Falling house prices means more affordable homes/ moving house with negative equity.

no immediate problem with that snippet...

meanwhile the money supply has been again pumped heavily... and that has yet to feed through given previous experience

what is interesting is the boe is presently(now) contracting supply

Do they? And is a comparison with Victorian slums relevant?

"The density of new housing developments has increased by 84 per cent since

What I'm getting at, though, is that just counting the boxes and giving them names isn't a measure of 'property'. Size matters too.

Why would a small[1] house want en-suites? For a single person or a childless couple living in a 1 bedroom, it would be wasteful of space and unnecessary to have both an en-suite and separate bathroom. If there is just an en-suite, then any visitors would have to go through the bedroom to get to the bathroom. Similarly in a two bedroom house, if both bedrooms have en-suites then visitors would have to go through one of the bedrooms to get to a toilet.

The figures are from the BBC news article *you* posted, dimwit, together with some very simple arithmetic. Obviously arithmetic is beyond you as well as English.

show your working!!

neither will i guess your sources...

set out your claim clearly...i'm not ploughing back to try to work out things you are too lazy(or disabled) to post in an adequate manner

Erm, a comparison with houses people lived in in 1961 (and still live in now) is relevant when comparing housing density in 1961 to that today. People do live in terraces, even today, believe it or not.

Yes. But completely meaningless without the context of the proportion of such housing lived in compared to older housing. I live in a 1929 semi and so do most of my road.

These "new housing developments" will be in part the mass craze for high rise flats in city centres like Manchester, which the developers were hoping to sell to BTL'ers but in many cases are standing half empty.

Indeed. But the size of the average property lived in today hasn't gone down by 26% compared to 1961. Even if the size of recent builds has.

One of the possible reasons for this could be people having fewer children, which seems likely during a recession.

FFS. It's in the context above. Is reading your problem or an inability to do simple maths? Or both?

I'll requote the relevant bit for you. "The size of the average English household has already fallen steadily from 3.1 in 1961 to 2.29 today".

If you can't see how I got the percentages I quoted from that then you'd better go back to primary school.

Some do, but it's a minority these days as they are progressively condemned and pulled down.

And I bet all of those have 'bigger gardens than the typical yard of a northern terrace'. How big is your garden in comparison with the average new build today, given that the density of new housing developments has increased by 84 per cent just since 2001, and was increasing pretty fast even before that?

And they're also 'in part', or mainly actually, in any new housing estate you care to mention, in any part of the country.

It all depends whether you count the size of the plot as part of the size of the 'property'.

Not so around here. There are lots of period terraced houses that are in high demand. A lot have very big gardens. There are also new terraced housing built, albeit with pocket handkerchief sized gardens.

Rubbish - some might be condemned, others only needed bringing up to modern day standards (eg inside toilet). All terraces round here are perfectly acceptable accomodation.

Yes. So? It's also got an extension which wasn't there in 1961, so it's more "property per person" now than if the same sized family lived in it in 1961.

Is this "density" figure 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional? If it's 2-d then it's irrelavant, as it would only count the land area of a high rise tower block.

Really? Evidence? Most new builds around here are flats.

No, or not in the same proportion anyway. That would be silly.

Also the size of extensions. Most houses round here have had some sort of extension built on them since 1961, so that needs taking into account as well.

In message , Mark writes

They still build them, with tiny rooms, and call them Town Houses. Around a corner from my house they built 8 in the space occupied by 6 older terraced on the opposite side of the same road.

They were bought from plans for £1M, and rented for £550/month. I had a wander into them when they were being decorated, and they are claustrophobic.

Just over 5% return (?) if they're all occupied, less management or maintenance.

i don't need the percentages...the numbers are just fine... so what were you on about house/unit sizes rising...or some such

Agreed, but even tiny new houses seem to have en-suites these days, in most cases they are a complete waste of space. Friends of ours used to rent a tiny 90's built house - it's supposedly 3-bedrooms but the third bedroom is so small that a full size bed won't even fit in it! So it's only 2-bedroom by any proper definition. Yet it has an en-suite, plus a downstairs toilet, ie 3 toilets in a house which couldn't comfortably accommodate more than 3 people (plus a small child perhaps)! Getting rid of the en-suite would have enabled the third "bedroom" to be a real bedroom.

But I guess it looks better on paper to numpties - "3 bed detached with en-suite" (but "detached" means 4 inches between you and next door, and don't expect to fit a bed in all the "bedrooms"!).

so...the reality is you can't answer so you're dodging...

i do wish you'd said that in the first place instead of your time wasting

Thanks for the correction; you're paying more attention than I am.

You said: " ... the main driver of demand is "an increase in the amount of property per person" "

The article stated that: "The size of the average English household has already fallen steadily from 3.1 in 1961 to 2.29 today."

But that doesn't necessarily mean that there's been "an increase in the amount of property per person"!!

Yes it does, subject to semantics.

If the average house is occupied by fewer persons than before, it does mean that each affected person is now using a bigger fraction of each house. That is probably what was meant, above, by "amount of property".

Of course if you define "amount of property" in terms of floor area, and if the size of house typically occupied by the average household is now smaller than it was then, one would reach a different conclusion.

I would use your latter definition. If the article implied numbers of property I would go for your former definition. Amount is a noun which I associate with magnitude that can't be expressed directly in numbers.

Given that we're now building smaller houses than built in Eastern Euope during communism, it doesn't say much for capitalism!!