Why are new developments built like cheap holiday colonies, even if the houses are from 1 million and up

[QuintlessShadows]

Been looking at a house in a new development nearby.

They are luxury homes, with a gym, underground carpark, shuttle service to the nearest train station, etc. the 1 bed flats start from 350k, the houses are over a million, some 1.2 million.

It is pretty enough, with some open space, trees and fountains and decking in the middle with fake rivers, large town houses on 3 floors, miniscule gardens.

I get that land is premium (London), and that you really need to build tall and not waste space. But at that price tag, should they not really make the gardens bigger? The way it is now, big panoramic windows, with a view into a wall.

Great.

www.amazon.co.uk/The-Flowering-Shrub-Expert-best-selling/dp/0903505398

Now there's an idea! I think I'll need to get a gardener too though, I killed a basil plant the other day

Basil is pretty much suicidal - you pretty much never get it in those pre-planted herb collections from supermarkets (& when you do it's usually dead already)

See if you can kill mint

Shrubs provide far more colour for longer.

LOL at basil being suicidal.

Why do all new builds have to have so many bathrooms. Most bedrooms now seem to have en suites when there isn't really space. The bedrooms lose out. What's wrong with a decent family bathroom and maybe one en suite off the main Bedroom?

You could do worse than an acer or two

I have this one growing in the corner of a very small (about 20' square) mostly concrete back yard - it's beautiful in spring & autumn & only slightly boring during the summer:

www.architecturalplants.com/plant.html?code=ACDI

They can be grown in large containers too, & come in all sorts of colours & leaf patterns.

LittleBearPad I agree with you about two many ensuites!

The new developement around us is pretty much all 3 storey town houses (even the detached ones). The top floor is one or two bedrooms and a bathroom, the middle floor is two/three bedrooms and two bathrooms, leaving all the reception rooms for a big house on a small ground floor. To create the illusion of space there's one 'spacious' kitchen/diner/living room, but that's not exactly what anyone with teenagers is going to want.

IMO the besst value for money in our local area are 1960s/70s houses. Big gardens, lots of off-street parking, decent room sizes and lower housing density. OK, you sometimes have to deal with dodgy DIY disasters, retrofitted 'shower in bedroom' type en-suites, artex on every flat surface and brick fireplaces with built-in TV plinths, but I definitely think you get more for your money.

I have a 60s build we are extending: architect is very happy as it's much easier to work with, endless possibilities etc etc. he thinks 60/70s build are the great untapped resource as they work much better for renovation and no one mourns the loss of artex!

Apatite1 we are just finishing extending our 1970s hourse. After 12 years we are finally rid of the artex that covered not only every ceiling, but also the living room, dining room, hall, stairs and landing walls!

This build has definitely uncovered a few past bodge jobs with the hosue, but I don't think that's unusual whatever the age of the house.

Gah, artex hell! At least you're all done, not unusual to uncover a few hairy bits (asbestos anyone?) but hope you're v pleased with the final result!

Oh yes, v pleased.... roll on 5th Feb when we can turn on the underfloor heating in the extension! I think that's the final job - apart from the dreaded trip to Ikea but that's a whole project in itself!

Quint - if you are talking about where I'm thinking about in your OP, I totally agree with you (QMP?) Considering the area as well, it's quite frightening what people will consider paying there.

DH and I said this a lot when we moved, if we are moving from a flat in London to a house in the surburbs (or near enough, anywhere outside of zone 3 is burbs to him!) then we want a decent sized garden for the DC not a postage stamp. Where we now live, we ruled out all new builds for this reason - the developers keep knocking down one (lovely old family)house on a large plot and building 3 or 4 townhouses on the site with 5 bedrooms, 5 ensuites and minimal outdoor space. Surely if they're aiming at the family market then a garden is a must? And all the houses look identical too!

Mind you, I sometimes think longingly of a new build with no garden when I look at the wreck of a place we ended up with and the totally overgrown garden I have barely tackled! it'll look nice when it's done in 20 odd years honest

Fishy, thats the one. Pleasant enough, but the gardens are very small.

Saw another one yesterday, the garden was slightly bigger, the property slightly smaller, but higher spec and better layout, but more expensive.

Would you believe that the first property I saw was over a million, and did not have a utility room, and nowhere to hang your clothes in the hallway? Just one standard washing machine in the tiny kitchen, in the corner of a very large room.

I dont think these developers have families in mind when they build 4 bedroom, 5 bathroom homes!

No they don't. They just want to list increasing number of bed and bathrooms, never mind now tiny they are. They've no idea how real families work!

Apatite - you will learn sooo quickly, give it a go! Honestly, it isn't that hard once you get the hang, especially if you're growing shrubs and flowers (I am just starting out with veg and they really are a lot more demanding).

I manage new build estates and what I find most sad is the amount of 'dead' land on site - space which could have easily been included in someone's garden but was left to provide an 'amenity' to those people walking around - and obviously costing everyone to maintain.

I was spoilt though. I grew up in zone 3 with a 120ft x 30ft back garden so now most gardens in London appear pretty small by comparison!