To think it will soon become more normal for families to live in smaller houses

[flipflopfloop]

With the recent rates increasing, borrowing costs are so high now that it would be at least 1200pcm in repayments for a small 2 bed house around here and it’s a relatively cheap area of the country. If not higher than this. Surely this will mean the days of having more bedrooms than people are numbered, and more and more families will have to make do with smaller living space - possibly leading to smaller family sizes even. I personally don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. They are building lots of new developments on the outskirts of our city with prices starting from 350 for a 2 bed. A 4 bed home with three useable bedrooms there is easily 450-500. I find it interesting to wonder who will occupy these as presumably they are not yet sold and you would have to have at least a 6 figure household income to be able to afford this.

£450-500k is pretty standard for a 3 bed around here. My house is a similar value and we certainly aren't on a 6 figure salary. Combined we earn around £90k but was about £70k when we took the mortgage out originally. Most people in my area in similar values houses have pretty standard jobs.

But did you pay 450/500k?

I don't think children having their own bedrooms is ingrained at all - is this a class thing? Most people I knew growing up shared a bedroom unless they were an only child, or the only girl with brothers etc.

Smaller families arrived as soon as the contraceptive Pill did, in the 1960s. All my grandparents had 10+ siblings, my generation more than two children had become unusual. Council housing in my home town (about 80% of the housing stock then) built from the 1950s onwards was predominantly two-bedroom, because that was all most families needed.

I'd say average house size followed average family size, rather than family size following how big a house could be afforded.

But I agree that UK homes are small with small rooms and people only seem to care about the number of bedrooms and not the actual floor space.

We had our valued last week and the estate agent was saying that the market in our area is still buoyant up to £350k but above demand has slowed significantly and she thinks there are deals to be had for anyone looking in that price range.

She also noted that the £1 million plus properties are selling as fast as ever, no slowing down in demand.

hmm I think most of it is fairly unlikely, because we build new houses at such a low rate most of our housing stock is already in existence iykwim, so loads of those 3 bed houses already exist so people will still be living in them. Also while there's usually a fairly big jump in new builds on the same estate, often there's not always a huge difference between 2 and 3 beds, or at least you can get a 3 bed that needs doing up/doesn't have other features (like fewer bathrooms etc.), is further out of school catchment, for the same price as a nicely decorated 2 bed.

Also I surprisingly know absolutely loads of people living in houses with more bedrooms than people, including lots of single people living in 2/3 bed houses. Surprising because I don't move in rich circles (very far from it!), live in an average area (although not south east), and am in my 30s so the majority of people I know well enough to know their housing circumstances are my age or younger.

I think the 'having smaller families' is very likely though, (and is already the case?). I think an increase in multi-generational living, or hand-down mortgages is more likely.

We have pretty small homes already. The only developed countries that have fewer square feet per person than the UK are Italy, Hong Kong and Russia. I mean, I guess maybe we could adopt capsule living or build kruschev era tower blocks to cram even more people into what living space we have, but there comes a point where you can't usefully get any smaller.

Smaller families arrived as soon as the contraceptive Pill did, in the 1960s.

But they have been getting progressively smaller. Affordability & house prices are defo part of the reasons why.

my generation more than two children had become unusual

What's your generation?

I'd say average house size followed average family size, rather than family size following how big a house could be afforded.

I disagree

Average family in the UK now has 1.7 children.

I lived in Hong Kong when very young and I didn’t share a room with my brother. The rooms get smaller, the living area and kitchen even smaller, but parents want to give a room to each child. Hong Kong has much more expensive houses than the UK. I think the trend will be for smaller families instead. Look at the birth rate in east Asia for an example. Parents no longer feel they can provide for so many children and still give the best they could give. You can have one child with a 2 bed, 2 with a 3-bed. Most family homes will be at least that size. It’s not a good thing for the country to have such low birth rate however.

Smaller houses might become more normal for families of young children.

Meantime, more people are working from home and adult children can't afford to move on. We've chosen to build an extension as our house that was fine when the children are younger, physically doesn't have enough comfortable space for 3 adults and 1 older teen where the adults all work at home some or all of the time. If we'd had a 2 bed it would have been impossible.

Birth rate is a separate issue but yes I agree it's not good. The median average age of a UK citizen is now over 40. Compare that with India where it's well under 30, or places like Nigeria, Bangladesh etc where it's well under 20. Very uncompetitive skills wise and also difficult to fund healthcare within an entirely tax funded system when you have a massive bulge at the top end of people needing healthcare but no longer contributing tax wise due age related removal from the labour market.

(China and Russia also have a birth issue as like the UK running below population replacement level but life expectancy in both countries is lower ...)

It was normal a few years ago too, the concept that siblings shouldn't share and needing a spare bedroom is very modern. It was normal to bring up families of 6,7,8 in total in a 3 bed (2+box room) certainly my parents grew up in very small houses despite having 3 siblings

I think we move in different circles, because the people I know already do live in small houses - I grew up in a converted 2 bed which became 3.5 beds (one was technically a box room, and one wasn't a lot bigger than that) for 4 kids.

Most places I've rented have been 2-3 beds for me and my 2 kids (who prefer sharing, but it's good to have an office or a games room where possible, but it often isn't).

During lockdown, one of my kids took to using the stairs to sit and read because every other room had someone in it and he wanted to be left alone, or in another flat, he would sit in the hallway cupboard for the same reason.

Yes we've always had small houses. We still have small houses.

Big golf courses though.

Homes aren't bigger. The rooms are significantly smaller in new family homes than they were built in the 80s. And the overall plots are smaller.

The issue (imo) is that public green spaces are shrinking but gardens aren't increasing proportionally. A 3 bed semi with a small third bedroom in the 50s had a garden big enough for a veg patch, a lawn and a patio. Kids could play; living rooms and dining rooms were separate for privacy even if the bedrooms were shared. Now the emphasis seems to be on separate sleeping spaces but everyone crammed together the rest of the time.

We are full by the way, bought a 3 bed for the 2 of us and the (grown up) kids decided to move in with us !

It's honestly only here on MN where the obsession with each child having their own room seems to exist. In my normal day to day life lots of siblings share and it's not an issue. We could do with more space and could afford to move but we are in a lovely little cul de sac where we are happy and settled with great neighbours.

Number of bedrooms is a red herring anyway. Look at square footage. In the UK it's generally very small per person.

I watched 'Buying and Selling,' a USA property programme, and some of the houses are enormous.
I especially like their basements, which are essentially self contained flats. UK houses are not big enough.

Agree about the spare footage. You get loads of houses that have 3 or 4 bedrooms but when you look at the living space it doesn't feel like enough space for 3 or 4 actual people and their possessions.

How can you possibly think not being able to have children is a privilege.

Birth rate is a separate issue but yes I agree it's not good. The median average age of a UK citizen is now over 40. Compare that with India where it's well under 30, or places like Nigeria, Bangladesh etc where it's well under 20. Very uncompetitive skills wise and also difficult to fund healthcare within an entirely tax funded system when you have a massive bulge at the top end of people needing healthcare but no longer contributing tax wise due age related removal from the labour market.

we are fucked because of this

Or square metres. 33m2 is what each person has on average in the UK. I don't know if they count the king & family in it which would mean that the actual average is of course much lower but it's not really a great deal. Crackers that all those tiny parcels of land are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.