plot, but if I was self building its the sort of size I would want to be looking at. No point, for me, in self building something that looks and feels like something you can buy of the shelf. Its also surrounded by trees in a little pocket between Birkenhead and the rest of the Wirral, so again cheap for what you get in terms of a plot.
The end of the plot was sold off by the previous owners (for £200k) which has now got a 'self build' property in what must be about 1/4 acre assuming the 40yo particulars are correct in detailing the pre-existing plot as 3/4 acre. There is enough room for a 4bed house, attached dbl garage, driveway, and a small rear garden.
Daniel
tload of empty, unused space and slave labour?wisbech said:
Re sizes, over the last few years we’ve gone from 2400 to 1300, and our next place (buying off plan) will be 57sq m. Once you realise the extra space is cost and faff that isn’t needed...
I'm actually leaning more and more toward the 'Tiny House' movement, and may well design and build myself one in the future. I lived for a while in a modern, developer 1 bed flat (circa 450ft2/42m2) and found the process incredibly cathartic. It forces you to rationalise your life, and get rid of a lot of crap, both physical and metaphorical. You're also taking up less space and using less energy for heating, both of which are good for the environment and society in general.Even in my current 3-bed house, I basically live in two rooms... which kind of defeats the object of the place being so big.
Different rules apply if you have kids, of course.
Equus said:
wisbech said:
Re sizes, over the last few years we’ve gone from 2400 to 1300, and our next place (buying off plan) will be 57sq m. Once you realise the extra space is cost and faff that isn’t needed...
I'm actually leaning more and more toward the 'Tiny House' movement, and may well design and build myself one in the future. I lived for a while in a modern, developer 1 bed flat (circa 450ft2/42m2) and found the process incredibly cathartic. It forces you to rationalise your life, and get rid of a lot of crap, both physical and metaphorical. You're also taking up less space and using less energy for heating, both of which are good for the environment and society in general.Even in my current 3-bed house, I basically live in two rooms... which kind of defeats the object of the place being so big.
Different rules apply if you have kids, of course.
Now selling my 3500 sq foot barn conversion and, whilst it’s a luxury having so much space, Mrs G and I cannot wait to leave behind 4 toilets and lots of sq footage that needs cleaning and maintaining.
Next self-build will be 2 beds and around 1400 sq feet or so. There’s a lot to be said for simplifying what you can in life.
If I were single I could happily and perhaps willingly live in a relatively small flat and find enjoyment in optimising it. But with a family the logic reverses because each person needs their own space and you need space for people to do things together. For two parents and two children my view is that 4500-5500 sq ft is the sweet spot.
Porridge GTI said:
If I were single I could happily and perhaps willingly live in a relatively small flat and find enjoyment in optimising it. But with a family the logic reverses because each person needs their own space and you need space for people to do things together. For two parents and two children my view is that 4500-5500 sq ft is the sweet spot.
ie more than twice the size of an average 4-bedroomed family house?Escort3500 said:
Porridge GTI said:
If I were single I could happily and perhaps willingly live in a relatively small flat and find enjoyment in optimising it. But with a family the logic reverses because each person needs their own space and you need space for people to do things together. For two parents and two children my view is that 4500-5500 sq ft is the sweet spot.
ie more than twice the size of an average 4-bedroomed family house?
Some people do live in a lovely bubble on PH.
I live in a small terrace house, probably about 50m2 all in, its perfect for a couple, we don't need or want any more space. There's enough storage and even 2 loos. I find it odd how people always seem to strive for a bigger house, no kids planned so will happily stay in my 2 up 2 down for the rest of my life!
Annoying when entertaining however we often have 8+ people its a squeeze and gets really hot but I can live with that!
Annoying when entertaining however we often have 8+ people its a squeeze and gets really hot but I can live with that!
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff