You’re probably talking about Leicester Square Leeds, I’m guessing that dLockers was referring to the Leicester Square off Charing Cross Road adjacent to Chinatown, Soho, and Covent Garden in central London.
Are British homes sub standard?
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
You’re probably talking about Leicester Square Leeds, I’m guessing that dLockers was referring to the Leicester Square off Charing Cross Road adjacent to Chinatown, Soho, and Covent Garden in central London.
Most new builds are not being built to the best of our ability. They are being built fast and with an "it'll do" or "it'll pass" (with a dodgey inspector) with a multitude of issues, where speed and hence profit are the primary concerns. They are squeezed into developments with minimal drive and garden/land space where the argument is always to provide as much housing as possible - since the UK needs housing - which again is really due to profit seeking again.
I'd say the main issues revolve around insulation.
Bad windows. Bad walls. Bad ceiling.
In a cold country the base standard should be better.
Finish is often shabby (it is in ours). And this is expensive and unnecessary to correct.
But overall it isn't "poor".
This thread is funny though
Bad windows. Bad walls. Bad ceiling.
In a cold country the base standard should be better.
Finish is often shabby (it is in ours). And this is expensive and unnecessary to correct.
But overall it isn't "poor".
This thread is funny though
New builds have had the highest rating of insulation and thermal requirements. As mentioned above the finish and built quality is the problem. Like the windows are actually well rated and built generally but their fit is bad and so that is issues that comes to insulation.
Walls being out of alignment and beyond acceptable tolerance is generally the biggest issue in new builds and they get passed anyways and it is costly, time consuming and frustrating to get a housing developer to do anything about it. The wall insulation requirement is the highest it has ever been but there are known cases of it being completely omitted from build. Things that suck but meet regulations and structural design are things like bouncy floors when 150mm beam and block is used rather than 225mm because it works and within tolerance but they feel bad underfoot.
Timbers to ceilings being minimal centres/depth meaning that movement is greater than most people like. Roofs being built with standard trusses rather than attic trusses as new where the cost difference wouldn't be huge but would allow warm roof and storage in loft without voiding warranties are all just ignored because that slight cost difference is still enough for the house builder not too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,247
- Location
- London
There is lots of factors such as quality of materials used and how well insulated a home is. You also have lots of rented places that have landlords that make their properties liveable to the cheapest of standards. UK isn't the worst but its not good either in a lot of cases.
I believe the law is going to be changed so the legal minimum to rent will be C or above.
I look at valuation reports as part of what I do as a job and yes you are right, C+ ratings are in the vast minority.
Anything more than a bare minimum reduces profit margins. Cheaply done and poorly maintained is the way to the highest profit margins unless the demand for for-profit rental property is much lower than it is or the regulations are much more stringent than they are. If a country allows for-profit rental to dominate the market and doesn't have very strict and heavily enforced regulations, it will have the lowest possible quality housing. Probably until too many people get killed and maybe even after that.
It's better in some places and worse in others and that's been true for all of recorded history and especially in cities. Ancient Rome was particularly notorious for the dire state of for-profit rental accomodation, for example. Or areas like Whitechapel in 19th century London.
We have been speaking this morning about it. He has his place in Seattle, the pictures are very nice. He took a job in London to see a bit of the world, thinks London is overrated.
That depends how you're rating it. If you're looking at it in terms of a place to live reasonably well if you're not a multi-millionaire at least, central London is crap.
Which is obviously a poorly considered rule because there are a huuuuuge number of properties in the UK that are not C rated and would cost a huge amount to bring them up to that. Best case scenario, those people sell up and the market takes a hit. Worst (and most likely) is that they just up the rental prices to compensate and then everyone else with a property that does hit C already raises their prices too. Because why wouldn't you.
Its like anything. Its a balance. There are **** landlords and **** tenants. Finishing your rental to a high standard might make a nice family look after it or you might get someone who doesn't give a monkeys and trashes the place and you lose thousands in fixing it and thousands in lost rent because you have to take months to sort it out with no one in there. My partner has a house that she rents to students and they don't trash the place but they are certainly hard on it. Carpets get dirty and damaged and need replacing more than usual. They scuff and break more stuff than you would imagine and they seem incapable of replacing a lightbulb themselves.
Don't get me wrong, owning a rental is generally ridiculously profitable but its not so cut and dry at times. The state some landlords keep their rentals is a disgrace and they should be seized. As with a lot of these things. The repercussions of being a scumbag are usually far less than the benefits of being a scumbag.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,110
- Location
- Birmingham
Oh where are all these cheap properties to restore because I can't find any?
When you pay through the nose for the house in the first place, how is anyone supposed to find the tens of thousands to bring it up to modern spec?
You will probably get to find out over the next 10 years. The government seems intent on trying to make the country "eco" with a housing stock that doesn't lend itself well to it while we all watch America **** energy up the wall at every opportunity.
come on bro UK houses are mostly tiny with tiny rooms and barely a garden.
also the most basic finish and fittings they can get away with.
On average our house builds must be some of the worst out of the countries we are ranked with for GDP etc.
Last edited:
Possibly a slight exaggeration, I don’t live bang in the centre but I can see Tower Bridge from my bedroom window, some 1500 metres to the west, and Bond Street station is 6 stops from my nearest Jubilee Line station.
I retired 10 years ago after driving a Black Cab for 30 years, and I bobble along without too much trouble, but to be fair I’ve been mortgage free for maybe 22 years.
We’ve had to eschew holidays in exotic places like Tahiti and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but I can still manage a couple of weeks on Florida’s Gulf Coast, and I take my wife out to dinner at least once per week
In the interest of full disclosure it all came down to being in the right place at the right time, and being willing to work my nuts off, if I was starting out now I wouldn’t be living where I am now.
Probably the best quality house I've stayed in in the UK was a Jacobite style house built in 1740 IIRC.
For ~70% of the build apparently no expense was spared, then they ran out of money and the last 30% wasn't great, but then in more recent times someone mostly finished off the last 30% until they also ran out of money (though you can tell the difference in quality)... but absolutely solid build, immaculately worked stone walls, absolutely no damp, so well designed even running modern electrics apparently was a breeze. All the timber done to a very high standard and surviving the test of time well.
EDIT: Also rented this place for a family do https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-of-the-week-mudford-manor-72hv37c0m0n similar Jacobite style built in 1630 apparently and seemed built to a good standard.
For ~70% of the build apparently no expense was spared, then they ran out of money and the last 30% wasn't great, but then in more recent times someone mostly finished off the last 30% until they also ran out of money (though you can tell the difference in quality)... but absolutely solid build, immaculately worked stone walls, absolutely no damp, so well designed even running modern electrics apparently was a breeze. All the timber done to a very high standard and surviving the test of time well.
EDIT: Also rented this place for a family do https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-of-the-week-mudford-manor-72hv37c0m0n similar Jacobite style built in 1630 apparently and seemed built to a good standard.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2021
- Posts
- 4,118
- Location
- Oxon
So far my experience is that every house I've lived in has been trash for one reason or another, so I vote Yes - British houses are trash.