All old people should sell up family homes for families.

[benigogo]

Not really an AIBU, more a hypothetical question really. This view comes up a lot on MN, and I'm interested in the detail of what people actually imagine when they say it. What type of property should they be giving up? What type of property should they be moving to? How old is old? What about younger people who under occupy a property? For example 2 friend couples, have recently downsized. Both from a 4 bed detached, one to a 4 bed semi, and the other to a 3 bed semi. Their homes were bought, one by a young professional couple, and the other by a couple in their seventies, themselves downsizing. If you hold this view what do you visualise?

We're "managing" this situation by staying in a house that's a bit of a squash and a squeeze with 2 teenagers at home.

This is also due to the fact we are happy with the location and don't want to risk a bigger and thus more expensive house.

I think we're in a small semi detached. 70 sq metres of living space. It suits the young, child free couple across the road and it still suits our NDN in their 70s. We love our NDN!

We have 3 bedrooms. Could fit a small double (a Queen sized bed?) in the smallest room with careful planning and minimal keeping of stuff! Smallest room is the box room with a stairwell box. It had a double in when we viewed.

One DC have fledged I plan to turn that room into a spare/sewing room. We'll have one "proper" spare for visitors.

So perhaps part of the future plan would be (for those who are happy to do so) to live in smaller houses.

Our house is small enough, and just big enough. Cheap to run and maintain, garden manageable.

I'd love a downstairs loo (preferably shower room) and we might be able to add a porch onto our front door to get that (well the loo at least). One of our neighbours has done this. At £17,000 though it'll have to wait for a lottery win.

I can see myself living here until my 70s hopefully.

'which was nice'

Absolutely and I think we need to challenge this idea that if you get over the magic age of 60 (where I live) and have a social housing tenancy, you are permitted to stay there, alone or as a couple, in a three or four bedroom house for the rest of your life, while thousands of families sit on the housing list. There is something fundamentally unfair in that. Surely it's cheaper for councils to build single storey/apartment type housing for older people (which is safer as people age anyway) than keep churning out family homes?

I like this idea. If homes could be small enough but big enough AND flexible by design then that might help.

This is very true. There are lots of older 3-storey townhouses that are easy to adapt this way but the more modern suburban sprawl housing isn't laid out in a modular form like this at all.

Sorry all, I had to work, then tried to catch up on the thread which was frankly overwhelming, so I haven't had a chance read all of the responses yet. Apologies for that.

I do know the title was provocative and maybe I could have worded it better.

Anyone who read my OP and not just the title, will see that I wasn't advocating this, just asking those who do, because frankly I've seen it mentioned time and time again on MN, on so many threads, exactly how they think it would/could/should work. Because I get a bit fed up with it being trotted out.

From the responses I have read, I haven't seen one with an actual plan or logical reason why this should be so. It just seems like a stick to beat those who have a home that is maybe bigger than their basic needs. And usually you are only selfish in this way if you are old apparently 🙄.

I understand that there is a housing crisis and feel for those in homes that are insufficient for their needs, and that sometimes no amount of planning helps if the rug gets pulled.

I just wanted someone who posts this stuff to explain. And so far all I've seen is so many coherent reasons why it's nonsense.

I think if a government wants something to happen, like people to downsize housing, incentives are a better way to go than “have to”.

We don’t compel people to give up their property in many other circumstances so would seem unfair to do it just for this.

Indeed. Why should I sell my house (my only home, my only asset). I looking forward to the last 2 adult children leaving so after decades I actually get it to mky self - it is my property (and, rarely, in my case the equity has already been taxed at 40% (because of my divorce and buying out my husband)).

Thanks for coming back to explain your point of view OP. I completely agree with you that those who advocate for older people to shuffle off to a non existent bungalow never tell us how their plan works.

I live in a ‘multi generational’ house at present. It’s large enough for all of us but I wouldn’t want to live here alone if everyone decides to move out. Not sure that there are many, if any, young families in this low income area who could afford to buy it though 🤷🏻‍♀️

I didn't leave home until I had enough money to buy a home with my DH still our home now .at one point we had 4 jobs between us to build up cash for our deposit. up to that point my mum let me live with her rent and keep free So that I could save money for a deposit. We did exactly the same with our kids and told them exactly what our parents told us . You can live here free until you have your deposit and buy a house ,then stay on top of it because no way are you ever moving back. I adore my home spent lots getting it just right and as we grow older we can add in what we need it's just me ,DH and our dogs we will be here until the end .

What a second aren't you the poster than said 'The haves used to be the have nots they worked for it'

So by work for it, you mean lived in your parents' house rent free to save a deposit at a much cheaper time to buy?

Again, I don't agree that people should have to sell their houses but you sound woefully out of touch.

@watersprites "I'm not saying you should, it's just the "I can't afford stamp duty" argument is weak."
I mentioned stamp duty as an additional cost along with solicitor fees, estate agent fees, removal fees, plus the cost of new furnishings when assuming one's curtains may not fit into a new house (as an example). The point being that moving home is an expensive option.
As we did not really 'trade up', to get a normal smaller house would just not be enough equity in our Greater London house, unless we moved away from London by a considerable distance.
I currently live within walking distance or a bus ride to my DC, am still involved in child care for DGC at sometimes short notice. I also have friends that live locally.
To move so far out that the equity would make it justifiable, would put me at a disadvantage with family members and would have to start anew with friends.

FFS I was 16 at the time . Took me 4 years to save enough for a deposit met my hubby when I was 20 . Fuck me we worked our asses off for it . Christ nobody is allowed to be proud of doing ok or achievement on here. Definatly not out of touch . I'm not responsible for other people not having a mortgage . The jealousy is deafening on this thread !

@Wiccan

It took until you were 20 to save for a deposit? Fuck me, you must have life long trauma from that level of hard graft and sacrifice.

So exactly what is your problem ? You know nothing about my life .

And the whole first class train carriage stood up and clapped.

Some elderly people take in lodgers - if you choose your host/lodger carefully I can see how it works. The lodger gets a decent room for a low price in exchange for a bit of helping out eg doing some light housework or giving lifts to medical appointments.

Also when I think of "elderly" I am thinking of the over 80s! People in their 60s don't need to downsize, they are perfectly healthy and mobile in most cases. Of course you do need to think about things in advance before you get to a difficult situation. Example: SIL currently lives alone in a 3 bed terrace house which needs stuff doing to it - the only advantage of where she lives in good public transport but she could afford to sell up and move to a nicer area which still has good public transport. She's in her early 70s so really does need to be thinking about it (she doesn't drive due to bad eyesight and doesn't have any kids to help her either).

Does that's also mean one child family shouldn't have big family homes?
Only people chosen to have large families get the family homes?

Well actually I’m not old, so it was a hypothetical “I” but you’re obviously not that bright do we will let it go

I'm surprised younger people haven't recognised the wisdom of your plan, and clubbed together with friends to buy shared houses.This would have the added bonus of sharing bills so would be cheaper and would also free up homes so less house building would be needed so we'd all have more green spaces.

AND, they could co-ordinate reproduction and share child care. Instead of expecting their elderly parents to do it.

You're all co-sleeping so you only need one bed, one bedroom...

I'm surprised younger people haven't recognised the wisdom of your plan, and clubbed together with friends to buy shared houses.This would have the added bonus of sharing bills so would be cheaper and would also free up homes so less house building would be needed so we'd all have more green spaces.

Loads of young people are already doing this @2bazookas

I know quite a few people who bought a 2 bed flat with a friend because they wouldn't have been able to afford it alone.

I’m at the stage in life, over 70, where I, and DH, may need to consider a move to more manageable housing in the near future. We own a three bedroomed house, the smallest is really a boxroom, with the only bathroom upstairs. There is nowhere to fit a downstairs loo, and we couldn’t afford it anyway. We wouldn’t get enough for our house to buy a a bungalow. We wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage. But we’d be happy to downsize, to a two bedroomed apartment, and pay reasonable rent.

We don’t have great pensions, we’re not at the level of pension credit but not far above. The capital from our house would provide a better standard of living, and we wouldn’t have the worry of maintaining our home, which is increasingly unaffordable. Our DC don’t live nearby, it would be peace of mind for them. Its also the case that living in the right kind of housing with accessible care (if necessary) means quicker discharge from hospital, and less likelihood of having to move to a much more expensive care home.

Local authorities and other social landlords are building more of these types of accommodation, Independent Living for Older People, Extra Care, Assisted Living etc. For some of us, they could offer the right kind of independence.

2bazookas

Are we....

100% this @OMG12 Why don't YOUNG people (with children,) live communally/live with siblings/live with parents/live with friends etc etc etc?! Or why don't THEY live in a big HMO with a bunch of randoms?

They expect 'older' people to live communally and give up their home (that they've sometimes lived in for 30, 40, or 50 years or more,) and move in with 'family' or general randoms, so why don't THEY do the same?

Not in my back yard eh? Do as I say, not as I do etc etc etc.....