To think more people should be incentivised to downsize?

[Sprockerdilerock]

I'm sure I will be flamed but here goes.

I know so many older adults who live in family size homes long after their children have left. Would it not be better for the government to offer incentives eg no stamp duty, removal costs paid for them to downsize to free them up for those that need them more?

We do have a housing shortage and I get that we could always build more homes, but we are also heading towards a climate crisis and surely it's better to use what resources we do have more efficiently and plough less energy into creating more.

My MIL is case in point - she still lives in the home my DH and his siblings grew up and often expresses a wish to downsize but she doesn't have a lot of money to spend on things like legal costs etc.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Land ownership by large estates, farms and corporations is the real problem. Scarcity of land being freed up means that building land is very expensive, less houses are built and those that are built cost loads. Older people downsizing from larger houses won't help because they will still need another house to live in!

To all the people saying the issue is lack of smaller and affordable houses, that would also be helped. Problem is, with hundreds of thousands of people ageing in place in large houses, there is limited stock for growing families in popular places. Older people who got a subsidy could, perhaps, convert their upstairs floor to a flat, adding a new 2 bed to the housing market. Or they could move to a 2 bed, potentially allowing an overcrowded family to consider a larger move.

Housing is not the same as other goods. If you have a diamond necklace that doesn't affect my life, even if I'd like one. But with limited space and capacity to build in popular cities, every single person in a large house puts pressure on another family to move further out, or stay squashed in.

I won’t be downsizing any time soon (my DC are still at school - or virtual school). But even if I put my 7 bedroom house on the market it would almost certainly be bought by a property developer and split into flats. Currently there are only two houses this size on my entire street that haven’t been split into flats (ours and our next door neighbours). Some of the 4 bedroom houses are still family homes, but even they’ve started to be split into flats or rented out as HMOs.

@OverTheRubicon

Problem is, with hundreds of thousands of people ageing in place in large houses, there is limited stock for growing families in popular places

The 'ageing' are not responsible for others' life choices.

If a family is 'overcrowded' perhaps they should have decided not to have so many children and they will have to come to terms with the fact that they will have to live in an area that is not 'popular'

No Yabu . I say this as a renter of social housing and I will more than likely never own my own home due to circumstances out of my control but why should people that have bought there own homes and spent years in it be made to downsize just so us young people with our kids can get a good property? It’s tough t!tty there’s not much we can do. My mum and dad are retirement age and live in our 4 bedroom family home and intend to stay there as long as it’s possible, tough luck for others.

OvertheRubicon "every single person in a large house puts pressure on another family to move further out, or stay squashed in."

So what happens if mum needs a live in carer in future? You want her in a one bed flat, and a rota of carers sharing a sofa bed?

I choose to be single and childfree. If I win the lottery, am I buying a house with a big garden? Hell yes.

I agree OP. However, I think the excessive cost of stamp duty full stop really prevents a lot of free movement. There are people that would be willing to sell and move for a job for a few years, but can't afford to sell, buy and sell again. Some of these people rent their house out, many move onto an interest only mortgage for the time they are seconded elsewhere, rather than risk getting a crap tenant who may trash the place. London, especially where a very modest three bed mid terrace in an average area on the outskirts can cost £650k makes it prohibitive to move. For old people to downsize and move to another place in their area, the costs and hassle make it prohibitive, so they choose to keep the bigger houses and just use part of the house. Lots of the capital from moving goes on stamp duty for the next place. It's obscenely expensive. It's an easy, unfair and very disproportionately expensive tax and the country needs money.

@sortmylifeoutplease

I agree OP. However, I think the excessive cost of stamp duty full stop really prevents a lot of free movement. There are people that would be willing to sell and move for a job for a few years, but can't afford to sell, buy and sell again. Some of these people rent their house out, many move onto an interest only mortgage for the time they are seconded elsewhere, rather than risk getting a crap tenant who may trash the place. London, especially where a very modest three bed mid terrace in an average area on the outskirts can cost £650k makes it prohibitive to move. For old people to downsize and move to another place in their area, the costs and hassle make it prohibitive, so they choose to keep the bigger houses and just use part of the house. Lots of the capital from moving goes on stamp duty for the next place. It's obscenely expensive. It's an easy, unfair and very disproportionately expensive tax and the country needs money.

A good example of the negative behavioural consequences of high taxes.

I don't think large houses are where we have the housing shortage, its more the 1/2./3 beds
And how ans why should we force people to downsiZe.
My parents have upsized as gone from when we were little family of 4, with grandchildren etc now a family of 12 .

@DynamoKev

YANBU - Except we don't have a housing crisid everywhere in the UK.

Says everyone who is comfortable.

I don't think my 3 bed terrace is that big. 2 double beds and a single , one bathroom, 1 downstairs wc and kitchen/frontroom. I don't own it but if we did what do we downsize to ? I mean I would like to have my gc stay if i have some , and when my dc leave home always at least one room incase they ever need it .

How about we demolish all the houses and herd everyone into barracks?

We can begin with the larger homes. The Queen has a few empty rooms and most of the government have two or more houses.

I live in a ha house and also don't think I should be kicked out of that when my kids leave home.
I will have lived in my house for 25/30 years and paid full rent, spent money on maintaining etc as they don't do everything.
Then what to be expected to go in a high storey 1 bed flat in my 50's ? And at cost to me , removal men , removing carpets , replacing carpets.

@Sprockerdilerock

I'm sure I will be flamed but here goes.

I know so many older adults who live in family size homes long after their children have left. Would it not be better for the government to offer incentives eg no stamp duty, removal costs paid for them to downsize to free them up for those that need them more?

We do have a housing shortage and I get that we could always build more homes, but we are also heading towards a climate crisis and surely it's better to use what resources we do have more efficiently and plough less energy into creating more.

My MIL is case in point - she still lives in the home my DH and his siblings grew up and often expresses a wish to downsize but she doesn't have a lot of money to spend on things like legal costs etc.

Totally agree with you. We don't even really need big govt incentives (tho it would help) - we just need a clearer understanding of the sort of housing (tenures / schemes, size, etc) older people want to be able to move without feeling like they're "downsizing" in the sense that feels like a sacrifice.

Cost of care is a huge issue - older people's accommodation with a care element is prohibitively expensive (McCarthy and Stone) type schemes.

At the moment the planning legislation also means traditional older people housing with an element of care (C2) doesn't have to provide any affordable housing (as opposed to mainstream housing - C3 - where a % has to meet the definition of affordable housing). Whether accommodation is C2 or C3 is a grey area.

There does need to be more clarity at a national level, and local areas need a far better understanding of what the housing needs of an ageing population will be when we're churning out homes for young people and families because that's what's needed now.

@TreacleTarte

Houses are homes and they are often inheritance. What incentive would be worth leaving a lifetime of memories and your beloved home; your children's inheritance? For many people, no stamp duty and the removal costs paid would not be any sort of incentive to live in a small property and start making a home all over again

Quality of life? Enjoying a home you can manage, move around in easily, and enjoying spending the equity?

@Sprockerdilerock

I'd have thought it would be more space and resource efficient to build additional batches of smaller homes than additional larger ones?

Competition for 3/4 bed houses here is still quiet fierce despite the new build estates popping up.

@Toilenstripes I guess we will never agree there. I'm not of the opinion that the climate crisis can be solved unless there is more government meddling into private affairs. I'm sure that makes me unpopular!

Again, totally agree. Free up the big semis or townhouses with huge gardens for families. Build high quality, single storey homes for the people moving out of them in central locations close to shops, communities halls, doctors, Ed. . Yes, the development would be lower density as it's essentially bungalows, but they don't need to be huge 4 beds and they don't need huge plots of land.

@overtherubicon we have plenty of places to build and empty homes.
In my area we have several old factories and an old cattle market and half a town centre that will prob never recover , we should be building on these. But its cheaper to build in a nice field , rather than develop exsisting rundown sites and making people who have empty homes sell.
As an older person why would you want a flat above you , my nan downsized to a 2 bed gf maisonette but the issue is she is always disturbed by the upstairs flats kids running around at all times, and less tolerant of noise now as she hasn't lost her hearing .

There's also the issue of accessibility more generally - houses built for older people are generally accessible / adaptable meaning people with mobility problems can benefit too

@Bluntness100

People don’t not buy bigger houses because they aren’t available, they are. They don’t buy them because they can’t bloody afford them.

If folks started downsizing the ones in rhe smaller houses would be fucked. Everyone would be after them and there would be a shortage.

And folks aren’t going to sell at a loss or give their homes away cheapo.

So it’s a bit of a silly plan really.

Completely agree. There is always a plethora of large expensive homes (East Coast) but young families are rarely in a position to afford them. Doing as the OP says and flooding the market with large expensive homes and consequently inflating the price of starter homes is going to hinder the situation rather than helping surely?

@nicebreeze a bungalow take up a lot of square footage compared to a house , so that is not a cheap way. Since when so we live in a country that tells people when they should downsize and sell their house ? What next do we say actually we don't have loads of big houses so no one have more than 2 kids ?? What kind of country do people want to live in. Or do they only want people to be told to do things that won't affect them.

nicebreeze "Totally agree with you. We don't even really need big govt incentives (tho it would help) - we just need a clearer understanding of the sort of housing (tenures / schemes, size, etc) older people want to be able to move without feeling like they're "downsizing" in the sense that feels like a sacrifice. "

I'm not a mind reader, but I strongly suspect you will find the type of housing "older people" want to live in will be....the home they've lived in a good chunk of their life. Often with neighbours they've known a good chunk of their life.

In many cases, downsizing is a sacrifice, there isn't a way to sugar coat that.

Section 5 of this report discusses the "right sizing" issue - it essentially says it's an under-researched area but it's about choice.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/370/370.pdf

I find this topic so interesting - I worried for so long about my parents rattling round. In their huge house when we all left home. They sold up, bought a lovely central flat with a small garden and have the money to spend on making it their own while they can still be bothered. We should make downsizing an attractive option for people who are considering it and spend far more time looking into how we can improve people's quality of life as they age, not to mention their health, their wellbeing - reducing isolation, etc.

Large street near me are Victorian 3 stories terraces built for large families and their servants.

No all flats, with no parking. Puts pressure on local amenities, doctors, schools etc as the infrastructure wasn’t meant for so many in one small space.

@Notgoingouttoday

I think we should be going in a different direction towards multi-generational homes. I know that the council in Hastings has already started this. Think about it - granny in the house to help with the grandchildren and then later, children can look after granny when she gets too frail to look after herself. Why are we putting all our old people in homes? I accept that people need their independence but I think we should be incentivising granny annexes and mullt-generational livng.

This is an exciting idea too! Co-housing schemes like Marmalade Lane are a great option for many people : marmaladelane.co.uk

[quote trulydelicious]@OverTheRubicon

Problem is, with hundreds of thousands of people ageing in place in large houses, there is limited stock for growing families in popular places

The 'ageing' are not responsible for others' life choices.

If a family is 'overcrowded' perhaps they should have decided not to have so many children and they will have to come to terms with the fact that they will have to live in an area that is not 'popular'[/quote]
Of course we all have some responsibility for others around us, that's what makes community. We are all under lockdown right now to primarily protect the older generation, we pay taxes to fund the education of our youth, or to care for the disabled - because these make our society overall a better place to live for us and others.

Why should a family with 2 growing children have to live on a 2 bed flat with no garden or live over an hour's commute out, because there are so few larger houses on the market that there is a price squeeze on 3+ beds, while meanwhile an older couple live in one bedroom and the living area of a 4 bed house. The older couple likely were able to.afford the house on one salary back in the day, and their children will.benefit from a large unearned windfall when they inherit, but the other couple with kids should just have to lump it because it's none of their business?

For all the people saying that the demand is not.for.4 beds - the point is that (a) right now there's a squeeze on smaller homes because larger homes are relatively rare, and (b) larger homes can be split to make 2 X 2 bed flats, also increasing market supply.

Housing is all of our business.