Triassic

Millennial don’t need living rooms!

Recommended Posts

Apparently millienials don’t need living rooms!

 

the minimum size of 38 square metres on newbuild flats is "paternalistic" and stops poorer young people from getting on the housing ladder. 
"Units half that size, built at an earlier time, are rare and thus at the moment overpriced, hotly desired commodities, for rent or for sale.
"Lifting this prohibition would allow a whole new (lower) income group, which is now excluded, to enter the market. This move would both boost overall unit numbers and affordability,"

 

https://apple.news/ACy6LOSk8QRSxabwN9ZrskA

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly see a future where large numbers of (single) individuals are housed in student type accommodation -  your own small space (10-15 sq m) with multi functional furniture and en suite shower facilities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of living / dining / kitchen all in one room.  I don't want to spend my evening trying to watch tv, listen to music or just enjoy some quiet time competing with the noise of the fridge / freezer or worse the dishwasher.  That's why I insisted we have a separate "snug" living room away from all the hustle and bustle, where the big tv and best hifi will go.  I am convinced millenials are tone deaf, or even just deaf, as they seem oblivious to such noises, and are even prepared to listen to music played on the minute speakers in their phones, which frankly I find an affront to music.

 

But SWMBO is a fan of that layout, and she is convinced that is a reason we failed to sell the old house, because it's separate kitchen did not appeal to "modern" buyers?

 

On the subject of small living spaces, our local portable eco home builder is building some "pods" for the council for  a homeless project. They provide a basic bedsit living space in a small area. They were featured on the local STV news a while ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I am not a fan of living / dining / kitchen all in one room.  I don't want to spend my evening trying to watch tv, listen to music or just enjoy some quiet time competing with the noise of the fridge / freezer or worse the dishwasher.  That's why I insisted we have a separate "snug" living room away from all the hustle and bustle, where the big tv and best hifi will go

 

I have kitchen / living / informal dining all in 1 room and never use the other rooms, although I have a separate lounge that I call the “visitors’ lounge” as it’s where visitors get shown to away from the general mayhem of the main living space. The main issue for me with everything in 1 space is that it looks untidy pretty easily. I find the fridge freezers most annoying from a noise perspective rather than the dishwasher as they are on all the time whereas I really only use the dishwasher a couple of times a week with just me here. Never switch the TV on lol. Not used it since the Olympics in 2016 🙂. Occasionally watch something on the laptop with headphones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Triassic said:

Apparently millienials don’t need living rooms!

 

the minimum size of 38 square metres on newbuild flats is "paternalistic" and stops poorer young people from getting on the housing ladder. 
"Units half that size, built at an earlier time, are rare and thus at the moment overpriced, hotly desired commodities, for rent or for sale.
"Lifting this prohibition would allow a whole new (lower) income group, which is now excluded, to enter the market. This move would both boost overall unit numbers and affordability,"

 

https://apple.news/ACy6LOSk8QRSxabwN9ZrskA

 

 

I think the attempted paternalism justification is quite funny. They are scared to argue practicality, perhaps 😊.

 

I can see a use for smaller units, particularly for example for Pieds-a-Terre, but I am not convinced that smaller flats would be that much cheaper to build. There would be a saving from increased density. There would also be a large effect from how Planning taxes were implemented - when cars were taxed on piston area we had a lot of longer stroke engines!

 

This, like a lot of things, is perhaps substantially a London problem, exasperated by supply vs demand limitations.

 

380 sqft seems high as a blanket minimum. That is 20% larger than the 1961 Parker-Morris minimum for a 1 bed flat, and studios could be smaller than that. Parker-Morris is sometimes referenced by media generalists who have not taken the time to read the detail, who then are surprised by the actual numbers. To be fair, the 1967 Parker-Morris standard was about 8-9% larger.

 

There are various projects around at the moment creating private ensuite room plus canteen and services for yuppies, as a modified form  of student residence for graduates etc. The fly in that ointment is that some councils tax each room in an HMO as a Band A property.

 

I am unable to see the report, as Apple require me to install their app.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited by Ferdinand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triassic said:

Apparently millienials don’t need living rooms!

 

the minimum size of 38 square metres on newbuild flats is "paternalistic" and stops poorer young people from getting on the housing ladder. 
"Units half that size, built at an earlier time, are rare and thus at the moment overpriced, hotly desired commodities, for rent or for sale.
"Lifting this prohibition would allow a whole new (lower) income group, which is now excluded, to enter the market. This move would both boost overall unit numbers and affordability,"

 

https://apple.news/ACy6LOSk8QRSxabwN9ZrskA

 

 

Lol, I was going to post this. Another example of a professional being a t**t. I thought the professions were supposed to act with integrity?

 

The not so invisible hand is currently spinning Adam Smith in his grave.

 

Why don’t we just lock them up in prison and be done with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

I think the attempted paternalism justification is quite funny. They are scared to argue practicality, perhaps 😊.

 

I can see a use for smaller units, particularly for example for Pieds-a-Terre, but I am not convinced that smaller flats would be that much cheaper to build. There would be a saving from increased density. There would also be a large effect from how Planning taxes were implemented - when cars were taxed on piston area we had a lot of longer stroke engines!

 

This, like a lot of things, is perhaps substantially a London problem, exasperated by supply vs demand limitations.

 

380 sqft seems high as a blanket minimum. That is 20% larger than the 1961 Parker-Morris minimum for a 1 bed flat, and studios could be smaller than that. Parker-Morris is sometimes referenced by media generalists who have not taken the time to read the detail, who then are surprised by the actual numbers. To be fair, the 1967 Parker-Morris standard was about 8-9% larger.

 

There are various projects around at the moment creating private ensuite room plus canteen and services for yuppies, as a modified form  of student residence for graduates etc. The fly in that ointment is that some councils tax each room in an HMO as a Band A property.

 

I am unable to see the report, as Apple require me to install their app.

 

Ferdinand

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/25/millennials-dont-need-living-rooms-says-leading-architect-says/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alt political thinker in me wants to challenge the conceit of the architect/author, yet another example of the boomer generation wanting to insulate themselves from the social damage they created.

 

However the sailor in me knows that a 1 million euro sailing yacht has less usable accommodation than 380 sq ft and yet sailing around the world in such a vessel would elevate the owner into yachting aristocracy. Production yachts are an excellent example of desirable compact living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, daiking said:

 

Thanks. Really interesting.

 

I think there could be mileage in restricting compact flats to high standard newbuild rather than conversions, but that the author is mistaken in his restriction of the idea to Central London as the only “networked” environment yuppies want to live in.

 

These days plenty of places are within a 30 minute commute of London eg Luton, West Drayton. And a huge range of inner suburbs within 30 minutes on the bike.

 

F

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I am convinced millenials are tone deaf, or even just deaf,

Yes ours, when visiting, never hear the 'would you like to help me clear up after lunch / supper / dinner' 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Thanks. Really interesting.

 

I think there could be mileage in restricting compact flats to high standard newbuild rather than conversions, but that the author is mistaken in his restriction of the idea to Central London as the only “networked” environment yuppies want to live in.

 

These days plenty of places are within a 30 minute commute of London eg Luton, West Drayton. And a huge range of inner suburbs within 30 minutes on the bike.

 

F

 

 

😂 still desperately London-centric.

 

That’s the entire bleedin’ problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another problem is we have large companies closing regional offices and centralising to their London office.

 

In another article companies are complaining they are struggling to recruit staff due to the cost of living, working and commuting to London. No sh...t Sherlock!

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/london-housing-crisis-cbi-survey-workers-quit-capital-house-prices-rent-a8321551.html

Edited by Triassic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why are 'millenniums' not getting elected to local councils and changing things?

How many 'millenniums' really decide to either pay 80% or earning on rent or commute?

How man 'millenniums' are there anyway?

Why are 'millenniums' not self building as a collective group?

 

And finally, why are 'millenniums' not going around every estate agent in the land on a Saturday morning and pointing out that they only have £xxx to spend on a house?

 

And second finally, why should anyone take notice of what an architect writes in a newspaper.

 

Really, final, final point, if you build a smaller home, the market will set the price at what is currently the lowest value.  So build larger homes rather than smaller and give people decent quality of life.

 

Edited by SteamyTea
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been living for a year om a static caravan that gives us 2 bedroom accommodation.  It would not be possible to construct a 2 bedroom house or flat of that size because of building regulations on door and corridor widths, accessible bathrooms, and circulation space requirements.

 

Even so living in such a small space has only been possible and tolerable because we also have the space of the unfinished house to use. Currently we are using the for the laundry, my office space, and storage.

 

In many ways I find it somewhat insulting that someone thinks a particular section of society should make do with such a tiny space.  Yes you can exist in a small space, but you can't "do" much, and to suggest an entire generation can live like that, suggests those people never want to do any practical things or have a hobby or anything that requires a little bit of space

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Why are 'millenniums' not getting elected to local councils and changing things?

 

 

Something called the "grey vote". Our aging population does not want change they expect their privileges to be maintained and so vote as a single issue block.

 

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

How man 'millenniums' are there anyway?

 

 

Enough to mount a revolution.

 

26 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Why are 'millenniums' not self building as a collective group?

 

 

The Young Persons Revolutionary Party is planning another form of collectivism, enjoy your self build while it is still yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Even so living in such a small space has only been possible and tolerable because we also have the space of the unfinished house to use. Currently we are using for the laundry, my office space, and storage.

 

My husband lived in a (large) touring caravan for 9 months. It would not have been feasible for us to both live there in that tiny space but luckily I had a flat in town for all but the last 3 weeks and I just used to go to the plot at weekends. It would have been much easier from a build perspective to carry on without living in the house but as soon as the main kitchen / family room, and the downstairs shower room were complete we moved straight in. It would have been intolerable for 2 people to live in such a small space longer term. Might have been just about feasible for 1 I suppose. 

 

 

Edited by newhome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Something called the "grey vote". Our aging population does not want change they expect their privileges to be maintained and so vote as a single issue block.

But that is what local councils consist of at the moment.  Why are the young not getting involved?

 

Quick look at the ONS data shows that there were 660,137 birth in the year 2000, so that means we need to build just over half that number of houses, so 400,000.  That is assuming that this is exclusively for 'millenniums' and that they are all currently wanting a home.

Taking just London, there were 51,632 births in 2000, so an extra 25,000 homes.

 

Now I have a tiny 2 bed house that sits on a plot of about 85m2 including share of access, parking garden and the house.

This would be an OK starter home (if the layout was better, see my conversation with @caliwag about this).

A football pitch is about 6,875m2 (they can vary in size to to the median permissible length and width) so 80 houses like mine could be built on that area.  310 football pitches worth.  Sounds a lot, about 1.5 times the area of Hyde Park (1,420,000m2), or under a quarter of the size of Richmond Park.

So I think, if there was the will, it would be easy to build enough houses for everyone born in the year 2000, even in London (and I am not saying you have to build them all in Richmond Park, just saying there is enough land).

As an aside, for London (as a whole) there were 858,800 deaths in 2016, so they are greatly outnumbering indigenous births from 16 years earlier.

 

So the snowflake generation can either wait and get a house when it becomes free, do something about it, or bleat like babies on social media.  I think I know what they are doing.

 

 

Edited by SteamyTea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We have local elections coming soon and looking at the various candidates, they are best described as old, i bet not one of them below 65, and i’m being generous.

Edited by Triassic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Quick look at the ONS data shows that there were 660,137 birth in the year 2000, so that means we need to build just over half that number of houses, so 400,000. 

 

 

You need to spend a bit more time getting familiar with current political terminology, millennials are those who came of age this century i.e. anyone born between 1981 and 1996. That is more than enough to mount a long overdue revolution in the UK and re balance wealth distribution.

 

There are profound changes happening in society, in both the UK and the USA home ownership among the under 40's is at historic 30/40? year lows. Most student debt will not be repaid and has instead become a new life-long 9% marginal rate of income tax. It will end in tears.

 

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

But that is what local councils consist of at the moment.  Why are the young not getting involved?

 

 

No point, the power of the grey voting block has turn democracy into a failing system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

millennials are those who came of age this century

I suspect, but you can check, that the numbers are similar.

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

No point, the power of the grey voting block has turn democracy into a failing system. 

I have suggested for a few years not that any uncast vote goes to the incumbent party.  That will get the things sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full article: Only Capitalism Can Solve The Housing Crisis

 

Makes very interesting reading. Essentially he seems to be saying that the housing crisis is basically an "affordability crisis" and that market forces should be let loose on this rather than government policy artificially keeping house prices high by setting minimum space requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, StructuralEngineer said:

Here's the full article: Only Capitalism Can Solve The Housing Crisis

 

Makes very interesting reading. Essentially he seems to be saying that the housing crisis is basically an "affordability crisis" and that market forces should be let loose on this rather than government policy artificially keeping house prices high by setting minimum space requirements.

 

I’m not going to waste my time reading it if the word planning has not come up in any of the précis. What about the not so invisible hand of planning restrictions?

 

Whomever he is, he’s just another banking shill intent on putting the young into indentured servitude so the people who came before can make money. Give them the freedom to live and build in far more places then we’ll see what a problem affordability actually is. All these ‘capitalists’ are the biggest crypto-socialists going. 

 

Remove minimum size requirements straight after all the other props that actually make housing unaffordable in the country - planning restrictions, rent subsidies, wage subsidies, state support for banks, state support for Builder’s profits, you name it, the whole kitchen sink has been thrown at making housing unaffordable for 40 years.

 

minimum sizes, yeah, that’s the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am slowly making my way though that article.  It is a bit of a rant against planning restrictions really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now