All old people should sell up family homes for families.

I do actually agree with this. Just down the road from me, there's a row of ten 2-bed bungalows, (five sets of semis...) 5 of these bungalows belong to a Housing Association. 2 of these 5 have just recently been let (late Winter and Spring this year.)

The Housing Association has let one a couple and with one 13 y.o. child and one to a couple with 2 children. (2 boys aged 7 and 9.) A family of 3 in one and a family of 4 in the other... 2 bed bungalows made for the over 55s originally when they were built by the housing association in the 1990s. (5 bought on the right to buy.)

The 5 people that own them are actually fuming. Signed up to live next to and around older people, and now they have these 2 these families. There's 3 kids and probably about seven or eight friends who come around, playing all the time at the front, kicking balls onto the flowers, kicking balls into the driveway, and their dogs are running onto the garden, shitting on the drive. Quite anti social behaviour to be honest.

There's no way in hell a family with one or two kids should be living in a two bed bungalow. They should be allowed only for people only over 55. And yeah that includes sale. Never gonna happen though.

I mean I'd rather be with DH! But I would rather live on my own than in a retirement village IYSWIM!

Exactly this. And as a few posters upthread have said, you couldn't pay me enough money to move into one of those 'retirement villages.' I'd rather shit in my hands and clap, stick pins in my eyes, and drink bleach than go into a retirement village. Or any kind of situation where I was living with lots of randoms that I don't know from Adam. I'd rather live on my own, to be honest.

I have little sympathy for people who have 3+ kids and then complain they don’t have enough space.

I don’t understand why the focus is on old people selling their homes.

1- most of the houses from elderly people will go back into the market eventually, in most cases their kids will sell for inheritance purposes or to afford care bills.

2- Elderly people downgrading to starter homes (smaller houses) won’t help the market. Most young people struggle to find suitable starter homes and most definitely cannot afford a 4 or 5 bedroom house. I know very few people who could go from renting to owning a 5 bedroom house right away so what it would likely do is increase the competition for starter homes while still leaving most people unable to afford a big home.

3- Not everybody can downgrade. I just bought a 3-bedroom place (I am solo), do I need the 3-double bedrooms? No. But in the city I bought in, studios or 1-bedroom flat, simply aren’t a thing and are likely to have costed me just about the same as buying a 3-bedroom. So why should I pay more for less? Most options were I bought where 3 bedrooms (or 2 if you really want to be on the sea front or core of the city center) but I personally favored the space over being crammed into a tiny flat and it was cheaper to leave in the area where 3-bedrooms are common than by the proper sea front where most flats are tinier.

4- We live in a generation that’s less likely to have kids or as many kids. Why should people with no kids or single (or the elderly) be prejudiced against for wanting space. I think single people already pay a lot more than others in many ways due to not having a second salary to contend with; not having the tax reliefs that can come with being married and due to double occupancy rules in many holiday complex etc…
having kids is a choice. I am one of 5 and for the longest time we lived in a tiny apartment and shared bedrooms, now my parents have a 4/5 -bedroom house and now most of us are adults so technically they don’t need the space but I know they will keep it because similarly there is no small houses really where they live and moving back to the city would be just too expensive (not financially viable).

5- ultimately having kids is a choice. I think people should have as many kids as fit in their home based on the quality of life they want to provide them. Currently people have as many kids as they want and then complain they can’t provide them with the lifestyle they want for them or with the lifestyle their own parents could provide them with. I agree the housing situation is completely dire and needs to be a lot better and sustainable, but I think if parents adapted the number of kids to what they can actually afford to provide vs not, the situation might not seem as dire.

Obviously not everyone can afford that but in a free country those that can afford it will have the right to it.

This is the crux of the matter, not all the blethering about what people ‘should’ do or who’s worked the hardest and therefore ‘deserves’ whatever advantage they have.

Money buys advantage. It buys bigger homes in better locations, it buys better education, better healthcare. It buys a better life. the uk is an increasingly unequal society and one of the greatest - and increasing- lines of inequality is intergenerational wealth. Older generations have benefited from situations that no longer exist - and they are, by and large, richer as a result and can buy more advantage than younger people.

FIL was a postman. But in the 1970s with 2 young children and a wife that didn’t work outside the home, he was able to buy a three-bed semi in a really good part of a major city, with zero parental help. There is no way that a young person in such a low paying job could do that nowadays - and that’s what feels unfair.

The UK is also a thoroughly capitalist, market driven economy. Money buys advantage. That’s the bottom line.

Absolutely they forget that many lost their houses whilst vast areas were effectivly closed down for work when entire industrys Were closed like the pits and steelworks.

I will pass our 4 bed to my son once I'm gone... isn't that the point of having houses?

He can sell if he wants too that's his choice

Unless you want to overthrow capitalism and establish a new socialist utopia, the only possible answer is that each individual or couple gets to choose for themselves and there isn't a "should".

In my family and DPs and both for our immediate parents and for our grandparents, in each case they have generally made a decision to downsize when reaching late 70s/early 80s. Not due to any sense of social obligation to vacate larger homes but choosing the size of home that suits them. Larger homes are of course more difficult to run and keep clean and well maintained.

Meanwhile I am in my late 40s, DC in teens, and can't yet afford a house that's big enough to be comfortable in. If the opportunity arises to upgrade to a larger home once DC in adulthood and we no longer need to be near good schools and can release that location premium that would be brilliant. If a couple with adult DC want to be able to have a bedroom each due to snoring/medical issues, and a study or craft studio for their work each, and a guest room, then a 5 bedroom house is a minimum. Obviously not everyone can afford that but in a free country those that can afford it will have the right to it.

Any legislation should be to mandate house building to keep up with demand, not restricting who is allowed to choose their own home.

My parents talked about selling the family home and downsizing a few years ago. I didn't say anything because it's none of my business but I did feel sad about them selling.
They didn't in the end as they couldn't find a smaller property they liked. Think they are glad they didn't now as they like having space for family and friends, they like having the space to do hobbies and they worked hard to afford to buy the house and don't see why they should sell before they are ready.
I personally don't think it will be sold until they both die and really don't understand the thinking that they should downsize. Doesn't matter if they have extra bedrooms or not they paid for the house and there's a lot of good memories there.

I'd love to get a bungalow but where I live they are fast disappearing, not by being built on but by being pulled down and either one large mansion or several smaller houses built in their place.
I'm not quite ready for McCarthy and Stone yet which is the only option.

There's a big retirement place just opened near us. The two beds are twice the price of a two bed bungalow round here. Even with facilities onsite they just are not worth the price. It's NOT a care home (thats next door and a separate facility). There is a retirement village with caravans nearby too which is cheaper and very luxurious and onsite call support. It boggles my mind who would buy at the new place.

I absolutely don’t agree with this and don’t think anyone should be forced to feel uncomfortable about where they live. Older people tend to spend more time at home as a whole so they need more space within the home than a family which is out from 7-7. They can also visit each other more as they may not be tied down by kids- my late gran always had guests, sometimes many. Some may need a space for a career and many may need a downstairs bedroom
and/ or bathroom. There are many ways in which a single older person may need a large house, as well as want one.

Yes - nightmare leaseholds. Not a chance in hell I’d go down this route.

I don't agree with the idea of expecting people to sell the house they live in, but I thought there was a common understanding that quality of life peaked with baby boomers and is now declining.

I think people get really confused & think that saying it's harder now means it wasn't hard back then & they struggle to ignore their anecdotal experiences eg my neighbours are 25 & paid 600k for their house so that must be extrapolated to all 25 yr olds. Definitely makes debating difficult!

Ah I see, so at what age should I move in with my brother and sister in law who I can spend about an hour or two with before they drive me mad? With friends who I love dearly, like going on holiday with for a few days but then need my own space, friends who live their lives with different priorities, different tastes in food, decor etc. maybe I should really get on with people they happen to have picked as friends better!

Why can’t young families do all of these things, live communally. Live with siblings? Parents of their kids friends. The entire year group buy a mansion together and live in it?

You either hate old people or you struggle to think of anyone apart from yourself or most likely both. I despair at times

The problem ISN'T a lack of housing stock of larger properties. The problem is a lack of affordable housing stock

Yes, most new estates have large "executive" homes which people can't afford.

There are plenty of affordable homes though, but a huge number of them are owned as second homes and holiday homes. About a million of them. Some will have planning constraints that don't allow them to be used for residential use, but most can be. That's an issue to resolve.

It's equally fucking irritating when the ' you all had free uni education ( er 5% in my generation had tertiary education) and bought a four bed house at 30 specifically to fuck the next generation over' crowd start but it never stops them

thewhole thread is about older people downsizing out of public spirited duty to free up their homes for supposedly needier people. The entitlement is breathtaking.

Nope, if you actually read the OP the question is for the people who think this what does it look like in reality.

Families might not want stairs either. There are lots of younger people with disabilities. We always lived in bungalows when I was a child because we lived in Devon and they are plentiful and because my father was scared of heights

I do think there should be strict rules on converting bungalows to houses though - or knocking them down altogether to build a house. Not so much if it's a single bungalow out in the countryside somewhere, but if bungalows are in towns they should remain bungalows. I don't have so much issue with Velux/dormer windows and extra rooms upstairs, because the layout downstairs is still practical and it's still a bungalow. But not taking the roof off and changing the whole thing. We don't have nearly enough bungalows so we should not be converting those we have.

And on the same lines, I don't think you should be able to buy a two bed house and turn it into a four bed. There need to be much stricter planning constraints on turning smaller houses into bigger ones.

We need family houses but we also need smaller homes as starter homes and as retirement homes. And not poorly built flats with no noise insulation.

It's a ridiculous idea based on inability to think.

The problem ISN'T a lack of housing stock of larger properties. The problem is a lack of affordable housing stock.

What happens if older people try and downsize? It just puts pressure on the mid to bottom of the housing market. The value of the larger housing stock can not drop below a certain value either because of land value - ultimately these larger properties could in theory be split into two (if they can get planning) and thats why they retain value.

You therefore get a 'pancake' effect where the first and second tier of the market are inflated in price and a tier above that which is out of reach still for families but still retains most of its value. The pressure on these properties due to increased demand also disadvantages families because they can only buy with a mortgage whereas downsizers are much more likely to be cash buyers and therefore able to get first choice on what properties are available because they are more attractive buyers as it's a less risky process for sellers.

And it doesn't solve the inherent problem which is families can only afford a certain maximum square meterage.

Very noble. And if you had more than one child, not practicable. Plus when you can't travel anymore, what then? Oh, DS will take you in. Sure.

Do you really, honestly, think that young adults today have had it easy?

I don't agree with the idea of expecting people to sell the house they live in, but I thought there was a common understanding that quality of life peaked with baby boomers and is now declining.

It is irritating that people are trotting out variations of 'you've never had it so good' when the last 15 years have been a shitshow and the impacts have hit young people hardest.

I was diagnosed with significant fertility issues, we sold our flat and bought a house when we got married in the hope we could have DC, if we hadn't would we have also needed to sell our home?

Yup. And don't go into a care home, just leave your kids everything.