To think that some people live in too big houses?

[URSick]

Lots of people live in (in my opinion) already big houses yet they want to move into even bigger ones.
I see so many families where all the children have their own bedrooms, bathrooms, big bedroom for the parents, guest room, study, living room, and yet they never seem to be satisfied and want to move into a bigger house. They all want playroom for the children. What's the point, when they could easily play in their bedrooms or the living room? There are houses where everybody has their own level, plus bathrooms on the landings, more toilets than family members, and yet they want Buckingham palace. It's good to have enough space and not be in each other's pockets but am I the only one who thinks these people are greedy and unreasonable? You don't need to live in a mansion to be a happy family.
Not to mention those houses where entire rooms are never used, lots of space is taken up by massive stairs and there are parts of the house that are just walkways.
What's your take on it?

I have a mahoosive double garage with a loft above it and no cars in it, such a waste... Though it does store some of our stuff, some of the firewood, the big tools like the circular saw, plus it has a mechanics pit which is fun to hide in (and I assume useful for fixing the van if needed)

My parents died in their 4 bed roomed house (literally) and that worked out fine. It also meant if children and grandchildren visited ( 3 children, spouses, 9 grandchidlren - there was space for visits - we live hundreds of miles away). It also meant when my father needed an over night carer and 2 carers during the day there was space for that and that when he had to sleep downstairs towards the end there was space for that too and a downstairs wet room. I didn't feel he was hogging space (in NE anyway where prices are nothing like down here in the SE so the issues are very different).

I agree with the original post that you do not need a big house to be a happy family. However for me it works well having a big house. I don't currently have plans to sell it even if by the time I am 60 all the children might have moved out. In fact I am looking forward to a bit more space when they start to move out. I might even get my TV room back!

I would have a playroom and extra bedrooms if I could. Some people just like a lot of space, don't really see an issue when they're funding it themselves

I agree with whoever said that living in a spacious house just makes life much easier and less stressful.

Because we have a guest bedroom, having friends/family stay over is very simple. No faffing about making up beds on sofas, or shifting around furniture & finding spare bedding.

Because we have a large utility room, with storage for shoes, bags and lots of coat-hooks, 85% of the clutter and detrius our DDs (and DH) brings home stays in there.

Because our DDs have large bedrooms, with small seating areas, they can entertain their friends in their rooms - which means DH & I don't have to rub shoulders with gaggles of teenage girls every weekend.

Because we have separate bathrooms, DH and I don't have to fight our way through various face-packs, exfoliating brushes and 101 cosmetics to reach the sink.

And, yes, large homes are faaaaaar easier to keep tidy. A pair of shoes, a school bag and a tennis racquet in the corner of a 25ft x 20ft kitchen just isn't a problem. The same items in a 8ft by 6ft kitchen are a real hazard, and look so cluttered.

Are there houses which are over 350 years old in the US of A?

( I just watched an episode of Rich House Poor House on Channel 5 (also on Skygo) where a family swap with a family with a bigger house which made me think of this thread. It is nicely and kindly done)

Interestingly on that programme both sets of children poor and rich liked spending a lot more time with their families (it was nothing to do with money) and the rich children ilked having to sit with the parents in the tiny one living room - not that I am saying people are lucky to live in cramped space but it's funny what mattesr to children. I have a friend who shared a room with 2 brothers, bunks etc growing up and he never thought it was a problem, it was just normal life for them.

"I think the real issue is that many single pensioners are rattling around in huge family homes with big gardens they can't keep up with. Then you have lots of families crampt in tiny flats."

@brexitstolemyfuture - what about the emotional effect on the pensioner being forced out of their family home? My mother has become depressed, after downsizing from the home she shared with my father until his death, where she had, with years of work and effort, made the most beautiful garden, and where she had a great network of friends built up. She feels that she has lost her home, and now just has a house - somewhere she lives, nothing more.

You also appear to be ignoring the tremendous effort involved in downsizing from a big house to a much smaller one - it took my mum months to get rid of possessions and furniture from her old house, and even after all that, she still has too much for the house she is in now, and it is irredeemably cluttered, which is adding to her distress at living there. How is a pensioner on their own supposed to do all the heavy lifting involved in decluttering? Family aren't always near enough to help out - if there is family at all.

And as previous posters have said, once the pensioner has vacated the 6 bedroom house, the family in the cramped 2-bed are highly unlikely to be able to afford the 6 bed house!

What we actually need is for developers to be forced to build a percentage of affordable housing, when they are putting up their estates of big, expensive houses. And councils should be replacing the housing stock that was sold off - that was what was promised by Maggie Thatcher - that selling off council houses would fund the building of new council house stock - but it didn't. Only a fraction has been replaced, so now there is nowhere near enough council house stock for the people that need and deserve it!

My granny has a gardener and a cleaner- if she didn't need them then she'd go weeks without speaking to anyone. There's a bigger picture. She also knows many neighbours and they all keep an eye on her as we're spread around the world. If she moved she'd not have that support and would cost social care money.

What we actually need is for developers to be forced to build a percentage of affordable housing, when they are putting up their estates of big, expensive houses.

I've said this iver and over - if a developer is building a new cul-de-sac or a whole new estate, there should be rules within the planning regs that there should be a mixture of dwellings on each street - bungalows, flats or maisonettes, as well as larger homes.
I fully understand my elderly neighbours, who have lived in their home for 54 years, not wanting to leave the community they know so well, and get a lot of support from, even though they don't really need a 4 bed detatched house with a big garden. If there were a better mix of housing in every street, they'd have a better chance of having moved to a smaller property some years ago.

Back, there is such a rule. Either the developer pays a massive fee to the council and I mean massive to the council so as not to have to build social houses or they MUST in clude affordable housing. there was a big fuss when the council tenants were provided with a back door entrance in one such block whilst those paying £500k+ per flat had a posh separate entrance.

before planning social housing, there should be a rule to provide GP surgeries and schools! That should be the priority, what's the point of creating more homes without any of the necessities to go with it. If surgeries in an area are all full and no longer accept new patients, things are not going to improve when the new 200 houses development is finished.

Janet true there is technically such a rule but a lot of developers are very canny at getting out of it through a loophole where they can declare it to be 'not viable' to fulfil their section 106 obligations - it can be costly for cash strapped councils to challenge this in court so they end up letting it slide. It's a really awful position at the moment with big developers holding a lot of the cards.
I'm so annoyed that the small developers I deal with professional are usually quite good at doing what they have to, but big housebuilders round the corner produce reports often by planning consultants they have on retainers and save themselves a wodge of cash through creative writing & accountancy (playing the system). This is why housebuilding is getting more and more limited to the big players as they don't play fair and drive the smaller ones that play by the rules out of business.

It's relative to not only how many occupants live in these big houses, but also what they need the space for which does not require the opinion of others. OP you don't seem to see the bigger picture, you're just seeing for example 3 people living in a 5 bed house and scratching your head as to why they need such space. We live in a standard 3 bed, both kids have own room as should do given a boy and a girl far too old to share, but as we have a shop on ebay and our stock fills the loft and at times many other rooms, we could really do to live in a large 4/5 bed for more storage and an office, and that would be nobody elses business but ours if thats what we wanted to do, why should people have to justify themselves to those who cant see beyond the end of their nose.

My friend has a 2 bed (1 and a half bed) flat. When she bought it new, she could've bought a 3 bed terrace in same area for the same price. Now she can't get rid and would get less than she paid as well as service charges each month.
They are using land to throw up flats like these that are completely unsuitable for families instead of building proper size houses.
Her flat is roughly the size of my 2 reception rooms!
We could've bought a 3 bed semi but for an extra 10 grand we got a huge Edwardian tardis with high ceiling and loads of space. No brainer. I clean less now as it isn't a cluttered mess. Toy free living room. Heaven. Also gives us the option in future of space for parents just in case.

Just moved from 3bed with 1 small bathroom for 4 to a 5 bed with 4 bathrooms. It wasnt thay much more money, but there's no queuing for bathroom, plus I get sn office and boys have games room. The kids say they love it!

Thanks Janet - that might be a rule, however, on the 5 big developments I can think of that have built near me in the last 10 yrs or so, that rule has clearly not been enforced.
Strikhedonia - couldn't agree more - Once again, not the case on any of the new developments around here. I did suggest that on another thread not long ago where someone was thinking of buying on a new development - where are the community rooms (for Scouts / Mums and Toddler / Elderly Lunch club / an election 'hustings' / Slimmer world / Yoga / badminton / choir / zumba / whatever else people might want to do)...... where are the GPs / Health Centres.....where are the 'corner shops'.... where are the school places.....etc., etc.

We stayed with friends this weekend. We hadn't stayed with them since 2008, when they had just moved into their huge house (8-car garage...). TBH they are unable to use more than a small amount of it and several rooms are unused. What's the point?

The only issue we have found with a big house is heating it, we probably spend 2 weeks a year collecting enough firewood for the winter. We normally get through 7 10" trees a year

But I suppose you burn disabled children for warmth?

I live with mine in the house that was custom built for him, and us as a family including whichever of my children and their family will come and live here with us when I'm too old to manage looking after him, even with the team of carers who help me with his round the clock care and who also live with us in their accommodation in the garden.

What's the point?

Why not?

It was the ten inch trees I was visualising. I thikn 10' (ten foot) was meant..... My heating and lighting bills are not far short of £5k a year and council tax is £3200 but I don't expect anyone to weep for me over that. I am very lucky to live in a nice house and as I said above I work from here too (need spcae for hundreds of files) and when I was still married my husband needed a grand piano, upright piano, organ etc. for work too once reason we needed 4 separate not walk through and not open plan downstairs rooms and 5 children take up quite a bit of space.

Land is not an issue though is it in most of the country? In the part of the NE may mother is from whole houses cost £47k and take ages to sell and Northumberland has masses of land. So people "hogging" a big house which is bigger than the amount you might be allocated in North Korea by a socialist state deciding your entitlement (the state hands you your home partly also based on your rank and family too) is not an issue across much of the UK from Cornwall to Ullapool, Northumberland to much of Northern Ireland and Wales.

Actually Cornwall is a bad example because of the empty second holiday homes issue there so scrub it from my list.