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



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

AAP

It's a case of supersize me, and it's not about food.

New research shows that Australia has overtaken the United States to have the largest homes in the world.

While average US home sizes have shrunk for the first time in a decade due to global recession, the average floor space of new Australian homes hit a record high of 214.6 square metres in 2008/09 financial year, according to official data.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data commissioned by CommSec also showed the average floor area of new free-standing houses was also at a record high - 245.3sqm.

By contrast, the average size of new homes started in the US in the September quarter stood at 201.5sqm.

CommSec chief economist Craig James said the latest figures helped to explain how Australians were dealing with the shortage of housing - by making greater use of bigger homes.

"It is commonly believed that there is a housing shortage in Australia, we aren't building enough homes to accommodate our growing population," Mr James said in a statement.

"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."

ABS data showed that the average size of Australian households rose in the year to June 2008, from 2.51 people per home to 2.56 people.

"At face value, the increase in household size ... may not seem remarkable, but it appears to be the first increase in at least a century and perhaps the first since European settlement," Mr James said.

"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 living at home longer with parents and more people are opting for shared accommodation."

The research showed homes in other parts of the world are far smaller.

Data from Europe shows that Denmark has the biggest homes (houses and flats) with an average floor area of 137 sqm, followed by Greece (126 sqm), and the Netherlands (115.5 sqm).

Homes in the UK are the smallest in Europe, at 76 sqm on average.


wow didnt know that but i dont think the report is right. Most typical Australian homes are not that big

I always learned that Canadians had the largest living spaces, not Americans. I suppose 2 decades of Canadian condo building and a return to the downtown core has put an end to that. :weird:

I feel so proud to be an Australian right now :ohno:

My God we're a middle class nation.

It surprises me the Netherlands still has the 3rd largest homes in Europe. I always thought France, Germany and Belgium had bigger homes. It would also be nice to see a list with the average price per square meter. UK and NL tend to be quite pricey.

Big difference between having the largest homes, and having the largest homes built in the past year.

In any given year there can be a huge swing. If people are downsizing for example, even if the average new house is the same size (which it might not be), maybe house construction shrinks and condo/apt construction gains....if the condos are smaller than houses and there are more of them, then the average home size can shrink dramatically for that period.

Big difference between having the largest homes, and having the largest homes built in the past year.

In any given year there can be a huge swing. If people are downsizing for example, even if the average new house is the same size (which it might not be), maybe house construction shrinks and condo/apt construction gains....if the condos are smaller than houses and there are more of them, then the average home size can shrink dramatically for that period.

Well the thing is, most of the demand here in Australia, particularly with young first home buyers, is for smaller more compact homes like apartments and townhouses located nearer to city centres (location, location). There is already a problem here with new housing stock not meeting demand and what new dwellings get put out are dominately large detached houses (mcmansions) on city fringes and regional areas due to the stupid amounts of beaurocracy and red tape involved to develop in already developed urban areas, so this phase of going nuts on building mcmansions not only is a gross misuse of land/resources (which has already happened to a large extent here), but also completely misses what the market here is desperate for - smaller, more manageable dwellings in more inner-city locations.

Although I love the idea of a big home, in this respect it means Australian is becoming the most suburban nation in the world. And this is not such a good thing.

A big house is lovely and has many positive attributes, but at the cost of living in the suburbs where they don't even lay down footpaths, I say no thankyou. I was in Perth last month and spent a week with one of my best friends who moved to the Perth suburbs and I must say that despite the lovely big house and visually pleasant neighbourhood, it was one of the most horrible places I could imagine living. Street activity was dead... and that is being nice. It was so good to get out of Perth and land in Sydney where the density and urban feel increased.

Depends on what you consider in the footage of the house. In BC very few people have basements but everything east of Manitoba does. My brother has a 1800sq ft single level house in Vancouver but no basement but in Ontario it would automatically have a full basement doubling the size of the house. An Australian friend of mine says few Aus homes have basements and if that's the case then these numbers are squewd. Not having basments requires larger houses for the same living area resulting in higher prices and more land required to build the same size house if it had a basement.
All it does is cause higher real estate prices, more sprawl, and windfalls for realtors and construction companies.

All it does is cause higher real estate prices, more sprawl, and windfalls for realtors and construction companies.

Which pretty much explains the Australian housing situation - sprawled, hideously overpriced and a gravy train for realtors, speculators and investment hoarders. I don't know how aware the rest of the world is regarding Australia's housing market, but due to continuous bad policies and planning, inaction and undersupply spanning over years, we've got arguably the most overinflated housing market in the world. You will find affordable housing NOWHERE in this country. Even houses in regional towns out in the midle of nowhere are deemed "unaffordable".

having a big house is impractical and pricy,thats why interest rates keep rising,insurance premiums and electricity gets more expensive and then politicians have to keep spending money on energy infrastructure as well as gas and water to keep up with the demand becuase people with big houses want their double garages,3 or 4 bathrooms,a games room,a study and a private bar room.its just really ludricrous.lets get back to downsizing because thats more realistic and then we might have more money to enjoy life and go on a nice holiday.i live in australia and i must admit this country is the most ridiculous western country in tthe world.

Which pretty much explains the Australian housing situation - sprawled, hideously overpriced and a gravy train for realtors, speculators and investment hoarders. I don't know how aware the rest of the world is regarding Australia's housing market, but due to continuous bad policies and planning, inaction and undersupply spanning over years, we've got arguably the most overinflated housing market in the world. You will find affordable housing NOWHERE in this country. Even houses in regional towns out in the midle of nowhere are deemed "unaffordable".

Austrlian houses are still cheaper than in Germany. Don't think its too overprized in aussieland.

Austrlian houses are still cheaper than in Germany. Don't think its too overprized in aussieland.

Overall this is true, but it depends on where.

Berlin is still considerably cheaper than Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

Austrlian houses are still cheaper than in Germany. Don't think its too overprized in aussieland.

I'm not familiar with the German market, but I highly doubt it's as artificially inflated as the Australian market. Like other European cities, I imagine high prices in German cities would be due to more natural factors such as limited land that can be developed on and so forth, which means high figures are to be expected. Australia on the other hand does not have these natural limitations - our sky high prices are due pretty much entirely to artificial factors such as under-development, over-regulation, development costs and a tax system that awards investors to hoard properties just to name a few.

Makes sense that Australia would have the biggest homes. Australia has the lowest population density of any of the richest countries. I hear though that lots of snakes, spiders & other wild criters live nearby & sometimes get in these big houses!

^^ Not really. I've only ever seen a snake in a zoo here. Mere urban myths. We're one of the most urbanised countries in the world too - far more urbanised than Britain for instance - so when you count out all the land which isn't lived on, or can't be lived on, then our population density isn't that much different to other countries.

Housing in Australia is stupidly expensive, but you do get houses of a very high quality as we have very strict regulations.

A lot of this world has this completely outdated notion of Australia having plentiful and cheap housing, snakes everywhere, small cities etc. - the truth is really the opposite. The majority of the population live in just 5 big cities and where none of us can afford housing nor petrol and wouldn't know a snake from a stick.

We are fortunate the highest standard of living, I guess it makes sense that its called the lucky country. ha ha

I am a Chinese and I know that in China many people can not afford their house even some riches.Because the house¡¯s prices are very high especiually in some big cities such as BeiJing.(I¡¯m new here and my English is not good.So i want to make friends.Take message to me.)

..

I am a Chinese and I know that in China many people can not afford their house even some riches.Because the house¡¯s prices are very high especiually in some big cities such as BeiJing.(I¡¯m new here and my English is not good.So i want to make friends.Take message to me.)

hi feel free 我也是中国人..

A lot of this world has this completely outdated notion of Australia having plentiful and cheap housing, snakes everywhere, small cities etc. - the truth is really the opposite. The majority of the population live in just 5 big cities and where none of us can afford housing nor petrol and wouldn't know a snake from a stick.

Most aussies don't live inside the cities but in the suburban areas surrounding the cities. Big difference. This might be urban by Austrlian standards but almost rural for most europeans.

thats because thers a lack of land in europe and its not viable to build low density suburbs

Most aussies don't live inside the cities but in the suburban areas surrounding the cities. Big difference. This might be urban by Austrlian standards but almost rural for most europeans.

I'm pretty sure any European would be able to differentiate between a suburb and a rural area. Having lived in Europe for many years, most of my youth actually, I can pretty much guarantee that Australian suburbia is in no way 'rural' by European standards.

And those suburbs are still part of the city. Let's not split hairs.

Most aussies don't live inside the cities but in the suburban areas surrounding the cities. Big difference. This might be urban by Austrlian standards but almost rural for most europeans.

No, sorry, but you're wrong.

The suburbs are very much apart of their respective cities and while they may be much less dense than European cities, they are still part of the continuous urban area they are within, whichever POV you decide to take, whether that be european, asian, whatever.

And this myth that European cities are all super-dense urbanisation is just that, a myth. Go look at the greater areas of London, Paris, Berlin, etc on Google Earth and you can clearly see swathes of low-density suburbia similar to that found in Australia and the US.

Of course european cities have sprawl. But the urban cores are larger and denser than american and australian ones.

I'm pretty sure any European would be able to differentiate between a suburb and a rural area. Having lived in Europe for many years, most of my youth actually, I can pretty much guarantee that Australian suburbia is in no way 'rural' by European standards.

And those suburbs are still part of the city. Let's not split hairs.

Rural by Austrlian standards doe not really exist in many european countries. There are no giant cattle farms and empty land for a day drive. etc. Rural in Europe consists of small villages and towns which eventually become more dense and merge into metropolitan areas. In fact there is probably not a single spot in countries such as Germany or Netherlands which is more than one hour drive from a 100,000+ population city. By Australian standards, entire Germany and Netherlands would be considered one urban mass.

Of course european cities have sprawl. But the urban cores are larger and denser than american and australian ones.

Sigh

I realise that, I didn't try to deny that in my previous comment, you didn't have to point out the obvious.

Rural by Austrlian standards doe not really exist in many european countries. There are no giant cattle farms and empty land for a day drive. etc. Rural in Europe consists of small villages and towns which eventually become more dense and merge into metropolitan areas. In fact there is probably not a single spot in countries such as Germany or Netherlands which is more than one hour drive from a 100,000+ population city. By Australian standards, entire Germany and Netherlands would be considered one urban mass.

I don't agree with you on this. Of course there are not as much great rural area's in western europe (excludfing naturally European Russia and some surrounding countries) but there are still plenty of rural areas. Because of the higher density in Germany we can get to rural area's quicker than many Australians because we don't have endless ultra low density suburbs to drive through, and what splendit countryside it is too. We also have forests everywhere. I can walk to both downtown from where I live, or also a forest.

Yes, it is true that you are never too far away from a large city, and especially never to far away from small villages but that is one of the lovely things about the countryside here. So many tiny picturesque villages dotted everywhere.

And it is true that when you get seriously rural in Australia, it can be a long way from any town and then when you get there, hardly worth it. But the way you wrote that it sounded like we are all urban and that is simply not the case. If anyone wants to question that, just look at google maps and switch on the photo options. You can quickly see how close countryside is too cities.

Other country's in Europe have even more rural areas. France and Spain don't have quite as many small towns and villages dotted around as Germany so you can get far more lost in the countryside there.

The Netherlands is a bit wierd though, as it really does seem for large parts of it that the countryside and townships blur into each other.

All of that said, those big houses to come with a cost, and that is those boring suburbs. I find German suburbs to be boring as well, but even then they are far more interesting than Australian suburbs (unless those said suburbs are right on the beach ;O)

I'd love a big house. But not at the cost of where they are located. When I was living in Australia, I was living in an apartment smaller than what I have here in Germany. But that apartment was walking distance to central Sydney and that was how I preferred to live. If I could have afforded a 300m² house in central city, I probably would buy one ;O) But I wouldn't buy an affordable 300m² house far out in the suburbs.

Good on you.

To be honest a suburb that would be considered wealthy in say Europe or South Aamerica is generally not always the case here, I mean its upper class but in terms of tree lined stret, clear pavements, nice gardens, gates and street lamps its geenerally the standard here the only difference is proximity to the city, location i.e how close to the beach or city as mentioned and public transport.

I live in East St Kilda in Melbourne which borders with North Caulfield, now I wouldnt say North Caulfield is a the richest suburb in Melbourne but its upper middle to upper class. Enormous houses even mansions, tennis courts etc. but the thing is you can still have that in say in Endeavour Hills which is 45 mins away from the centre of town. We are fortunate to have land and proper planning as well as local councils which make sure our infrastructure is strong and updated. I have lived in the Middle East and Europe including london and they could learn a thing or two.

People have differente demands and expectations, and culture has its fair share of influence. As were well into 21st Century, we ought to stop thinking in "West" populations as monolitically blocs like "The English love their townhouses, the American live only in suburbs, German appreciate mid-rises" etc.

As North America's, Europe's and Oceania's advanced developed countries share a fair portion of its culture traits now, it is feasible to think that within a same country different expectations for housing exists. Some people prefer inner-city living in US, Italy and New Zealand. Others would rather live in nice suburbs with private lawns and gardens, be they Canadians, Spaniards or Aussies.

For the latter group, the #18 doesn't apply. Some people prefer to spend more money and time equiping, maintaining and living within their own estates. It's quite aggressive, IMO, call those dwellers McMansioners or Fat Suburban Cats as some do.

I see many people here on SSC coming from "suburban" countries like US, Canada and Australia trying to paint a picture of a massive "back to dowtown" trend that doesn't hold up on objective facts and statistics. We, SSC forummites, are a self-selected group of mostly urban young professionals who are more or less attracted to the "city life" to say so. Majority of American population, for instance, certainly don't think like American forummites (and for every other country represented here).

Anyhow, 243 m2 doesn't seem to be a really big house, it is not certainly a McMansion. Suppose a family of 4 (parents + 2 children). I'd consider reasonable to have AT LEAST the following living spaces:

- 3 bedrooms
- 3 bathrooms attached to bedroom + 1 toillet
- living room
- kitchen
- laundry
- small office/library/study place
- garage for 2 cars (maybe 1 in denser areas)

Is this excessive? It doesn't seem so.

I'm just glad that Australians have taken that 'world's largest houses' title from us, hopefully for good. Americans need to give up the fetish for big, useless boxes on cul-de-sacs and accept that we are all creatures that don't require endless space to live well.

Anyhow, 243 m2 doesn't seem to be a really big house, it is not certainly a McMansion. Suppose a family of 4 (parents + 2 children). I'd consider reasonable to have AT LEAST the following living spaces:

- 3 bedrooms
- 3 bathrooms attached to bedroom + 1 toillet
- living room
- kitchen
- laundry
- small office/library/study place
- garage for 2 cars (maybe 1 in denser areas)

Is this excessive? It doesn't seem so.

I agree with this. For the average family, this should be more than adequate.