House Prices Increasing House Sizes Decreasing

I wouldn't say smaller houses W4L, all the info that I see is indicates that house size has been growing (regardless of block size). In the 1980's it was 4th bedrooms. 1990's 3 car garages and 2000's the media room. Over that period, block size has decreased from 600-720m2 down to 450-500m2 becoming more common. 14 or more lots / ha.

I agree. My ppor has 4 beds. Double garage, ensuite 3 living areas. Nice on paper but what makes a house is the space between rooms . New homes don’t have much of this apart from the top end. My 50 year old rental is a three bedder and no garage yet it has the same area. The hallway was advertised as a dining room by the agent. I like this in old homes.

You seem to be confusing house size with land area. House size is increasing.

Here is the article I was referring to.

The real problem that is causing this is the price of land, If you have to pay 400k for a 600 sqm block on the outskirts of Sydney, you might as well build a 300-400 sqm home for 300k, rather than a 150-200 sqm home for 150k. The difference between 550k and 700k is minimal for twice the living space.

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

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.”

I have yet to see any guidance notes changing the basis for valuation. Direct comparison  will always necessitate getting back to a land value, the development model too, will always get back to a land value.
In isolation a parcel of land with the appropriate zoning but too small to meet the requirements of the planning instrument will always be worth less in isolation however once it meets the minimum site criteria (for subdivision or development), then its value will be assessed accordingly.

Would you be suggesting a move back to 'granny flats' W4L ie multi-generational housing with grandparents, parents & grandkids in one extended nuclear family household? Krudd is advocating a ponzi scheme for Australia, import young people to pay for older ones forgetting that the young ones too will grow old and will also need to be paid for by future generations.

The problem with importing the young people is that they already have families to pay for back in the country of origin. I'm sure that many dollars they earn will be invested in the families they already have not in the oldies here that no one else wants to pay for. Yes I know they will pay tax etc. The other problem I foresee is Mother-in-laws. Multi-generational housing means that people would have to live with theirs.

How would you like to live in retirement Scott? What about you Wealth? Plenty of flash new retirement homes with picture of "older" people drinking wine, and laughing on a tennis court! You could go for the sardine option, developers could build terrace houses again but this time the whole ground floor could be shared living space and people could retire to a "sleeping capsule"! I'm scaring myself here!

D

DW, the caravan park/mobile home park idea has already been done.

I'd prefer to visit the 'Logans Run' model