Because I like to have some private outdoor space and a garage for the car, be allowed to keep a cat or dog and not annoy the neighbours when I want to listen to music after 9pm. There are also the issues with leaseholds and shared maintainance already mentioned.
I recognise that bungalows don't make the best use of land, but would be happy to sell my house and buy a similar sized plot of land with a bungalow on. A smaller garden and 2 beds instead of 3 wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, this is understandable. I think if we want to encourage more people into flats, we definitely have to consider the very valid concerns they have. Fortunately, none of these issues are inherent to apartments, they just typically come with the ones we build in the UK.
Better noise insulation, pet friendly buildings, allotments available for tenants and private garage/workshop spaces in the building are super easy to implement! Guess it's just a case of will and funding.
For now, there is enough pent up demand for 'traditional' parking free-noisy-not pet friendly apartments in our cities, builders seem happy just throwing up more of that. If the government creates incentives for more dense housing, we could see a push for making these spaces more attractive to a wider market. It's totally possible, just a case of will and implementing the right policy.
The big problem with flats in this country (and I had 40 years experience of living in them) is the very poor sound insulation provided in this country, both in conversions and in new-build flats. The last flat I lived in was new-build a some fifteen years ago and had superb modern heat insulation properties, but the sound insulation between adjacent flats and through floors and ceilings was just as bad as ever.
Yeah, noise insulation is definitely an issue lol. Better standards in regards to this and a way of measuring it in surveys could help. Perhaps having a loudspeaker in one room, measuring the resulting dBs in another.
Daft to build bungalows, because they take up as much land as 3/4 bed houses and are barely cheaper to build. Flats in tenement sized blocks with lifts (properly maintained) are the answer for people who need single-storey accommodation for accessibility reasons, as they aren't going to be able to maintain a garden either so maintained communal grounds and balconies would be better. For those who don't need the accessibility, just a smaller property, terraced houses make more efficient use of land.
Bungalows are rather inefficient, apartments or terraced housing definitely make more sense space wise.
It's worth considering the concerns people have with moving to this style of housing though, and there are definitely solutions to that available, just a question of the right incentives for house builders!
There's often good reasons for not building. Often tired too red tape blocking it.
For instance I once worked on a project which we submitted to the highway authority for checking (having been granted planning) only to find 12 months later we were still trying to work through what the council actually wanted for the scheme.
It wasn't a difficult scheme, upgrade to a signal junction and changes to a service road (about 200m).
That was with National Government funding a so there was a government department which was applying pressure to get it all sorted.
I had a spreadsheet of communication (overview of what was said and when, updated each time a new email was sent) so that our client could see at a glance where the problem lay.
I left that employment before it was resolved so don't know how much longer it actually took to complete.
Whilst that's an extreme example there are plenty of agencies who can hold up development from happening.
Yeah true, I also wonder whether councils could do better freeing up the land required to build larger developments within cities. Solving the housing issues is going to involve multiple approaches, some government construction and some carrot and stick to encourage the market in the right direction.
It’s a good point though I do think downsizing retirees who want bungalows will move to smaller plots (wanting smaller gardens and less driveway for a start) but they won’t leave the big house for a smaller house.
There could also be places where you could build bungalows that you couldn’t build houses - visual intrusion and concerns about commuter traffic for example.
Interesting idea that you could maybe have grants for stairlifts for downsizing pensioners....
Beyond bungalows we do somehow need to incentivise sensibly priced flats that would attract pensioners (the ones round here all seem to be high end and priced similar to decent houses!).
Big enough to have two lifts for reassurance and with safe courtyard gardens. Security could be a huge selling point - it was depressing how my gran and her friends would be all locked away individually from mid afternoon in winter because they were worried about being out after dark, whereas in flats they could visit each other in the evenings.
I really like the idea of stairlift grants for downsizing pensioners! If they get installed into apartment buildings, then the facility is there for future residents too.
It would be much more efficient to provide in-home care for the still-independent elderly in our ageing population if they could be housed in accessible high-density communities with shared dining and outdoor spaces; Include separate homes on-site for care and maintenance staff, and flats available air-bnb-style for visiting families.
The three "spare" bedrooms needed to accommodate visits by multiple generations of each family would essentially be pooled amongst groups of residents, rather than every couple or widow(/er) having their own dusty set of spare rooms.
Something in between a nursing home and rattling around in a 6 bedroom house waiting for a daily visit by a nurse, just as student housing and HMOs offer something in between boarding school housing and mortgage-encumbered suburbia.
Yes, my family have recently moved my grandad out of his family home into an apartment much closer to where we live.
It's one of those Mccarthy and stone, not quite a nursing home, but a higher level of care is available and things are all on one level. The flat has the advantage of being a much shorter drive for my dad and accessible by a 5-10 minute bus ride for me, or a pleasent 30 minute walk when I go back to visit. The building has collective spare bedrooms for relatives to stay in, should they need it. I also believe that 2-bed apartments are also available in the complex. Been as it is an apartment, it's located quite close to the centre of town, which means a lesser walk to shopping, amenities, healthcare and public transport.
The setup works quite well, with good security, a community within the building and help for the residents being close by. The flat already has things like guide rails and pull chords. It has unobtrusive accessibility accommodations made, which is a massive plus. Newer flats are even nicer, looking even more luxurious and accommodating.
I find this idea of depriving people of garden space somewhat disturbing - as long as someone has the will and the energy to maintain a garden, I don't see why not. It may be a waste of space to some, but to others it's a therapeutic space. I see no problem with having small bungalows with some garden space in which people can live out their last days. To force people out, regardless of the "incentives" available is a bit cruel, particularly if someone has lived there all their life.
We're not short of physical space. What we are short of is accommodation for the transient workers that move from place to place. It's all about choice, isn't it?
True, really for our situation dealing with one of my grandparents it was a balance regarding quality of life. Moving him nearer-by allows us to pop by more often and gives him more convenient access to the shops and amenities he needs.
I think it would be a good idea to have allotments in these developments though! In fact, it could be a smaller, easier to manage garden space, but still with the freedom to choose what goes in and how it looks.
Accommodation for transient workers moving place to place can easily be provided by your average big apartment building, really a simple solution! Some cities seem to be building up a lot of this accommodation (see: Manchester), others less so. I think a city like Nottingham would see a lot of benefit trying out schemes like this, and attracting more talent and business from around the country.
If they'd build the sort of property we wanted we would move of our own accord and wouldn't need to be forced out. As you say, the footprint and cost would be about the same and we'd pay a similar price. Net result would be would be two households in the accommodation they wanted instead of a growing family in a too-small property and an older person or couple in a too-large one.
True, Mccarthy and stone does a decent job. They certainly fill up very quickly, so clearly they're heading in the right direction! Probably just a case of how quickly they can build them.
Not only gardening, but I don't think anyone has mentioned pets. Flats/retirement/assisted living schemes usually don't allow pets, so the OAP can't have their beloved cat or dog, or even parrot or gerbil. A ten story block of flats is useless for someone with a pet poodle even if they're allowed. Lots of OAPs have pets, so they need outdoor space and also relatively easy access to other amenities such as parks, footpaths, etc. Yet a bungalow is ideal!
Yeah, pets is a difficult one, I think tides are changing though. I've seen more and more pet friendly accommodations popping up, so I'd expect to see more in the coming years. Higher buildings can allow you to be closer to parks and amenities, so quite useful for pet owners without cars.
In regards to older folk, I do wonder about allergies and the like. Perhaps the best idea would to have a pet-friendly building or area of flats, with some of the communal spaces being 'pet free', then you'd more likely get the best of both worlds!
