The boomers ate all the avocados

exactly

same across most big cities

one family per house, terrace/semi/detached, happens mostly on the edges, london has changed over time with the slum clearances/redevelopment and post-war rebuild, but 'houses' get built in the sprawling growth of suburbia and commuter belt, not the middle

in the middle, most development i see is refurbs of already high-cost properties or new build apartment blocks, plenty of money is being scrubbed/hidden/secured here

Yeah, a lot of developments I work on these days are far more dense with a combination of short terraces, some low rise apartments and semis with a few detached houses. Street infrastructure has also become tighter since Manual for Streets was introduced 15-20 years ago. Developers generally like getting as many houses as they can on a site although there are exceptions and some areas can command a massive premium on large 'executive' houses. Part of the issue with density is again the planning system plus objectors who find the number of houses one of their big gripes. I did a site in Cheltenham that went from over a hundred units down to 25 to try to address those issues (it still got refused). Living in a flat with a communal garden would drive me mad but I appreciate different people have different preferences.

I can remember someone on here a few years ago (not sure who it was) moaning about how small houses are in the UK compared to Europe though. I don't think we've really done much low density housing in the UK since the 60s, if you look at all the suburbs with large detached or semi detached houses with big gardens they will generally be from the early 20th century.

I hope you're not claustrophobic.

Some people are beyond help.

Looks pretty much like all those LinkedIn posts you see with conversations and events that never happened like someone being an arsehole to another person on the way to an interview only to find it was the person who is interviewing you.

Bomers used to hiring millennials who have job anxiety because they spent their working career in the shadow of the GFC.

Gen Z have grown up in a very tight labour market - they have leverage.

You're assuming that even if this really happened (which I doubt) the person wanted the job that badly. I actually don't think it is unreasonable to ask what the status of your application is. It is pretty frustrating when you jump through all sorts of hoops as part of a process and then get no feedback at all. I got approached by a headhunter a couple of years ago as I mentioned on here at the time. I had to do an initial interview with the headhunter then record myself answering various set questions before a follow up call with the headhunter. He said everything had gone well and would be proceeding to an interview with the Director of the company he was working for. I got radio silence for a few weeks, chased to see if everything was still progressing and got told yes, they were just sorting out the person who would have been my line manager and I never heard anything about it again. Hours wasted. Recruitment is a two way street.

May I humbly suggest, in the event that it doesn't, that this occurs relatively deep into the process.

If you are conducting your interviews well, you ought to have a pretty good idea of how they will perform in a "do a bit of the job" type exercise.

If you're being appropriately self reflective, if their performance in a "do a bit of the job" exercise is different to your expectations having interviewed them, I would suggest re-evaluating how you interview them.

It should be a confirmation exercise, not a demonstration exercise.

Most jobs are in part about being able to articulate things. It is usually pointless doing something if you can't explain what you're doing and why you're doing it. That's why interviews are a thing in professional services and not so much in football.

I'd suggest making the first interview a bit more than "merely avoiding offending anyone".

I assume you’re not recruiting into “technical” roles? All I can ever get a feel for is whether the person will be a good fit in the team and that they understand the principles / theory of the work. You can get people that know all the theory to tell you the right stuff but you put them in front of a computer and ask them to design something and they haven’t a clue where to start or they are good but incredibly slow and pedantic. On the other hand you have people who don’t interview brilliantly but as soon as you put them on the tools they are in their element. Others can use the software brilliantly but don’t understand the principles so don’t notice things that are wrong.

That said, doing a practical assessment is too time consuming for everyone and the probation period gives you a chance to assess if they are as capable as they claimed.

Technical in a professional services sense, yes, absolutely. Not technical as in they are designing or manufacturing physical things.

Bit of an assumption that he didn't have a better offer already on the table.