Australians Live in World's Biggest Houses

Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by ecodharmamark, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Michael

    Here's the original report that CommSec commissioned from the ABS:

    Australian homes are biggest in the world

    According to the above, and due to the GFC, Americans are building smaller houses, yet Australians just keep building them bigger.

    It seems that many want to know why this is? Finding out is something that I have well down on my list of priorities as this particular trend has little bearing on my thesis. However, rather than just relying on my personal experience (bias?) from working and studying in the wide field of land use planning - and thus collecting anecdotal evidence that suggests Australian houses are getting bigger in order to match bigger egos, and bigger expected market returns - I have conducted a quick search through the popular media, and as such have uncovered the following responses:

    Living Large (CBS 60 Minutes: 2006)
    Are McMansions Going Out of Style? (NY Times: 2005)
    Why homes are getting bigger (ABC Brisbane - Bernard Salt Interview: 2009)

    From the above (Bernard Salt hits the nail right on the head, I reckon), it does seem that US houses are getting (fractionally) smaller, yet on average, Australian houses are trending bigger. In the case of the latter, it also seems that this is due to pretty much what I suspected - status, and an expected high rate of capital return. Sure, people will always argue that they need a bigger house because they work out of it, or they want to give their kids (dogs, cats, cockatoos, cars...) a room each - 'we just can't possibly live without our parents' retreat, our home theatre, a bath/powder room for each of us...'. However, I will always argue that it is simply just a matter of greed. Of course, those who live in McMansions will counter this view with 'oh, you are just jealous'. My final response to this attitude will always be ' not at all, and certainly not when considering the size of your debt, energy bill, ecological footprint, ad infinitum...

    My guess is Australian house size will follow the US in 2-3 years time, and slowly start to trend downwards. However, I think it will be the ecological crisis that finally acts as the catalyst for change among people living in the affluent world and maybe, just maybe, only then will communal living come back into vogue. Either that, or people will just have to contend with eating each other.

    Cheerio, Markus.

    Oh, and if you trace back through the cited references in the Commsec report, you should be able to find out the individual definitions and methodologies for determining average house sizes at each of the corresponding agencies.

    M.
     
  2. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Mark
    Still the ComSec figures do not agree with the ones i posted. The Yank housing industry wants me to PAY $ for more recent info!

    I supect that because owner occupied homes are the last Oz tax haven this is why homes are getting bigger, not just, or only ego/cum power display.
     
  3. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Michael: If I incorporate house size (floor area) into my research/thesis (due for completion 2011), I'll post the full findings here, and no one will have to pay for anything.

    Concerning the latter, yep, exactly what I was referring to in terms of 'aspirational investment'.

    Cheerio, Marko.
     
  4. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2330 (sq feet) = 216.464083 sq meters
    https://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html
    https://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_size_of_the_average_house_in_Australia
    2500 (sq feet) = 232.2576 sq meters
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States

    What effects have the new planning laws allowing much greater use of residential land (with buildings); and the smaller block size, had on the size of Oz homes?

    What is the average and median size of a USA buiding block?

    Are you looking at 'affordability' comparisons?
    https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/Price-History

    https://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/a...verely-and-seriously-unaffordable/2009/01/27/

    https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/Price-History
    https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/Price-History
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_ownership_in_Australia

    One thing i saw in the States was the seemingly greater mobility of the population. Yanks will move into an area with a"good" school when they have school age kids; then move out of that area when they no longer need the school. Thus saving taxes.
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Michael

    Thanks for all that.

    Concerning US statistics/characteristics, this is the latest and most credible data that I could find:

    US Census Bureau - Characteristics of New Housing (released on June 1, 2009):

    Median and Average Square Feet of Floor Area in New One-Family Houses Completed by Location

    US median 1973 - 1,525 sq ft (141.68 sq mt)
    US median 2007 (highest table value) - 2,277 sq ft (211.54 sq mt)
    US median 2008 - 2,215 sq ft (205.78 sq mt)

    US average 1973 - 1,660 sq ft (154.22 sq mt)
    US average 2007 (highest table value) - 2,521 sq ft (234.21 sq mt)
    US average 2008 - 2,519 sq ft (234.02 sq mt)

    Converter used: Online Conversion

    From the above then, we can see that the 'drop' in house sizes in the US is indeed 'fractional', and who knows what US residents (or Australians, for that matter) will be building next year???

    In terms of keeping up with the latest housing trends in the US:

    National Association of Home Builders - Nation's Building News:

    Useful Links to Monitor Economic and Housing Trends

    My research focus - Intentional Urban Communities (IUCs) in Australia: How 'sustainable' are they? (working title)

    Yeah, 'affordable housing' - and the often more referred to (but often mistakenly in terms of the real 'cost' to the environment) 'housing affordability' - will factor somewhere in the study. Probably in the area of 'What drives people to consider living in IUCs?'

    Average size of a USA building block? You will have to qualify your parameters, i.e. are you referring to urban blocks (and if so, master-planned estates, inner metro, outer suburban, etc.), or maybe the average total of all building blocks in the USA? I reckon the good people at the US Census would be your best bet in answering this one:

    US Census Bureau - Question & Answer Center

    'What effects have the new planning laws allowing much greater use of residential land (with buildings); and the smaller block size, had on the size of Oz homes?'

    Good question. Planning legislation (in Australia) is primarily the domain of the various States. As such, I have a fair handle on what happens here in Victoria (with regards to 'site coverage' and 'permeability'), both from an historical and a contemporary perspective, but as for the other states, I don't know. In Victoria, there have been many changes to the legislation in recent years - and in a nutshell, it all comes down to zoning. For example:

    Site coverage

    The standard limits the proportion of any lot that can be built on, to provide outdoor space for residents, and to protect the amenity and character of neighbourhoods.

    Standard A5 and B8

    The site area covered by buildings should not [my emphasis] exceed:

    • The maximum site coverage specified in the schedule to the zone, or
    • If no maximum site coverage is specified in the schedule to the zone, 60 per cent


    Permeability

    Limiting hard surfaces reduces the volume of stormwater run-off, which reduces pressure on urban drainage systems and helps protect water quality in downstream waterways. This standard limits the amount of hard surfaces that can surround a new development.

    Standard A6 and B9

    At least 20 per cent of the site should not be covered by impervious surfaces


    Source: Understanding the Residential Development Standards (Vic)

    You'll note that the term 'should not' (as opposed to 'must not') applies to Standard A5/B8. This is just one reason why those that work in statutory planning (and presumably, are always try to attain 'planning nirvana' - or a 'net community gain') turn prematurely grey, AND why VCAT is so busy!

    One book that I recently picked up is Peter Timms' Australia's Quarter Acre: The story of the ordinary suburban garden. I have not yet had a chance to read it (its in the middle of a pile of about 20-or-so that I have lined up to read over the summer break), but I reckon the chapter The Disappearing Backyard, should prove to be enlightening on the very subject we are interested in.

    Cheerio for now, Mark.
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Concerning residential lot sizes:

    The ABS does not routinely (for example, each 'quarter') publish data in relation to this trend. However each census period (every 5-years) the Australian Commonwealth Government commissions the ABS to prepare such data for its State of the Environment (SoE) Report. In terms of this report, and its bearing on the discussion, there is one key topic available which adds much to the discourse: Pressures created by human settlements on the environment - Patterns of settlement. Under this heading, there are four sub-topics which drill down into the individual data-sets. Of these four, the following two are of interest to our discussion: Average size of new residential lots in capital cities and Average floor area of new dwellings. Unfortunately, and as is so often the case with census material, the data lacks contemporary relevance as it terminates during the 2004 period. We will now have to wait until 2011 (after the next census results are released) for another window of opportunity to view the trends.

    From time to time, the ABS releases 'feature articles' on emerging trends. In their Are we building on smaller blocks? paper, they give a snapshot of the situation (once again restricted to the 2003-04 period), and suggest that lot sizes (while undergoing regional variance over time) are indeed shrinking.

    Other studies - usually commissioned by the development industry - are undertaken from time-to-time in order to give the 'market' an update of where the trends are emerging. One such study (which I have not yet been able to find a report of) suggests that in Adelaide (Australia), lot sizes are "...150sqm smaller than in Brisbane, the city with the biggest blocks in the nation", and that "Adelaide blocks are also well below the 527sqm national average." (Source: Adelaide block sizes shrink).

    Ultimately, the size of the average, run-of-the-mill suburban lot is determined by two factors (three, if you count the average punter out there each weekend buying these 'pieces of dirt'): 1) planning legislation, and 2) developer interests. Concerning the latter, there are five 'major players' in this sector that account for most of Melbourne's suburban development. Between them, these developers hold enough residential land in 'land banks' to enable significant input into lot size well into the future. One noted planning academic, Trevor Budge of Bendigo's La Trobe University, suggests that these companies are "...not only controlling the [development trends of Melbourne's new housing estates over the] next 10 years, they're controlling the next 30 or 40" (Source: The price of a piece of dirt).

    So, what does all of this mean when we view it through the permaculture lens? For me it means that I have to undertake the research in order to determine if the alternative (lot designs based on an intentional urban communities model) to small - or even non-existent - back yards coupled with huge housing footprints is indeed more 'sustainable'. Obviously, I have some idea what the outcome might be. But if we are to present permaculture (in a urban/sub-urban guise) as a credible alternative to the 'mainstream' in terms of delivering on social, cultural, ecological and economic sustainability, then this is the work that I plan to do.

    Thanks for reading and contributing. I look forward to any further contributions that people may wish to make to the research.

    Cheerio for now, Markus.
     

Share This Page

-->