Should older people give up their family homes?

[Skyedriver]

phazed said:

Just reduce the population and the problem is solved. I don’t know why anyone hasn’t thought of this before

This is why they invented CV19......

[WindyMills]

okgo said:

As it is in London because people do not want to be moving more than they have to, the starter home of old now has a huge wrap-around extension, the loft done, and its been taken from a 600-800k 3 bed into a 7 figure 5 bed. Your only option now is what I did above, and I'm lucky in that I could afford to do it.

I think that's a bigger factor than we realise, and not just in London.

[oddman]

mikey_b said:

... homes more suitable for older people, particularly bungalows, are also really expensive. I live in an estate mostly built in the late 1950s which is a mix of detached, semi-detached, and bungalows. The most old-people friendly homes are obviously the bungalows, but they are much more expensive per square foot than the others.......

OP in 30 years' time - 'Have you seen the cost of bungalows.....not fair'

[Biggy Stardust]

Type R Tom said:

So what happens to first time buyers? fk em? My point is I'm sitting on a starter home when by now I should have moved on. How do you solve without moving 100s of miles away which isn't really viable with work.

You seem to think that this a problem that other people should solve for you; it isn't.

[blueg33]

Equus said:

Type R Tom said:

My issue is that if we can’t build more houses to decrease demand for larger family home, thereby freeing up starter homes, is it right that older couples live in big 4 bed places alone, sometimes neglecting them for years when they could downgrade.

How does encouraging older people to downsize free up starter homes? It would be the 'starter homes' they'd be downsizing into?

I'm not sure it would. Even with design for life, most starter homes are massively compromised for people who are likely to have mobility issues in the near future.

We need to look hard at building cross generational communities, mix retirement homes with others, not just have retirement villages. The investment is slowly getting there, but its still very hard to compete with the volume boys for land.

I was with the CEO of one of the majors last week, advocating cross generational development, I think the penny is slowly dropping that there would be a really good market if they get it right. Orbit did a decent one in Stratford upon Avon a couple of years ago

[Type R Tom]

Some interesting points of view and it seems like the majority feel the current situation is ok as it is.

To be honest I started this thread out of frustration seeing the constant fight against new builds by groups of people who likely have their home, don’t want more traffic around them etc and want to pull the ladder up protecting their interests. This along with a friend in her late 20s looking at what I have and knowing it will be near impossible for her to ever manage it and feeling sorry for her.

Maybe I didn’t explain myself very well but there are a couple of people who I think get where I’m coming from. Seems like I’m wrong for thinking something, what ever it may be, needs to change

[okgo]

WindyMills said:

I think that's a bigger factor than we realise, and not just in London.

I'd imagine its responsible for a large percentage of the rises in places like Bristol, Brighton, Winchester just to name a few. It originates here I feel, when people realise going from flat to house is not an option due to there not being the 'next step' house, they take their cash to any and all of the above and more and drive the prices up there. Perpetuating the issue.

Anyway, with OP living in Kent, you can literally still buy houses for tiny amounts of money there relative to what they cost in most other home counties, and if you're not tied to a commute or major city, which his work wouldn't be (I think) then its a case of cutting your cloth.

[okgo]

Type R Tom said:

Some interesting points of view and it seems like the majority feel the current situation is ok as it is.

To be honest I started this thread out of frustration seeing the constant fight against new builds by groups of people who likely have their home, don’t want more traffic around them etc and want to pull the ladder up protecting their interests. This along with a friend in her late 20s looking at what I have and knowing it will be near impossible for her to ever manage it and feeling sorry for her.

Maybe I didn’t explain myself very well but there are a couple of people who I think get where I’m coming from. Seems like I’m wrong for thinking something, what ever it may be, needs to change

If I bought you a nice house in the country tomorrow with nice views, you'd be that person objecting to some awful toy town too, anyone pretending they wouldn't is deluded IMO.

[Type R Tom]

okgo said:

I'd imagine its responsible for a large percentage of the rises in places like Bristol, Brighton, Winchester just to name a few. It originates here I feel, when people realise going from flat to house is not an option due to there not being the 'next step' house, they take their cash to any and all of the above and more and drive the prices up there. Perpetuating the issue.

Anyway, with OP living in Kent, you can literally still buy houses for tiny amounts of money there relative to what they cost in most other home counties, and if you're not tied to a commute or major city, which his work wouldn't be (I think) then its a case of cutting your cloth.

BTW - I don't work on the roads

[Largechris]

When I'm PM, I would halt all starter home building. Pointless building homes that are known to be sub standard, too small, I would only allow decent size family homes with gardens and garages to be built, and maybe a few city centre flats from converting empty shops.

Secondly I would introduce a land tax, such that everyone pays for the land they have (reduce other taxes so there is no net tax increase obviously). Around me, it is ridiculous the size of houses and gardens owned by the elderly that are barely used, a lot of them don't even go upstairs, they certainly don't have grand kids around playing in the gardens every week end.

[Type R Tom]

okgo said:

Type R Tom said:

Some interesting points of view and it seems like the majority feel the current situation is ok as it is.

To be honest I started this thread out of frustration seeing the constant fight against new builds by groups of people who likely have their home, don’t want more traffic around them etc and want to pull the ladder up protecting their interests. This along with a friend in her late 20s looking at what I have and knowing it will be near impossible for her to ever manage it and feeling sorry for her.

Maybe I didn’t explain myself very well but there are a couple of people who I think get where I’m coming from. Seems like I’m wrong for thinking something, what ever it may be, needs to change

If I bought you a nice house in the country tomorrow with nice views, you'd be that person objecting to some awful toy town too, anyone pretending they wouldn't is deluded IMO.

I really hope I wouldn't become that person, I deal with NIMBY all the time and I would hate to become something I despise.

[Evoluzione]

Type R Tom said:

phazed said:

Just reduce the population and the problem is solved. I don’t know why anyone hasn’t thought of this before

Ironically, for is this is the case, can't have a bigger family as don't have the space

Which is a good thing.
There is a lot to be said for living within your means and just being happy with what you've got.

[liner33]

Some people in my village are up in arms about potentially 14 new homes being built citing increased pollution, traffic and impact on hedgehogs

You couldn't make it up.

When we bought our house it took every penny we could spare, and we extended it when we could afford as it was cheaper than moving , its not our fault the prices have gone mad

[Gary C]

Of course, the removal of sensible borrowing limits and allowing non-mutual banks to sell Mortgages isn't the root of the increase in house prices....................

its just down to 'old people'.....

yeah right.

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th November 10:52

[jimPH]

I do often wonder how people afford everything. I think I'm a fairly high earner, but I'm not willing to take on a massive amount of debt, which is probably my problem.

Id like to move my family to a bigger house in a nicer area, but the recent jump means we'll just have to extend instead.

[Tim330]

Largechris said:

When I'm PM, I would halt all starter home building. Pointless building homes that are known to be sub standard, too small, I would only allow decent size family homes with gardens and garages to be built, and maybe a few city centre flats from converting empty shops.

Secondly I would introduce a land tax, such that everyone pays for the land they have (reduce other taxes so there is no net tax increase obviously). Around me, it is ridiculous the size of houses and gardens owned by the elderly that are barely used, a lot of them don't even go upstairs, they certainly don't have grand kids around playing in the gardens every week end.

Do you park somewhere with a view of their staircase?

[Equus]

Type R Tom said:

...it seems like the majority feel the current situation is ok as it is.

Far from it, and I actually agree with you that older people should be able to downsize, but at the moment we just don't sufficient supply of smaller, appropriate properties for them to downsize into, so the actual result would be to take away the cheaper homes for those wanting to get on the ladder.

I have never agreed with the 'lifetime homes' concept (which says we should be designing homes capable of being lived in from cradle to grave). It's dumb: you don't need as large a house when you're single in your 20's or divorced/widowed in your 60's as you do when you have a young family, so it makes more sense for people to change their homes with their needs.

But we haven't got the balance of supply right, yet.

That's at least partly because Government policy on affordable housing has tended to discourage developers from building smaller open-market dwellings or bungalows (if you know you're going to have to build 4 homes for social housing providers, at negligible profit, for every 6 open market homes you build, you make damned sure that the open market homes are as big and expensive as the local market will stand, to minimise the impact on your profits).

[Gary C]

Largechris said:

When I'm PM, I would halt all starter home building. Pointless building homes that are known to be sub standard, too small, I would only allow decent size family homes with gardens and garages to be built, and maybe a few city centre flats from converting empty shops.

Secondly I would introduce a land tax, such that everyone pays for the land they have (reduce other taxes so there is no net tax increase obviously). Around me, it is ridiculous the size of houses and gardens owned by the elderly that are barely used, a lot of them don't even go upstairs, they certainly don't have grand kids around playing in the gardens every week end.

Boo fking hoo.

[blueg33]

Largechris said:

When I'm PM, I would halt all starter home building. Pointless building homes that are known to be sub standard, too small, I would only allow decent size family homes with gardens and garages to be built, and maybe a few city centre flats from converting empty shops.

Secondly I would introduce a land tax, such that everyone pays for the land they have (reduce other taxes so there is no net tax increase obviously). Around me, it is ridiculous the size of houses and gardens owned by the elderly that are barely used, a lot of them don't even go upstairs, they certainly don't have grand kids around playing in the gardens every week end.

Don't think you have thought this through

Sub-standard? What is your standard?

Too small? What is your bench mark? NSS?

How do people pay for the larger homes that cost more to build? Take out land value, and it costs more to build a large home than a small one. You need more land to build large ones, and there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy with a smaller house, there are lots of one person households in the UK

There is already a tax based on the value of the house which in many ways is a land tax, its called SDSLT when you buy it and Council Tax when you live in it

How do people pay for the larger homes that cost more to build?

[Evoluzione]

Equus said:

Type R Tom said:

...it seems like the majority feel the current situation is ok as it is.

Far from it, and I actually agree with you that older people should be able to downsize, but at the moment we just don't sufficient supply of smaller, appropriate properties for them to downsize into, so the actual result would be to take away the cheaper homes for those wanting to get on the ladder.

I have never agreed with the 'lifetime homes' concept (which says we should be designing homes capable of being lived in from cradle to grave). It's dumb: you don't need as large a house when you're single in your 20's or divorced/widowed in your 60's as you do when you have a young family, so it makes more sense for people to change their homes with their needs.

But we haven't got the balance of supply right, yet.

That's at least partly because Government policy on affordable housing has tended to discourage developers from building smaller open-market dwellings or bungalows (if you know you're going to have to build 4 homes for social housing providers, at negligible profit, for every 6 open market homes you build, you make damned sure that the open market homes are as big and expensive as the local market will stand, to minimise the impact on your profits).

A lot of older people would be happy with a two bedroomed bungalow, bit of garden and a garage. We aren't building many of those....