| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
New Houses - any good?
SWMBO has been dragging me around showhomes again. I've tried all the
usual objections to avoid having to stump up for a new house ('too expensive', 'tiny plot of land', etc) and tried the 'look how badly made they are' tactic. I was a little surprised to see how badly finished some of the showhomes were (considering they are supposted to be 'show' homes - the name gives it a away, really) and it got me to wondering, just how well made are new houses? Are they designed to last 12 years then crumble into dust? Or are they better made than a 20 year old house due to improved materials/techniques? spog |
New Houses - any good?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:00:31 +0100, "Jonathan@Home"
wrote: SWMBO's sister just moved into a brand new flat in Dundee, three sinks all leaking, flushed loo and it wouldn't stop, toilet not screwed to the floor, ceiling rose fell down, door not hung right.. I think in total her mum and dad found 25 things that needed attention. That's why you do a snagging list with the site foreman shortly after or shortly before moving in. Those shortcomings should be fixed at no cost to the owner. There's nothing like a good site manager for new homes. They can save you an awful lot of trouble because they catch the problems as the house is going up, rather than later when it costs more to put right. Having lived on a new development I've seen different site foremen come and go over a period of a couple of years. The really grumpy bad dudes seem to be the best because they don't give a damn about having a confrontation with a workman to get things done. At the other end of the spectrum is the site foreman who you would consider to be a decent son-in-law. Usually completely hopeless because they won't say boo to a goose (and usually the site developer ensures they have a shorter than average career). The poor quality of a new home is invariably linked to the quality of the site manager in my experience. Andrew Do you need a handyman service? Check out our web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk |
New Houses - any good?
SWMBO has been dragging me around showhomes again. I've tried all the usual objections to avoid having to stump up for a new house ('too expensive', 'tiny plot of land', etc) and tried the 'look how badly made they are' tactic. Smaller rooms, studding walls and smaller plot. The only advantage a new house is likely to have is better insulation. |
New Houses - any good?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
snip You will probably find it is cheaper to buy new than used. In a new house you can specify the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, optional conservatory, etc, etc. More choices with certain builders. With a used house you will probably hate the bathroom and rip it out along with the kitchen, the decor, garden etc. All in all cheaper to go new and less hassle. And they are far, far cheaper to run in energy costs, which may make a difference in the future if the oil price hypes again. So, whereas a new house is likely to be small, of mediocre build quality, be exactly like 100s of other houses in the locality, have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo, be total devoid of any character, and have a garden so small as to be unsuitable for swinging a mouse (much less a cat) .... it will be energy efficient, so that's OK then :-) Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, whereas the new build gives you a choice of 3 different bathroom suites and 5 different colours of kitchen door? Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
New Houses - any good?
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip You will probably find it is cheaper to buy new than used. In a new house you can specify the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, optional conservatory, etc, etc. More choices with certain builders. With a used house you will probably hate the bathroom and rip it out along with the kitchen, the decor, garden etc. All in all cheaper to go new and less hassle. And they are far, far cheaper to run in energy costs, which may make a difference in the future if the oil price hypes again. So, whereas a new house is likely to be small, Not so. many are quite big these days and better laid out in design. Most modern homes are having study rooms and en-suite showers and bathrooms as standard. of mediocre build quality, Not so. Also depends on the builder, etc. Like comparing a Lada with a RR in new cars. be exactly like 100s of other houses in the locality, Not so. The new builds are a mixture of differing house style. Look at Camborne in Cambridgeshire, where no two houses are the same, and most of Milton Keynes. You are thinking of the 1960/70s. have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo, Depends on the builder/house you buy. be total devoid of any character, Not so. Once again see Camborne in Cambridgeshire, and most of Milton Keynes and have a garden so small as to be unsuitable for swinging a mouse (much less a cat) Once again depends on the builder, so look around. .... it will be energy efficient, so that's OK then :-) That is a great plus, and a condensing boiler and a high pressure shower too. And it will have far superior burglar resistant doors, windows etc Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, Full renovation and DIY are very different. When moving into a new house there still will be enough DIY: a shed, racking out the garage, maybe flooring the loft, planting flowers, maybe a patio or decking if you didn't get the builder to do it, etc. whereas the new build gives you a choice of 3 different bathroom suites and 5 different colours of kitchen door? One builder I was looking at had a choice of about 200 kitchens, with 3 price levels. If you want a top notch wow type of kitchen you got it. They have to offer these to shake off the poor 1960/70s image, which is still bouncing around your mind. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... In article , "Peter Crosland" writes: Smaller rooms, No storage cupboards for vacuum, ironing board, mop, etc, no larder, Most new houses have a utility room. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip You will probably find it is cheaper to buy new than used. In a new house you can specify the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, optional conservatory, etc, etc. More choices with certain builders. With a used house you will probably hate the bathroom and rip it out along with the kitchen, the decor, garden etc. All in all cheaper to go new and less hassle. And they are far, far cheaper to run in energy costs, which may make a difference in the future if the oil price hypes again. So, whereas a new house is likely to be small, Not so. many are quite big these days and better laid out in design. Most modern homes are having study rooms and en-suite showers and bathrooms as standard. A bathroom as standard? Ooooo! I want one! ;) |
New Houses - any good?
"David Hearn" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip You will probably find it is cheaper to buy new than used. In a new house you can specify the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, optional conservatory, etc, etc. More choices with certain builders. With a used house you will probably hate the bathroom and rip it out along with the kitchen, the decor, garden etc. All in all cheaper to go new and less hassle. And they are far, far cheaper to run in energy costs, which may make a difference in the future if the oil price hypes again. So, whereas a new house is likely to be small, Not so. many are quite big these days and better laid out in design. Most modern homes are having study rooms and en-suite showers and bathrooms as standard. A bathroom as standard? Ooooo! I want one! A tin bath in front of the fire for you me boy. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, Full renovation and DIY are very different. When moving into a new house there still will be enough DIY: a shed, racking out the garage, maybe flooring the loft, planting flowers, maybe a patio or decking if you didn't get the builder to do it, etc. Thing I don't like about new builds is their roof - I like large areas for storage - maybe even a conversion in the future. Most new houses' roofs aren't suitable for conversion - plus, whilst it may be possible to store something up there - moving around between the supports isn't exactly easy. D |
New Houses - any good?
"David Hearn" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, Full renovation and DIY are very different. When moving into a new house there still will be enough DIY: a shed, racking out the garage, maybe flooring the loft, planting flowers, maybe a patio or decking if you didn't get the builder to do it, etc. Thing I don't like about new builds is their roof - I like large areas for storage - maybe even a conversion in the future. Most new houses' roofs aren't suitable for conversion - plus, whilst it may be possible to store something up there - moving around between the supports isn't exactly easy. Roof trusses have been around since the 1950s, coming in from the USA. It is easy enough to mate in an extension roof. Why would you want to amend a new house? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"IMM" wrote in message ... "David Hearn" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, Full renovation and DIY are very different. When moving into a new house there still will be enough DIY: a shed, racking out the garage, maybe flooring the loft, planting flowers, maybe a patio or decking if you didn't get the builder to do it, etc. Thing I don't like about new builds is their roof - I like large areas for storage - maybe even a conversion in the future. Most new houses' roofs aren't suitable for conversion - plus, whilst it may be possible to store something up there - moving around between the supports isn't exactly easy. Roof trusses have been around since the 1950s, coming in from the USA. It is easy enough to mate in an extension roof. Why would you want to amend a new house? A new house now may become a 2nd hand house in 5 years time, and then maybe in 10 years time someone (or maybe the original owner if they never moved) doesn't want to move, but needs more space.... The 1930's semi I live in at the moment was once a new house - whilst you'd be unlikely to do such work soon after moving in - at some point someone may want to do something with it - and then you notice the restrictions (as seen in this group - the number of people who've asked about loft coversions for trussed roofs only to be put off by the additional cost). I guess I would call it future proofing. Then again, I guess, as the trussed roof spreads the roof weight to the outer walls - this can mean you can gut the whole house and change the internal layout if you wished. Doing that with a traditional roof and walls would not really be possible - at least, probably not without RSJs and the like. D |
New Houses - any good?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:18:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip You will probably find it is cheaper to buy new than used. In a new house you can specify the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, optional conservatory, etc, etc. More choices with certain builders. With a used house you will probably hate the bathroom and rip it out along with the kitchen, the decor, garden etc. All in all cheaper to go new and less hassle. And they are far, far cheaper to run in energy costs, which may make a difference in the future if the oil price hypes again. So, whereas a new house is likely to be small, Not so. many are quite big these days and better laid out in design. Most modern homes are having study rooms and en-suite showers and bathrooms as standard. I'll grant the convenience of en-suite shower/bathrooms. However, I've yet to see a modern (as in less than 10 years old) with a "study room" that would actually be capable of holding a decent sized desk and a filing cabinet :-( of mediocre build quality, Not so. Also depends on the builder, etc. Like comparing a Lada with a RR in new cars. .... so how come so many people buying new houses report having to call the builders back to fix all the bits that weren't done properly (or at all)? Obviously, *some* new houses are well built, but I bet those are in the higher price brackets. be exactly like 100s of other houses in the locality, Not so. The new builds are a mixture of differing house style. Not the ones I see. Minor variations in layout and finish don't count, nor do making adjacent houses "mirror images". Look at Camborne in Cambridgeshire, where no two houses are the same, and most of Milton Keynes. You are thinking of the 1960/70s. have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo, Depends on the builder/house you buy. be total devoid of any character, Not so. Once again see Camborne in Cambridgeshire, and most of Milton Keynes Ah, you're always good for a laugh, Adam. Until you claimed that "most of Milton Keynes" has character I thought you were serious!! If John Betcheman was still alive, I suspect he'd update his "Come, friendly bombs ..." poem, and the target wouldn't be Slough :-) and have a garden so small as to be unsuitable for swinging a mouse (much less a cat) Once again depends on the builder, so look around. I can only look at the way in which new houses have been built in the parts of the country where I've lived for the last 15 years (North and West Yorkshire). Even 4-bed, "executive" detached houses tend to have no more than 25-30 m^2 of garden. I thought that you'd have picked up on this one ... after all, if it wasn't for draconian planning laws and over-zealous protection of greenbelts, then land prices would be lower and developers wouldn't feel forced to stick 15 houses on a plot that would realisticly hold half that number if they had decent sized gardens. .... it will be energy efficient, so that's OK then :-) That is a great plus, Only if its a primary concern for you - I don't recall "energy efficiency" being a lead selling point for many developers, which suggests that the majority of potential buyers aren't that concerned with this. and a condensing boiler and a high pressure shower too. And it will have far superior burglar resistant doors, windows etc .... I'm sure I'm not alone in having most of these in a house whose basic structure is 200+ years old. Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, Full renovation and DIY are very different. When moving into a new house there still will be enough DIY: a shed, racking out the garage, maybe flooring the loft, planting flowers, maybe a patio or decking if you didn't get the builder to do it, etc. Even a casual perusal of this ng suggests that people take on *much* more than this - especially when you add in those projects that people do partly as D-I-Y and partly bringing in tradesmen. whereas the new build gives you a choice of 3 different bathroom suites and 5 different colours of kitchen door? One builder I was looking at had a choice of about 200 kitchens, with 3 price levels. If you want a top notch wow type of kitchen you got it. They have to offer these to shake off the poor 1960/70s image, which is still bouncing around your mind. Just how much variation is there among those 200 kitchens (especially if there are only 3 price levels)? The advantage of an older house is that you can (probably) live with what's there while you work out what's needed to fit your lifestyle. The last time I was even tempted to buy a new house (enough to look at show houses, about 4 years ago) the sales folks tended to look aghast at questions like "how much does the price go down if we don't take any of your kitchens?", -- suggesting that there's a pretty steep markup on the options they do provide. I know that some people prefer to buy new houses, and for them they have many advantages. However, for me (and, I suspect, for many others) those advantages are peripheral when compared to the benefits of older properties. Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
New Houses - any good?
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... of mediocre build quality, Not so. Also depends on the builder, etc. Like comparing a Lada with a RR in new cars. ... so how come so many people buying new houses report having to call the builders back to fix all the bits that weren't done properly (or at all)? Sounds like buying a new car. Drying out and the likes. Everyone know the builder will have to come back. Obviously, *some* new houses are well built, but I bet those are in the higher price brackets. Like RRs? be exactly like 100s of other houses in the locality, Not so. The new builds are a mixture of differing house style. Not the ones I see. You should look a bit more. Not so. Once again see Camborne in Cambridgeshire, and most of Milton Keynes Ah, you're always good for a laugh, Adam. Until you claimed that "most of Milton Keynes" has character I thought you were serious!! Very serious. The greenest city I have been to, and I have been to countless all over the world. the newer suburbs are very attractive, and the city has still about another 1/3 to go yet. If John Betcheman was still alive, He was a total pillock. and have a garden so small as to be unsuitable for swinging a mouse (much less a cat) Once again depends on the builder, so look around. I can only look at the way in which new houses have been built in the parts of the country where I've lived for the last 15 years (North and West Yorkshire). Even 4-bed, "executive" detached houses tend to have no more than 25-30 m^2 of garden. I thought that you'd have picked up on this one ... after all, if it wasn't for draconian planning laws and over-zealous protection of greenbelts, then land prices would be lower and developers wouldn't feel forced to stick 15 houses on a plot that would realisticly hold half that number if they had decent sized gardens. They may be small in certain areas and you have a point about us all being ripped off by an artificial land shortage being created ramping up house prices. .... it will be energy efficient, so that's OK then :-) That is a great plus, Only if its a primary concern for you - I don't recall "energy efficiency" being a lead selling point for many developers, It is now. The eco movement is amking an impact. which suggests that the majority of potential buyers aren't that concerned with this. They are being educated up to it. Not there yet. and a condensing boiler and a high pressure shower too. And it will have far superior burglar resistant doors, windows etc ... I'm sure I'm not alone in having most of these in a house whose basic structure is 200+ years old. 200 years? All that cold and damp! I pity you. Pull it down ASAP and re-build. whereas the new build gives you a choice of 3 different bathroom suites and 5 different colours of kitchen door? One builder I was looking at had a choice of about 200 kitchens, with 3 price levels. If you want a top notch wow type of kitchen you got it. They have to offer these to shake off the poor 1960/70s image, which is still bouncing around your mind. Just how much variation is there among those 200 kitchens (especially if there are only 3 price levels)? Doors, worktops, appliances, lighting, details, etc, etc. many permutations. I know that some people prefer to buy new houses, and for them they have many advantages. However, for me (and, I suspect, for many others) those advantages are peripheral when compared to the benefits of older properties. Never heard such nonsense. And all that damp, cold, poor plumbing and high heating bills too. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
In message ,
Julian Fowler wrote: On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip You will probably find it is cheaper to buy new than used. In a new house you can specify the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, optional conservatory, etc, etc. More choices with certain builders. With a used house you will probably hate the bathroom and rip it out along with the kitchen, the decor, garden etc. All in all cheaper to go new and less hassle. And they are far, far cheaper to run in energy costs, which may make a difference in the future if the oil price hypes again. So, whereas a new house is likely to be small, of mediocre build quality, be exactly like 100s of other houses in the locality, have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo, be total devoid of any character, and have a garden so small as to be unsuitable for swinging a mouse (much less a cat) .... it will be energy efficient, so that's OK then :-) Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, whereas the new build gives you a choice of 3 different bathroom suites and 5 different colours of kitchen door? So why not take the third option and build your own? * Opportunity to specify *exactly* which fittings you want inside, at build time so no thinking "oh, the bathroom wil do and I'll change it later". Can be built to as high a spec. as you can afford. * Can design exactly the right layout of rooms for your own lifestyle. * Plenty of opportunity to d-i-y on aspects you feel happy with, and get tradesmen in for the others. * It won't be exactly the same as all the other houses in the area. * Can use whatever construction method suits your taste and budget - i.e. if you want masonry and wet plaster you can have it; very few developers are doing anything except timber or metal studs with plasterboard. * If you are involved with the design and the build then you know exactly what is what structurally, and which services run where so when you *do* come to some major d-i-y in later years it's all much easier - and you have the plans so no need for invasive surveys. * Why pay in terms of space and cost for four bedrooms with three bathrooms, when you can have four (larger) bedrooms if you only have two bathrooms? * Why build a garage that is only large enough to be used as a tool store? * Can build-in extra insulation if you think it's worthwhile. * Easier to add features such as underfloor heating, rainwater collection, structured cabling and so on at build-time rather than retro-fitting. * Can use traditional construction or "attic" trusses for the roof which will make loft conversion much easier should you need to do it later. * Land price will be similar to a developer house, but build cost can be a *lot* less as you're not paying for his company and its profit. Ummm... I could go on, and I know there are others here who have actually done it (I haven't yet, but am planning to soon) so maybe I'll leave the rest to them. As far as I can see, there are only a few downsides to self-build. * It takes time. Probably at least 12 to 18 months from finding a plot to moving in, depending on size of house. * Must keep tight control of budget or things might get out of hand. * Finances might be fun, though there are more and more lenders aware of the need for self builders to live somewhere while the house is being built! Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html .... Remington, shaves as close as a blade or we send the boys round. |
New Houses - any good?
"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:22:50 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message .. . snip Ah, you're always good for a laugh, Adam. Until you claimed that "most of Milton Keynes" has character I thought you were serious!! Very serious. The greenest city I have been to, and I have been to countless all over the world. the newer suburbs are very attractive, and the city has still about another 1/3 to go yet. Doesn't stop it being the dullest, soulless place I've ever seen (although there are one or two suburbs of Phoenix AZ that run it close). I thought that you'd have picked up on this one ... after all, if it wasn't for draconian planning laws and over-zealous protection of greenbelts, then land prices would be lower and developers wouldn't feel forced to stick 15 houses on a plot that would realisticly hold half that number if they had decent sized gardens. They may be small in certain areas and you have a point about us all being ripped off by an artificial land shortage being created ramping up house prices. Exactly. Far too many places are prone to: [Developer] We propose to build 20 houses on this site (which is realisticly big enough for 10) [Planning Committee] 20! That's far too many! [Developer] OK, we'll build 18, and we'll pay for the access road [Planning Committee] That's just fine and dandy!! :-( snip ... I'm sure I'm not alone in having most of these in a house whose basic structure is 200+ years old. 200 years? All that cold and damp! I pity you. Pull it down ASAP and re-build. Cold? Damp? Eh oop, lad, I'm talkin' about t'North 'ere. Nowt wrong wi' a bit o' cold and damp - builds character :-) Actually, having lived in an early 19th century cottage for 10 years, and in a barn conversion parts of whose structure are (probably) late 18th c (4 years so far) neither is in the least cold or damp - you'd be surprised how effective the combination of 18-24in thick stone walls with modern double glazing and decent roof insulation is like. The only problem we've ever had w/ damp was the result of a previous owner's botched attempts to change the guttering -- easily fixed. snip Just how much variation is there among those 200 kitchens (especially if there are only 3 price levels)? Doors, worktops, appliances, lighting, details, etc, etc. many permutations. As I expected ... now try suggesting that you want a completely different layout - see how much £££ that adds to the developer's price. Or that you'd prefer to use your own kitchen designer and supplier .... I know that some people prefer to buy new houses, and for them they have many advantages. However, for me (and, I suspect, for many others) those advantages are peripheral when compared to the benefits of older properties. Never heard such nonsense. And all that damp, cold, poor plumbing and high heating bills too. Do you get all your information about old houses from reading "Cold Comfort Farm" then? Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
New Houses - any good?
Julian Fowler wrote:
have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. |
New Houses - any good?
In message ,
"IMM" wrote: "parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. We've been in a lot of new houses over the last 12 months or so, and picked up a fair number of brochures. I even went so far as to do a survey in these brochures of garage sizes. A "single" garage varied from 2.45m to 2.65m wide. We have a Renault Scenic which is 1.7m wide without the mirrors. Ignoring the width of the door itself, this leaves between 37.5cm and 47.5cm (14.75" and 18.7") to open the side doors; *nearly* impossible to get out. On top of that the two "detent" opening positions on our Scenic leave the edge of the door 60cm or 1m from the body of the car, so it is genuinely impossible to get into or out of the car without bashing the door on the garage wall. Absolutely pointless. The only decent sized garage I've seen recently was by a small local developer in South Wales who built something others would have called a "double" but honestly described it as a "one and a half". My sister and her husband only have one car anyway, and it's a great size for that. They can even strap the baby into the car seat while the car's in the garage; there's no way you could do that in a 2.45m wide garage. Ooh, I love a good rant. Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html .... No man is an island. But some of us have long peninsulas. |
New Houses - any good?
David Hearn wrote:
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:02 +0100, "IMM" wrote: snip Given that this is a D-I-Y newsgroup, isn't part of the fun that you *can* rip out and change everything in an older house, Full renovation and DIY are very different. When moving into a new house there still will be enough DIY: a shed, racking out the garage, maybe flooring the loft, planting flowers, maybe a patio or decking if you didn't get the builder to do it, etc. Thing I don't like about new builds is their roof - I like large areas for storage - maybe even a conversion in the future. Most new houses' roofs aren't suitable for conversion - plus, whilst it may be possible to store something up there - moving around between the supports isn't exactly easy. I agree with that. I recently floored my loft and the contortions necessary to thread myself through the trusses would make it suitable for an assault course on the Krypton Factor. D |
New Houses - any good?
Julian Fowler wrote:
I can only look at the way in which new houses have been built in the parts of the country where I've lived for the last 15 years (North and West Yorkshire). Even 4-bed, "executive" detached houses tend to have no more than 25-30 m^2 of garden. I thought that you'd have picked up on this one ... after all, if it wasn't for draconian planning laws and over-zealous protection of greenbelts, then land prices would be lower and developers wouldn't feel forced to stick 15 houses on a plot that would realisticly hold half that number if they had decent sized gardens. I'm not sure that this is all down to the greed of developers. A chap in our village (in Wiltshire and a Conservation Area) lives in a large bungalow on about 0.25 acre of land. He wants to downsize now that the kids have left home but wants to stay in the village. He did some cost analyses and decided the best way, financially, would be to demolish his bungalow, split the plot in 2, build 2 houses, live in one and flog the other. When he went to the Planning Dept. they told him that if he did that then he would have to build *three* houses on the plot; something about a Govt. rule saying there must be 9 houses per hectare. With typical bureaucratic illogicality they told him the if he demolished *half* his bungalow he could put a single house on the space created and then extend the remaining half of the bungalow at the rear. |
New Houses - any good?
IMM wrote:
"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. Except that it's integral (not that that makes it impossible, just more expensive) and is only a metre from the boundary and that metre is where the path for access to the rear is. I was thinking about converting it into an extra room but it would possibly affect it's saleability should we move; although it would have more rooms and most people don't seem to use the garage for their car anymore it is used for the kids bikes/toys and as a workshop. An Estate Agent I know confirmed this. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
In article ,
parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote: I was thinking about converting it into an extra room but it would possibly affect it's saleability should we move; although it would have more rooms and most people don't seem to use the garage for their car anymore it is used for the kids bikes/toys and as a workshop. An Estate Agent I know confirmed this. I would love to knock our concrete sectional down and build even a slightly bigger one in some material that lets me hang stuff on the walls easily. I would build it as a garage for saleability but use it exclusively as a workshop. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
New Houses - any good?
In article ,
parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote: 'm not sure that this is all down to the greed of developers. A chap in our village (in Wiltshire and a Conservation Area) lives in a large bungalow on about 0.25 acre of land. He wants to downsize now that the kids have left home but wants to stay in the village. He did some cost analyses and decided the best way, financially, would be to demolish his bungalow, split the plot in 2, build 2 houses, live in one and flog the other. When he went to the Planning Dept. they told him that if he did that then he would have to build *three* houses on the plot; something about a Govt. rule saying there must be 9 houses per hectare. With typical bureaucratic illogicality they told him the if he demolished *half* his bungalow he could put a single house on the space created and then extend the remaining half of the bungalow at the rear. That isn't bureaucratic illogicality it is inventive getting around the rules to achieve the desired result. I believe it's called being as helpful as possible. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
New Houses - any good?
In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote: Actually, having lived in an early 19th century cottage for 10 years, and in a barn conversion parts of whose structure are (probably) late 18th c (4 years so far) neither is in the least cold or damp - you'd be surprised how effective the combination of 18-24in thick stone walls with modern double glazing and decent roof insulation is like. The only problem we've ever had w/ damp was the result of a previous owner's botched attempts to change the guttering -- easily fixed. My aunt and uncle used to live in a old farmhouse of various ages in Herefordshire. My Aunt had regular complaints about parts of the structure, the ones with character, iow wattle and daub and mentioned in the domesday book as a hunting lodge ;-) Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
New Houses - any good?
|
New Houses - any good?
Very much depends on the home builder. Have seen some real bad work,
plasterboard nails coming out of ceiling, poorly installed plumbing resulting in dodgy flow, cement used to level wooden floorboards (on unlevel joists), and artex still being used to cut corners. They do the best finish on the show house/flat, so that is the one to go for if you do decide to buy one. The main thing I hate about new build is the light doors and walls that just feel like you're living in a temporary house. |
New Houses - any good?
"Martin Angove" wrote in message ... In message , "IMM" wrote: "parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. We've been in a lot of new houses over the last 12 months or so, and picked up a fair number of brochures. I even went so far as to do a survey in these brochures of garage sizes. A "single" garage varied from 2.45m to 2.65m wide. We have a Renault Scenic which is 1.7m wide without the mirrors. Ignoring the width of the door itself, this leaves between 37.5cm and 47.5cm (14.75" and 18.7") to open the side doors; *nearly* impossible to get out. On top of that the two "detent" opening positions on our Scenic leave the edge of the door 60cm or 1m from the body of the car, so it is genuinely impossible to get into or out of the car without bashing the door on the garage wall. Absolutely pointless. The only decent sized garage I've seen recently was by a small local developer in South Wales who built something others would have called a "double" but honestly described it as a "one and a half". My sister and her husband only have one car anyway, and it's a great size for that. They can even strap the baby into the car seat while the car's in the garage; there's no way you could do that in a 2.45m wide garage. Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"Martin Angove" wrote in message ... In message , "IMM" wrote: "parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. We've been in a lot of new houses over the last 12 months or so, and picked up a fair number of brochures. I even went so far as to do a survey in these brochures of garage sizes. A "single" garage varied from 2.45m to 2.65m wide. We have a Renault Scenic which is 1.7m wide without the mirrors. Ignoring the width of the door itself, this leaves between 37.5cm and 47.5cm (14.75" and 18.7") to open the side doors; *nearly* impossible to get out. On top of that the two "detent" opening positions on our Scenic leave the edge of the door 60cm or 1m from the body of the car, so it is genuinely impossible to get into or out of the car without bashing the door on the garage wall. Absolutely pointless. The only decent sized garage I've seen recently was by a small local developer in South Wales who built something others would have called a "double" but honestly described it as a "one and a half". My sister and her husband only have one car anyway, and it's a great size for that. They can even strap the baby into the car seat while the car's in the garage; there's no way you could do that in a 2.45m wide garage. Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"Martin Angove" wrote in message ... In message , "IMM" wrote: "parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. We've been in a lot of new houses over the last 12 months or so, and picked up a fair number of brochures. I even went so far as to do a survey in these brochures of garage sizes. A "single" garage varied from 2.45m to 2.65m wide. We have a Renault Scenic which is 1.7m wide without the mirrors. Ignoring the width of the door itself, this leaves between 37.5cm and 47.5cm (14.75" and 18.7") to open the side doors; *nearly* impossible to get out. On top of that the two "detent" opening positions on our Scenic leave the edge of the door 60cm or 1m from the body of the car, so it is genuinely impossible to get into or out of the car without bashing the door on the garage wall. Absolutely pointless. The only decent sized garage I've seen recently was by a small local developer in South Wales who built something others would have called a "double" but honestly described it as a "one and a half". My sister and her husband only have one car anyway, and it's a great size for that. They can even strap the baby into the car seat while the car's in the garage; there's no way you could do that in a 2.45m wide garage. Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"Martin Angove" wrote in message ... In message , "IMM" wrote: "parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Julian Fowler wrote: have a garage that is exactly 10cm wider and longer than a Ford Mondeo You obviously bought an up-market home then ;-) I put SWMBO's Metro in ours and could only just get out of it. I'm tall, 1.9m (6' 3" in old money), but not wide. Widen the garage then. There is a good DIY project for you. Most 1930s garages are very small too. We've been in a lot of new houses over the last 12 months or so, and picked up a fair number of brochures. I even went so far as to do a survey in these brochures of garage sizes. A "single" garage varied from 2.45m to 2.65m wide. We have a Renault Scenic which is 1.7m wide without the mirrors. Ignoring the width of the door itself, this leaves between 37.5cm and 47.5cm (14.75" and 18.7") to open the side doors; *nearly* impossible to get out. On top of that the two "detent" opening positions on our Scenic leave the edge of the door 60cm or 1m from the body of the car, so it is genuinely impossible to get into or out of the car without bashing the door on the garage wall. Absolutely pointless. The only decent sized garage I've seen recently was by a small local developer in South Wales who built something others would have called a "double" but honestly described it as a "one and a half". My sister and her husband only have one car anyway, and it's a great size for that. They can even strap the baby into the car seat while the car's in the garage; there's no way you could do that in a 2.45m wide garage. Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"parish" parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote in message ... Peter Ashby wrote: In article , parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote: 'm not sure that this is all down to the greed of developers. A chap in our village (in Wiltshire and a Conservation Area) lives in a large bungalow on about 0.25 acre of land. He wants to downsize now that the kids have left home but wants to stay in the village. He did some cost analyses and decided the best way, financially, would be to demolish his bungalow, split the plot in 2, build 2 houses, live in one and flog the other. When he went to the Planning Dept. they told him that if he did that then he would have to build *three* houses on the plot; something about a Govt. rule saying there must be 9 houses per hectare. With typical bureaucratic illogicality they told him the if he demolished *half* his bungalow he could put a single house on the space created and then extend the remaining half of the bungalow at the rear. That isn't bureaucratic illogicality it is inventive getting around the rules to achieve the desired result. I believe it's called being as helpful as possible. I know the Planning Dept. were being helpful, I was referring to the Govt. and the regulation that imposes the 9/hectare rule. This is to appease the greenies who are funded by large landowners to keep people out of the country so they can keep their lucrative acres. Only 7.5% of the land mass is built on. So much for emotive words like "urban sprawl" and "concreting over the countryside". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Martin Angove" wrote in message ... In message , "IMM" wrote: Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. Well, I used to leave my car outside and for my pains the bl**dy burgler smashed the window looking for stuff before attempting entry to the house! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 |
New Houses - any good?
In message ,
"IMM" wrote: Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. Well, forgive me returning to the rant but in that case, what in the name of all that is sane is the bloomin' point having a flippin' garage in the first place????? If it's an integral garage then 5m by 2.5m is a nice size for a dining room. If it's a separate building then 5m by 2.5m probably cost three or four grand to build which could buy you a *very* nice kitchen or a landscaped garden or... As for a car outside being a deterrent, I doubt that very much. Any sane criminal is going to know when you're in or out, and any opportunist isn't going to care. And what about the perp who wants to steal the car itself, or the contents thereof? My point is this: If you want a garage, at least build it big enough so that you can get into and out of the car comfortably, and preferably large enough so that you can fit a child into a car seat and open the boot too. If you can't build it that big then it is no more than a glorified garden shed filled with lawnmowers and bikes, so why not build it so that it is accessible from the garden and come clean that that is what it is? Grrr! M. -- Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html .... If at first you don't succeed, call it Ver 1.0 |
New Houses - any good?
In message ,
"IMM" wrote: Who puts cars in garages anyway? The police recommend not to put them in as a car outside is a deterrent to burglars. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003 And for crying out loud, why the heck did your newsreader see fit to post this drivel FOUR times? And get the sig. sorted eh? It's TWO dashes and a SPACE, not three dashes. Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html .... (C)ontrol (A)lt (B)ye |
New Houses - any good?
In message ,
"IMM" wrote: "StealthUK" wrote in message om... Very much depends on the home builder. Have seen some real bad work, plasterboard nails coming out of ceiling, poorly installed plumbing resulting in dodgy flow, cement used to level wooden floorboards (on unlevel joists), and artex still being used to cut corners. They do the best finish on the show house/flat, so that is the one to go for if you do decide to buy one. The main thing I hate about new build is the light doors and walls that just feel like you're living in a temporary house. I like the light look. Just like the American lady on the TV. Keep it light, that is why the builders always finish in cream. Not the light LOOK, the light FEEL. Like everything's made of cardboard. Which it probably is. Didn't we have this discussion a few months back when you were extolling the virtues of building your house out of a sandwich of WBP and expanding foam? Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html .... Last yur I kudnt spel modjerater now I are won. |
New Houses - any good?
In message ,
Peter Ashby wrote: In article , Julian Fowler wrote: I'll grant the convenience of en-suite shower/bathrooms. However, I've yet to see a modern (as in less than 10 years old) with a "study room" that would actually be capable of holding a decent sized desk and a filing cabinet :-( I've looked at some new ones to rent where the stated 3rd bedroom would barely fit a small 2 man sofa. It's sad, I know, but at the same time as the garage survey (update: had a few recent brochures which were not included, and the widest single garage is now 2.71m, up from 2.65m) I also did a bedroom survey on 4-bed houses. The conclusions are a bit odd because I looked at the largest and smallest dimensions of the rooms rather than just the floor area, but for 4-bed houses, the average "large" dimension of the 4th bedroom was 3.11m and the average "small" dimension was 2.48m. This from a sample of 30 house plans including some from Potton (timber frame makers), Westbury, Persimmon, Barrat, Wimpey and Wilcon (all developers). There was however considerable variation, unlike with the garages. Hwyl! M. -- Martin Angove (it's Cornish for "Smith") - ARM/Digital SA110 RPC See the Aber Valley -- http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/abervalley.html .... Artificial Intelligence: The other guy's opinion. |
New Houses - any good?
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... of mediocre build quality, Not so. Also depends on the builder, etc. Like comparing a Lada with a RR in new cars. ... so how come so many people buying new houses report having to call the builders back to fix all the bits that weren't done properly (or at all)? Sounds like buying a new car. Drying out and the likes. Everyone know the builder will have to come back. Don't rate your choice in car manufacturers then. Guess you ought to stop buying Ladas, because the last 6 new cars I've bought have been faultless from the day I collected them. Cheers Clive |
New Houses - any good?
"Martin Angove" wrote in message ... In message , "IMM" wrote: "StealthUK" wrote in message om... The main thing I hate about new build is the light doors and walls that just feel like you're living in a temporary house. I like the light look. Just like the American lady on the TV. Keep it light, that is why the builders always finish in cream. Not the light LOOK, the light FEEL. Like everything's made of cardboard. Which it probably is. Didn't we have this discussion a few months back when you were extolling the virtues of building your house out of a sandwich of WBP and expanding foam? I daresay a quick google would reveal that we are once more heading down the interminable road to hell that beckons whenever a thread on property catches Adam's eye. Sometime soon I expect he will switch to spouting about land ownership, if he hasn't already. Deja vu, gaagh. Cheers Clive |
New Houses - any good?
"spog" wrote in message ...
| SWMBO has been dragging me around showhomes again. I've tried all the | usual objections to avoid having to stump up for a new house ('too | expensive', 'tiny plot of land', etc) and tried the 'look how badly | made they are' tactic. Unfortunately some of the advantages of buying a new house (it's brand new, can choose the kitchen and bathroom, etc) are lost as soon as they're bought, so in effect they depreciate just like almost-new cars. There will always be a *newer* house being built. Of course, this initial depreciation is usually more than offset by a rising housing market - but especially in London and the South-East of England, where many believe property is considerably over-valued, that rising market is not assured. Because there is a fixed (or shrinking) supply of period properties with character, they are more likely to hold their value. Disadvantages to a brand new house (apart from space, plot size etc): 1. There is nothing you can do to it that will increase its value quickly, so you cannot make a profit or gain equity in a falling market. If you buy an older house there is much greater potential for increasing its worth, whether it's just a repainting job or full restoration. 2. The garden will not be established. 3. Estate planning covenants that prevent you having anything taller than a blade of grass in the front garden and the like. | I was a little surprised to see how badly finished some of the | showhomes were (considering they are supposted to be 'show' homes - | the name gives it a away, really) and it got me to wondering, just how | well made are new houses? A friend's new house (a housing association shared ownership development in Milton Keynes) was, I thought, very well finished throughout especially considering it would be very much built to a budget. (That was after the sewer flooding the patio was sorted out.) But just because it was immaculately plastered didn't stop it being immaculately-plastered ticky-tacky. Owain |
New Houses - any good?
"Martin Angove" wrote
| * Why build a garage that is only large enough to be used as a | tool store? So you don't get into the habit of parking the car in it! Owain |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter