Someone posted a link to this show home on Reddit

[StanfordPines]

They wanted to comment on how small it was, and I agree.
I thought I’d share.
I’d be interested to see measurements and know how much they are asking for it.

www.revolutionviewing.co.uk/persimmon-homes/generic/the-morden/1/360/v-2/index.html?fs=true

@ladyvimes

Where is it? How much is it? If it’s around the same price as a 2-bed flat then I don’t see what is wrong with it at all!

I don’t know where it is or how much it is. As you say that is what is relevant. If it’s affordable, or at least in the same price bracket as a flat then it’s ok.

My daughter has this exact same house. It's perfect for her as a single person

@PegasusReturns

I don’t understand your issue op? There are bigger houses being built and available. It is not limited to that property. You just need to pay more. The more space you want the more you have to pay. The less space, the less you habe to pay

It is indicative of a growing issue that sees property developers squeezing more and more houses into smaller and smaller spaces to ensure their billion pound profits which are supported by the governments right to buy scheme.

There are thousands of terraces of 100+ year old houses that size Look at the northern back to backs

It isn't just the hunt for profit. There are some people who just don't want or need that much space

There are thousands of terraces of 100+ year old houses that size
Look at the northern back to backs

So what? Fortunately living standards have generally improved since then.

It isn't just the hunt for profit. There are some people who just don't want or need that much space

Don’t be so naive. Most of these houses are sold to those who couldn’t afford to buy without the help to buy scheme. They’re not exercising a niche choice in insta-worthy tiny home ownership, they’re being forced to make a choice between unstable private rentals and substandard homeownership.

The builders of these houses made over a billion pounds profit last year. A billion pounds thanks to the tax payer funded help to buy scheme.

Agree there has always been houses this size or smaller. There is always demand for small starter homes. The cost is lower than a bigger property in the same area. And persimmon are usually the cheaper end of new builds. It’s not some new phenomenon.

So what? Fortunately living standards have generally improved since then

Not in terms of space. Not in the Uk. I can only assume you live a very affluent lifestyle or live in another countries where larger properties are the norm.

And plenty of people are happy to buy these houses, to have help to buy, to get on the ladder. It’s not right to be scathing and put them down as “substandard” what a horrible way to look down on peoole.

A friend had a house that size. It was her DH's before they got married and he'd lived there for a few years. They said it felt very cramped with a baby.

The downstairs loo is weird.

Well I just measured my floor space which is about 25ft by 13ft so not much bigger in a very similar but older house. I don't have downstairs loo (thank god, can't think of anything worse than a toilet which opens onto the kitchen/living space).I have a garage with mine, though, and a decent square garden. I bought the house from a woman who had two young sons and she'd lived their since they were babies but she was remarrying. My house is very small, much smaller than the ones I lived in when i was married but I had to make difficult choices so here I am and I've decorated and furnished and created storage space it so that it doesn't look tiny, even though it is!

The house next door to me is smaller than the one you linked to, @StanfordPines. It's a one bedroom house and I think of it (and mine) as for those either on the bottom rung of the housing market or like me, who don't need or can't afford a bigger home. I remember the Wimpey 'starter homes' that another PP has mentioned; they were the absolute rage for young people who saw the first chance of home ownership because the Local councils had stopped building houses pretty much altogether.

@Bluntness100

Not in terms of space. Not in the Uk

Living space per person has improved for the vast majority of people since the Victorian back to backs referenced by a PP, but I should have been clearer.

They housed much larger families. Children and adults would have shared not only rooms, but beds and the inhabitants would have lived in distressing poverty. Sometimes those houses would have been shared with multiple families and/or generations.

It’s not right to be scathing and put them down as “substandard” what a horrible way to look down on people

The only people I’m scathing of are the developers who earn millions of pounds at the expense of those at the bottom of the housing chain. Those profits should be ploughed into better quality, more appropriate housing, which would benefit both the purchaser and the tax payer.

Affordable, liveable housing should be available to everyone.

I’m not disputing there was more poverty years ago, but your point doesn’t stack up, one of three people, two adults and a kid or a single person living in one of these homes is still more space than multiple people living in them

And you are scathing. You called them sub standard. Those are peoples homes.

If this amount of living space was presented as a two bed flat (without a garden) people wouldn't bat an eye lid.

If this amount of living space was created on a shoestring budget by plucky self builders converting a couple of storage containers, people would applaud them. If they then sold it for a market value and turned a few grand profit, even more so.

Developers are told to build "affordable" homes. This is what it looks like.

They are substandard. That is a demonstrable fact that can be verified by looking at the significant number of legal cases involving these particular developers and the appalling build quality of the houses.

Combined with lofts that cannot be utilised, rooms that don’t fit standard size furniture and the fact that these homes are often built a distance from reasonable infrastructure/amenities makes them substandard in terms of providing appropriate accommodation.

That is not a value judgement on the person that lives in them. Thousands of people live in substandard housing and frankly they deserve better. Why don’t you believe they do?

Yes they are people’s homes. And this is a very well decorated little house, there are certainly times in my life when I would have been as happy as pig in shit to live there. I’m not running down anyone who lives in a house like this. As said by others up thread for a single person or a professional couple they are fine.
But should this be the bottom level that we will accept for housing. Are we all happy to say that a house where you can only just fit a double bed (assuming that they are full sized beds) is fine?
Are we all just ok with there being no minimum sizing for houses?

The problem is that there is nothing we can do about it. If people keep buying these houses, which is their choice, then the developers will keep making them.

I used to live in an 1880s terrace. The kitchen was also only big enough for one person but it had a cellar and under stairs cupboards for storage. And it was only £85k when I bought it and about £120 now.

Just because we have historically had tiny houses it doesn’t make it acceptable now.

@PegasusReturns

There are thousands of terraces of 100+ year old houses that size Look at the northern back to backs

So what? Fortunately living standards have generally improved since then.

It isn't just the hunt for profit. There are some people who just don't want or need that much space

Don’t be so naive. Most of these houses are sold to those who couldn’t afford to buy without the help to buy scheme. They’re not exercising a niche choice in insta-worthy tiny home ownership, they’re being forced to make a choice between unstable private rentals and substandard homeownership.

The builders of these houses made over a billion pounds profit last year. A billion pounds thanks to the tax payer funded help to buy scheme.

Yes to all this.

A quarter of a million pounds for this shoebox, and people think this is a good 'starter home'?

When I was househunting a few years ago I viewed a 2 bed house.
It had one downstairs room. although the kitchen was sort of blocked off into a separate area. The bedrooms had fitted wardrobes and barely any room to move around the bed. It was a 1980s house.

@PegasusReturns my mum lives in one of these houses happily, she bought it outright no HTB or shared ownership, there is a market for properties this size, they're not aimed at families. Developers build houses in a variety of sizes, but it does come across as quite snotty to say they are substandard when plenty of single and couple households are happy to buy and live in them, they shouldn't be forced to pay more for a larger houses, most couldnt.

It's no where near substandard if it's only occupied by one or two people. 15% of UK adults live in single person households. I can see it looks small if you're used to thinking of a household with kids and grandparents and pets, but that's not who it's aimed at.

There's also an argument that given we're living in a climate crisis, we really should be living in smaller houses. Heating and cleaning three bedrooms for two people, as well as the run-off from the roof and increased paved area is a luxury the planet can't afford in the 21st century. Similarly buying so much stuff that you need two spare bedrooms and a garage to store it in is actually bordering on obscene.

they shouldn't be forced to pay more for a larger houses, most couldnt

Christ I’m not talking about forcing people to pay more for bigger houses, I’m talking about forcing developers to sell them for less.

On average this developer took more than 30% of the sale price as pure profit on their sales last year. They were subsidised by the tax payers.

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if, for the money your mum paid she had a couple of extra sqm so she could have had some storage space or roof joists strong enough to enable her to store Christmas decs? Alternatively perhaps she could jut have paid 20% less?

Surely that would be a better outcome?

I’m really shocked that people are ok with the lack of availability of affordable accommodation

@PegasusReturns that isn't all down to developers though, one of the reasons for the cost of housing in this country is the lack of housing, at least developers are building houses. If they didn't the cost of everything else would just be more. My mum is perfectly content with her house, the size is all she needs, she's only one person! She was happy with the price too, it was actually cheaper than the older 2 beds in the area (but it is smaller!).

Of course if one or two peoole living there it’s not substandard. How snobby can you get. Plenty of single parents, first time buyers, even divorcees would be happy to live in a house that size.

I have a divorced friend who is in a house like this, it’s lovely. She lives alone. Her home is in no way substandard ans it’s shitty to say it is.

Surely that would be a better outcome?

What a silly question, of course getting more for your money or spending less is always a better outcome. Who doesn’t want stuff cheaper?

Re the not putting stuff in the loft. This is all down to cost cutting and nothing else. There is nothing to stop builders putting in stronger joists which can take the weight of a few suitcases and the christmas decorations. Of course, by saying 'don't use the loft', they save themselves the cost of a loft ladder as well.

It's substandard in quality not size. New build homes usually have corners cut, pretend drainage, radiators not on properly, creaky broken stairs, badly aligned bannisters, unlevel units and fittings, etc.

I know people can be funny about not having 2 toilets, but I would have that downstairs loo turned into storage straight off.

@stodgystollen

It's no where near substandard if it's only occupied by one or two people. 15% of UK adults live in single person households. I can see it looks small if you're used to thinking of a household with kids and grandparents and pets, but that's not who it's aimed at.

There's also an argument that given we're living in a climate crisis, we really should be living in smaller houses. Heating and cleaning three bedrooms for two people, as well as the run-off from the roof and increased paved area is a luxury the planet can't afford in the 21st century. Similarly buying so much stuff that you need two spare bedrooms and a garage to store it in is actually bordering on obscene.

My OH and I are both wfh at the moment so the second bedroom in our house only slightly bigger than this one is now our office. We don't have anywhere to put a wardrobe and are desperately short on space to put things like clothes we can't get rid of (because we need them).

Nothing to do with having so much shit you need 2 spare rooms and a garage