http://images.smh.com.au/2009/11/29/931906/houses-420x0.jpg

AUSTRALIANS are piling on sitting rooms, family rooms, studies and extra bedrooms at the fastest rate in the world, with the size of our homes overtaking those in the US as the world's biggest.

The typical size of a new Australian home hit 215 square metres in the past financial year, up 10 per cent in a decade, according to Bureau of Statistics data compiled for Commonwealth Securities.

US figures show the size of new American homes shrinking from 212 square metres before the financial crisis to 202 square metres in September.

New homes in other parts of the world are far smaller, with Denmark the biggest in Europe at 137 square metres and Britain the smallest at 76 square metres.

The figures lend weight to a claim by the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, Ric Battellino, this month that Australian house prices are high in part because Australian houses are better.

The Reserve is due to meet tomorrow to decide whether to increase interest rates. Almost half of the $250 billion spent on housing each year was on alterations and additions, with one in every seven new houses ''simply replacing existing houses that have been demolished''.

Mr Battellino said Australians had so many holiday houses that the latest census found 8 per cent more dwellings than households.

Sydney houses are by far the nation's biggest with new free-standing houses typically spanning 263 square metres - providing more than 100 square metres of indoor space per person.

But the high proportion of townhouses and apartments in Sydney pushes the average dwelling size down to 205 square metres, just below the Australian average and about the same as in the US.

''Another way of looking at it is the number of bedrooms,'' said a Commonwealth Securities economist, Craig James. ''Around 20 years ago only one in every six homes had four or more bedrooms. By 2006 it was one in every 3.5 homes.

''While the fast pace of population growth points to the need for more and more homes, we are living in the biggest homes in the world. The simple fact is they could be better utilised.''

Mr James is encouraged by a slight increase in the number of Australians living in each home. The average household size has crept up from 2.52 to 2.56 people in 2007-08.

''It may not seem remarkable but it appears to be the first increase in at least a century, and perhaps the first since European settlement.

''It makes sense. Population is rising, as is the cost of housing and the cost of moving house, so we are making greater use of what we've got. Children are staying at home longer and more people are opting for shared accommodation. The key question is whether it's permanent or temporary. If sustained, it will save us building 166,000 homes.''

http://www.smh.com.au/national/home-truths-australia-trumps-us-when-it-comes-to-mcmansions-20091129-jyva.html

i guess the figure could go up to 10 times the 215 with the yard included eh?

^ i don't see any yards in that image!

wish i was cool enough to have multiple unused rooms in my house

And people wonder why we have expensive housing lol.

I'd expect it will continue for as long as we have town planning departments insisting on large lot sizes and free standing low density housing - eg Brisbane increased their minimum lot size from 400sqm to 450sqm ???

Until this changes then developers/builders/owners have no choice as to what can be done - the new housing outcomes trends and outcomes are simply the result of poor planning departments.

Funny thing is that Australians love to think we do wonders for the environment because they have a solar panel warming up their water system or something retarded. Wonder how much life has been fucked over for our beautiful and extremely functional sprawl in our car dependant cities?

I prefer the measurement of space per person. While house size is an issue, it's when it is coupled with the reducing number of people per household that it's a bigger issue.

wish i was cool enough to have multiple unused rooms in my house

so this makes me cool?
because I have two :banana:

Pathetic. Just when it is being acknowledged by the world that uncontrolled suburban spawl doesn't work and that we need to start working towards making urban centres more efficient, Australia goes the other way! That's one step forward for the "Australian Dream", two steps back for sustainable growth. :nuts:

Anyway, I saw this report on ABC news and there was this woman and her daughter only living in a 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom, 3-story mcmansion on a lot big enough to put a damn stadium on. Jesus christ! This shit is so wasteful, there should be a law against it. They also broke it down state-by-state and apparently Vic and WA are the worse while ACT/NSW are the best. Woot, GO ACT!!!

so this makes me cool?
because I have two :banana:

My little flat only has four rooms but I only use one at a time...

Pathetic. Just when it is being acknowledged by the world that uncontrolled suburban spawl doesn't work and that we need to start working towards making urban centres more efficient, Australia goes the other way! That's one step forward for the "Australian Dream", two steps back for sustainable growth. :nuts:

Anyway, I saw this report on ABC news and there was this woman and her daughter only living in a 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom, 3-story mcmansion on a lot big enough to put a damn stadium on. Jesus christ! This shit is so wasteful, there should be a law against it. They also broke it down state-by-state and apparently Vic and WA are the worse while ACT/NSW are the best. Woot, GO ACT!!!

Appariently ACT has the biggest McMansions in the country. Australians are stupid though, we already know this.

Appariently ACT has the biggest McMansions in the country. Australians are stupid though, we already know this.

Apparently NSW has the biggest houses followed by Queensland - though Gold Coast is the city with the biggest houses.

Appariently ACT has the biggest McMansions in the country. Australians are stupid though, we already know this.

Well the report only covers newly built houses, so it's rather encouraging to hear that ACT is moving away from the massive housing lots to more compact housing. All the new apartment buildings coming up in the commercial centres as well as lots of the new terraces and townhouses in the Gungahlin area no doubt push down the average size of new housing being built in the ACT.

My little flat only has four rooms but I only use one at a time...

my house has 6 bedrooms, we only use four

I WIN!

Here we go, same report but in a bit more detail:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/act-defies-mcmansion-trend/1691102.aspx
ACT defies McMansion trend
BY GRAHAM DOWNIE
30 Nov, 2009 06:52 AM
Australia's new homes are the biggest in the world but the ACT, with the largest per capita income, is building on average the smallest new homes.

Research commissioned by the online broking arm of the Commonwealth Bank, CommSec, indicates Australia outstripped the United States in the 2008-09 financial year for the world's largest new dwellings.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed the average floor area of all new Australian dwellings in 2008-09 achieved a record of 214.6sq m. The ACT was well below the average at 164.9sq m.

It seems a big contributor to the smaller new ACT dwellings was the high proportion of units and apartments. There were 1220 free-standing dwellings built in the ACT in 2008-09, and 1174 other dwellings, which include units, apartments and town houses.

The free-standing dwellings built in the ACT, with an average floor space of 239.4sq m, were very close to the record national average of 245.3sq m. In line with this growth, the number of residents per Australian household increased during the 2007-08 financial year the first such increase for at least 100 years. The growth, albeit small, was from 2.51 to 2.56 residents per household. CommSec estimates it increased again last financial year.

CommSec chief economist Craig James said if the number of residents per household had remained unchanged, 166,000 extra dwellings would have been needed in the 2007-08 year. ''If the size of the average household continues to rise, there will be reduced demand for new houses and apartments.''

It was questionable whether the size of Australian dwellings could, or should, continue to increase.

''Generation Y is already baulking at the cost of housing, choosing to stay at home longer with parents.''

At face value, the increase in household size might not seem remarkable, but it appeared to be the first increase in at least 100 years and perhaps the first since European settlement.

''It makes sense population is rising, as is the cost of housing and the cost of moving house, so we are making greater use of what we have. Children are living at home longer with parents and more people are opting for shared accommodation.''
The key question was whether the trend to better utilisation of existing dwellings was temporary.

Mr James said it was commonly believed not enough dwellings were being built to accommodate Australia's increasing population.

''In fact, industry bodies believe that we are under-building by 50,000 homes a year. But the figures on home size and housing utilisation raise doubts about the extent of under-building in Australia.''

The average floor area in Australia of new houses, villas, townhouses and apartments built in 2008-09 was a record 214.6sq m. The average floor area increased by 2 per cent in the past five years and by 10 per cent over the past 10 years.

Australia's largest dwellings were built in Victoria with an average 224.5sq m floor area.

Mr James said NSW was in fifth place for home size at 204.9sq m, largely because of its higher proportion of apartments to free-standing houses.

Since the first census in 1911, the number of residents per dwelling has consistently fallen. In 1911 there was an average of 4.5 people in every home. By 2006 this had fallen to 2.4. ''Not only have more homes been built over time but other factors like fewer children and divorces have resulted in smaller families,'' Mr James said.

Yes Ross, we Canberrans actually have something to cheer about for once...

I prefer the measurement of space per person. While house size is an issue, it's when it is coupled with the reducing number of people per household that it's a bigger issue.

And this is just what has been happening...for about the past 100 years. Go figure.

So Australia's largest home in Victoria? Well, that's something to be proud of.

I think this proves that Australia is overwhelmingly middle class.

So Australia's largest home in Victoria? Well, that's something to be proud of.

I think this proves that Australia is overwhelmingly middle class.

I think this article proves that Australia is all about 'my dick is bigger than yours'. Competing against neighbours all for spite.

According to an abc report, mcmansions are in far less demand and smaller more environmentally sustainable housings are in demand. Buyers are becoming more greener and more rational.

Apparently NSW has the biggest houses followed by Queensland - though Gold Coast is the city with the biggest houses.

Apparently?

Apparently NSW has the biggest houses followed by Queensland - though Gold Coast is the city with the biggest houses.

I think Sydneyas the biggest houses, my god I cannot believe in some suburbs like Bella Vista and Castle Hill, the amount of 2 story Mc Mansions there are, just every bloody house. Even in dodgy areas like Mount Druitt, they make Mc Mansions crammed into spare lots.

I think this article proves that Australia is all about 'my dick is bigger than yours'. Competing against neighbours all for spite.

According to an abc report, mcmansions are in far less demand and smaller more environmentally sustainable housings are in demand. Buyers are becoming more greener and more rational.

I think there's also a bit of hanging onto that old "Australian Dream". Australia still tries to push and sell this lavish lifestyle of "having it all and more", when as you say, especially with the younger generation, we want more basic, cheaper, practical, efficient and accessible living which this mcmansion craze is just about the opposite of in every regard.

And some people think I'm an isolated example for having a palace! We've just got the new inter-palatial monorail installed today. Hopefully we'll be able to build a branch line down to my local train station soon.

L2 at my palace in Eastern Melbourne :yes:

Here we go, same report but in a bit more detail:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/act-defies-mcmansion-trend/1691102.aspx


Yes Ross, we Canberrans actually have something to cheer about for once...

We're sweet.

I guess as long as the houses are environmentally friendly (bring on the ETS!!!), the misfortune of living in one only impacts the residents themselves (through shit public transport/no community atmosphere/having to make literal voyages to school, the supermarket etc)

One problem is that these are actually cheaper to build from scratch than to decently renovate a smaller house in the inner suburbs - architects are expensive and project home builders don't have small, well designed, 'models' available for some reason

We should have more of these:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/488257034_332c2ff59d.jpg?v=0

Fappity fap fap

^^
I'd rather live in one of those in an area that matters than some off-the-factory-line mcmansion out in some place that's got no meaning whatsoever.

^ yep!

I thought the new housing developments, well in Melbourne anyway were getting smaller. I've noticed the houses in area's like Point Cook on average to be smaller than one's built in the 90's or early 00's for example.

I've always thought sprawl could work if designed sustainably around the environment and providing first class PT and bike paths. Sadly the government and developers haven't even bothered and have only made some token changes. It's the same old shit with a different cover.

I've always thought sprawl could work if designed sustainably around the environment and providing first class PT and bike paths.
Mixed-use development around train stations (or high-volume bus stops), with most people within 500-800m walking distance, could work.

^^
I'd rather live in one of those in an area that matters than some off-the-factory-line mcmansion out in some place that's got no meaning whatsoever.
Ditto, times umpteen!

All the McMansions are in the coastal areas in Perth, travel inland and they are usually small enough. From what i can gather in spite of being bigger todays suburbs are still more dense than Suburbs from 1950-1985.

I hope all you hypocrits will lay off Dubai.

From what i can gather in spite of being bigger todays suburbs are still more dense than Suburbs from 1950-1985.

Denser spatially (i.e. larger house on smaller block) but the occuapncy rate has been falling for decades so there is actually less persons/hectare.

Canberra is experiencing significant problems with the neighbourhood unit - it was designed for 4,000-5,000 but with a flling occupancy rate, the local shops etc. dont have enough population around them to survive. It is not easy to densify these neighbourhood units either

Canberra keeps building new suburbs up north so then everyone from down South migrates up there (so do the newcomers) so they can have a new home. Consequently, Tuggeranong is dying and a lot of the smaller suburbs shops are going broke. This also goes with the fact that most of Tuggeranong is ghetto and the people can only survive off cat food and canned salmon.

atm, if you have roof area greater then 100sqm, you pay additional for state gov ceiling batts scheme. i recently had them put in for free because mine was just on 100sqm. i would have to pay $1400 . anyone got these batts yet?

I've always thought sprawl could work if designed sustainably around the environment and providing first class PT and bike paths.

This is an oxymoron most of the time. To provide a first class PT system, you need people to use it. Sprawl doesn't provide this. The only way this called work is if it is between major centres only, not on the edge.

Somewhat surprised at Denmark being in the top 5... do they have large families in Denmark ?

Apparently NSW has the biggest houses followed by Queensland - though Gold Coast is the city with the biggest houses.

:lol: and i thought Perth's west coast (Hillarys, Illuka some of Kallaroo and along the river say Mossman Park/Peppermint grove etc had pretty huge mcmansions...

So NSW and Qld do too...

:lol: A bunch of McMansions in the northern end of Underwood and some near Logan Road (north of Underwood Road) in Eight Mile Plains were pulled down/demolished near Logan Road to make way for a large recent subdivision in the past 2 or 3 years, there are still a few biggies there though, with no doubt they will go too.....

We should have more of these:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/488257034_332c2ff59d.jpg?v=0

Fappity fap fap

Uh yes but not like that, they're fugly as, but i know what you mean.... and that way people can stop complaining that their bushland neighbouring doesn't dissapear to the ever ending sprawl development...

I'd rather have a nice big bushland park surrounded by a few blocks of high rise apartments... e.g how Rhodes sits aside Bicentennial Park - than streets and streets of low density sprawl with nice big trees in every street

^^For shizzle. Parks are more fun than backyards anyway.

^^ Hear, hear. Bring back the public realm!

^^ Hear, hear. Bring back the public realm!

I think its more "extend" the public realm... if you consider a place like Bronte beach, everyone lives in tiny semis and apartments - and everyone comes out in the morning for a jog and in the arvo for a swim. It's such an awesome atmosphere and the park is full of people all the time

:lol: and i thought Perth's west coast (Hillarys, Illuka some of Kallaroo and along the river say Mossman Park/Peppermint grove etc had pretty huge mcmansions...



mcmansions in peppy grove???

average block size must be 1200 sqm at the very least and there are more old than new houses.

there are certainly mansions, but no mcmansions

Man, look at the gap between the top 3 (all around 200 sqm) and the next nearest nation. Crazy.

I sense another flawed "study" here.

Where's Canada on that list? I saw lots of sprawly suburbia when I was there. I think there are ALOT of countries missing between USA/NZ/Australia before Denmark.

^^For shizzle. Parks are more fun than backyards anyway.

Yeah but with your own garden you can create your own garden and grow fresh fruit and veggies, instead of mainly relying on the crud from 'the fresh food people', lol. Personally I hate living in an apartment, I did so for a few years. I love the idea of having my own garden, though that doesn't mean it should come along with a McMansion, I'm more in favour of a small detached house, like what they mainly built pre the 1970's.

I sense another flawed "study" here.

Where's Canada on that list? I saw lots of sprawly suburbia when I was there. I think there are ALOT of countries missing between USA/NZ/Australia before Denmark.

Yeah I agree, the houses in Denmark are by no means big compared to Australia and the USA. I've been there, it's just like any other western European nation.

I too would have expected Canada to be up there somewhere. I'm sure the average Canadian doesn't live in a lumberjack's hut.

I wonder if the US house size data includes the Basement areas - many free standing North American houses have basements which cover about the same footprint as the main floor.

I heard that electricity price will rise by about 50%. Sucks to be living in a mcmansion trying to change the indoor temperature! According to the ABC News there is a strong trend where home buyers are looking for more environmentally sustainable and cost efficient homes and stay away from mcmansions. They are taking into consideration the rise in utility costs, travel costs and productivity loss from longer commute.

sucks generally.

BASIX imposes substantial energy improvements even in McMansions. But its effects in the past 5 years will not have reduced the cooling bills of these buildings hugely.

All the more reason Governments (more specifically, the state governments) need to get off their collective asses and start planning our urban centres for greater efficiency.

The future will likely bring events that'll make the "Australian Dream" lifestyle more and moe unviable.

Crying poor? Count your rooms and houses, and think again
December 15, 2009 (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/crying-poor-count-your-rooms-and-houses-and-think-again-20091215-kugy.html)

There are two ways to tell the story of what's happening to housing. One is the usual, poor-little-you story of families obliged by ever-rising house prices to take out huge mortgages, which they struggle to pay while an unfeeling central bank raises interest rates every month and the greedy banks add more on top.

The latest chapter in this story is that with high levels of immigration causing the population to grow at its fastest rate in 40 years, we're not building nearly as many homes each year as we need, and this shortage of supply is putting a lot of upward pressure on house prices, to the disadvantage of young people trying to break into home ownership.

But a recent speech by the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, Ric Battellino, put the story in a different and unfamiliar light. He pointed out that households are choosing to spend more on housing than ever before.

In the past decade, more than 6 per cent of gross domestic product has gone on private investment in dwellings, up by a fifth on earlier decades. That's spending on building activity, not on the purchase of existing homes or land.

And the first part of the explanation for it is that we're building much bigger and grander houses and apartments. On average, the cost of each new dwelling is now 60 per cent higher than it was 15 years ago - and that's after stripping out the effect of inflation.

This means our new homes are the largest in the world, with an average floor size of 215 square metres, compared with 202 in the US and 196 in New Zealand. A lot of houses being built on the edges of our cities aren't for first-home buyers. They're McMansions built for people moving on to their third or fourth home.

The next part of the explanation for our huge spending on building work is almost half that money goes on alterations and additions to existing homes. Whether it's new buildings or old, we're making them bigger and better each year.

The third part of the explanation is we're knocking down more old houses to replace them with new ones. Ten or 15 years ago, less than 10 per cent of the new houses we built were replacing houses that had been demolished. Today it's 15 per cent.

The last part of the explanation is we now have 8 per cent more dwellings - houses or apartments - than we have households. And that excess has grown over the past 20 years. How's it possible? Holiday and second homes.

See what a different picture emerges when we stop forcing the housing facts into the gosh-aren't-we-doing-it-tough formula beloved of the media and our politicians?

Doesn't sound like we're doing it too tough to me. Is it the government or the banks forcing us to live in houses with more bedrooms, en suites and garages? Is there some law that obliges us to acquire a holiday home?

Well, actually, there is a law - tax law - that encourages us to pour money into our homes, even into holiday homes if we can wangle it so the interest payments are tax deductible. But I doubt if that's the main reason we're doing it.

Being human, we love having our cake and eating it. We buy ourselves a fabulous new house, take on a huge mortgage then, when we find the payments a bit of a struggle, think of ways to blame it on the government or the banks.

And the media and the politicians - which sell themselves using self-pity rather than truth - encourage us. We take what's clearly a self-sought rise in our material standard of living and, driven by self-pity, mentally convert it into a rise in the cost of living.

The truth is most families' real incomes have been growing strongly over the past decade and more. Mortgage interest rates, whether they're up a bit or down a bit at present, have been a lot lower in this decade than they were in the previous two. We've taken this increased income and lower interest rates and chosen to put more of our money into our housing. If there's been a hidden factor forcing this choice on us, it's this: our unrestrained urge to keep up with the Joneses.

Does this mean all the sob stories we hear about ''housing stress'' are so much bunkum? In so far as they're supposed to describe the position of established, middle-aged, upper-middle-income home owners like you and me, yes. But as they relate to many renters - young and old - no.

The fact is almost all the nest-feathering has been done by well-established home owners. And it co-exists with our failure to build nearly enough additional houses and apartments to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population.

The more the well-established do to push up the quality and price of housing, the tougher we make it for young couples trying to get a seat on the home-ownership gravy train. First-home buyers now need a deposit equivalent to about 1¼ years' income, almost twice what they needed 15 years ago.

An inadequate supply of additional housing puts upward pressure on rents, to the disadvantage of young couples saving a deposit and older, poorer households who face a lifetime of renting, including pensioners.

To give it its due, the Rudd Government is doing a lot to alleviate the problem, with its building of additional ''social housing'', its encouragement of non-profit community housing schemes and its housing affordability fund to grease the wheels of progress at local council level.

But it's mainly the role of the state governments to reduce the impediments that land-zoning, infrastructure costs and the council approval process present to supplying a lot more, more affordable housing.

Ross Gittins is the economics editor.

^ good article for a change ...

But it's so much more fun sitting here in my 4th study (out of a possible 6 options), 500m from my 10x10m bedroom which has its own walk-in robe, 3-seater couch, king bed and ensuite, on the 3rd floor of my modest home overlooking my 25m lap pool with a so-big-you-can't-hear-yourself-shout-across-it entertaining deck all done in sandstone with a BBQ to rival the bulk of a Hummer positioned under a gazebo with a 15m high bell-tower roof and complain at how unaffordable society is becoming.

Geez. Next you'll be asking me to tear down the butler's quarters.

JUST BUILD ME A FLIPPING 24 LANE MOTORWAY TO THE CITY SO I CAN DRIVE ONE OF MY CARS! Stupid, incompetent government.

I hate the the majority of houses they make nowadays, they fugly, to modern, at a lot look the same.