kernow43 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Australia has the largest homes, average 214 sq metres compared to UK 76 sq metres. Why the difference? Families I suppose are about the same size on average. Is it because we have more space to build? Australians have the biggest homes | Property | News.com.au Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30038 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Dunno about elsewhere in Oz, but I dread to think how hot they'd be if they were any smaller. It could also be due to rampant capitalism.............if the homes are bigger, then the product is more expensive/more profit. I remember when I first looked at building a home............there was a company called Tamawood (now Dixon) that offered some tiny 2 bed homes for around 48000. They don't offer them anymore but whether this is due to Aussies preferring bigger, or the plans being withdrawn due to small profits, I don't know? kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marco1 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Australia has the largest homes, average 214 sq metres compared to UK 76 sq metres. Why the difference? Families I suppose are about the same size on average. Is it because we have more space to build?Australians have the biggest homes | Property | News.com.au I read the article today. Soemone who is paid to keep the papers full of stuff so that they can sell advertising space, has measured a few homes, made an average and we are the winners. So? We have bigger homes because we can. It is that simple. As for the quality of the research it only takes to read the comments below. What a gem of logic, bigger homes means we need to build less of them. Sure, makes sense if it was containers to hold water, not people, sometimes I wonder why do I read the paper in the first place. Then again, there is the secondary usage of paper... for composting. Come to think of it that is precisely what they are best for...cr****ing on. "The increase in the size of the average family unit may mean that fewer new homes need to be built," CommSec's Craig 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." Had the number of persons per household remained unchanged, CommSec estimates that 166,000 extra homes would needed to have been built in the 2007-08 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 There's a few factors involved I suspect kernow and you've hit on one re the space and you only have to look at the big rambling homesteads of the richer settlers with huge verandahs for the climate and that touches on other factors like climate as raised by itcouldbeworse. Sure some of our inner city areas have terrace houses just like a lot of the UK cities and towns and there's good reasoning for them too, what with reducing services costs as well as insulation more against cold. But at some stage fairly early on people did decide it would seem that we have sufficient room for the stand alone bungalows as they were originally called, perhaps the very first of many Americanisms that were adopted but then theirs could have been Europeanisms too for even Europe has the bungalows approach as well as some gigantic family homes with barns built in whereas the barns went separately for the US. But with the warmer weather, it is somewhat beeter to have houses more open and breezy unless you want them fully airconditioned and then you might just want them smaller again to use less cooling energy. And ultimately, it is for a lot of people what they can afford and keeping up with the Joneses and to hell with the Carbon footprint, the irony of politicians like Gore carrying on re Carbon/climate change is that they too can go to hell I suppose. The other underlying factor that may distort averages is that the UK and other countries with cities established for more than twice the time of Australian cities is that a much larger % of houses would have been built to the smaller terracy style so even building the estate style larger houses I think they are referred to has far less effect on the average and then there'll be far more of those multi story commission apartments about to also keep the average down. Marco may have decided to read all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aldo Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Build quality is awful (especially the one i worked on) More like portacabins than houses. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Build quality is awful (especially the one i worked on) I can believe that,anything you worked on probably fell down after 6 months.:biggrin::wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernow43 Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share Posted November 30, 2009 Build quality is awful (especially the one i worked on) More like portacabins than houses. IMO Now I can understand why lol:jiggy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernow43 Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share Posted November 30, 2009 I can believe that,anything you worked on probably fell down after 6 months.:biggrin::wink: Sorry Nigel, we both posted the same sort of comment at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Great minds Kernow,great minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marco1 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 There's a few factors involved I suspect kernow and you've hit on one re the space and ambling homers, what with reducing services costs as wation more againstthe standwere originally called, perhaps the very first of many Americanisms that were adooo for even Europe has the bungal some giagantic family homese barns went separately for theS. her, it is somewhat beeter to have hn and breezy unless you want thller again to use less cooling energy. the Joneses and to hell with the Carbon footprint, the irony of politicians like Gore cey too can go to hell I suppose.es is that thecountries with cities established for more than twice the time larger % of houses would have been built to the smaller terracy style so even buildingare referred to has far less effect on the average and then thre'll be far more of those the average down. You sure are the King of the nonsense :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PommyPaul Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Do we need them, no not really. Do we want them? hell yes!! you can never have enought room and toy storeage areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 ...The other underlying factor that may distort avergaes is that the UK and other countries with cities established for more than twice the time of Australian cities is that a much larger % of houses would have been built to the smaller terracy style so even building the estate style larger houses I think they are referred to has far less effect on the average and then there'll be far more of those multi story commission apartments about to also keep the average down. ... I think the average was based on new homes only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I read the article today. Soemone who is paid to keep the papers full of stuff so that they can sell advertising space, has measured a few homes, made an average and we are the winners. So? We have bigger homes because we can. It is that simple. As for the quality of the research it only takes to read the comments below. What a gem of logic, bigger homes means we need to build less of them. Sure, makes sense if it was containers to hold water, not people, sometimes I wonder why do I read the paper in the first place. Then again, there is the secondary usage of paper... for composting. Come to think of it that is precisely what they are best for...cr****ing on. From your quote it says the increase in the size of the average family unit, not bigger houses, meant less houses need to be built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Build quality is awful (especially the one i worked on) More like portacabins than houses. IMO Also, ,maybe being British you mistook a portacabin for a house? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think they are good for people for really need them, but I would guess that most houses are bigger than really needed which just leads to unnecessary cleaning, less leisure time and less dense suburbs which reduces access to shops/services. I hope the trend reverses and with the population increases being talked about they will have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sh7t man no way Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Australia has the largest homes, average 214 sq metres compared to UK 76 sq metres. Why the difference? Families I suppose are about the same size on average. Is it because we have more space to build?Australians have the biggest homes | Property | News.com.au its because austraians are the most obese peaple in the world---- big fat peaple need bigger houses---- simple maths really:biglaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Ropey HOFF Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Hi to everyone, my experience on this matter is that the new houses i looked at in Perth were to absolutley die for, they were state of the art massive air conditioned houses with high celings and large patio windowed openings out onto the large patios and barbecue areas. The bedrooms were large with huge walk in wardrobes and fabulous en-suites, with seperate cinema rooms and huge open planned kitchens with superb fixtures and fittings, they were out of this world. Compared to my uk version of a large 4 bedroomed detached new house with a large conservatory it seems tiny compared to the houses in OZ and for the workmanship, it was awesome. You can get a 450,000 thousand pounds house in Australia for 450,000 oz dollars near the coast. FACT, which is half the price. please don't reply to this by saying you can't and you will have to live in a rough area because its rubbish, just go to realestate.au.com there are hundreds of houses on there just like this in nice areas. Houses in OZ compared to the UK, Australia wins hands down. jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marco1 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 From your quote it says the increase in the size of the average family unit, not bigger houses, meant less houses need to be built. Sure, that makes a lot of sense...not! What is a family unit? Does it mean that because we are fatter the family unit weights more? It means the number of kids is higher. Now number of people in my books means increase in population, more population morehouses, it is that simple. As for larger homes, sure a person with 6 kids will NEED a larger home with more bedrooms. I live in a 5 bedroom house yet I have two kids soon to be one kid at home. I don't NEED a 5 bedroom home, I LOVE a 5 bedroom home, and I CAN have a 5 bedroom home. An I will probably move to a newer larger home with acreage very soon too. Not because I need it but because I can. This pseudo socialist articles written by someone on 30k a year who wants to dictate how people must live, is so ridiculous that it is not even worth debating. Everyone lives in the best house he/she can afford not the one the frugality of the ethics from the journo in the trading post points at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marco1 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Hi to everyone, my experience on this matter is that the new houses i looked at in Perth were to absolutley die for, they were state of the art massive air conditioned houses with high celings and large patio windowed openings out onto the large patios and barbecue areas. The bedrooms were large with huge walk in wardrobes and fabulous en-suites, with seperate cinema rooms and huge open planned kitchens with superb fixtures and fittings, they were out of this world. Compared to my uk version of a large 4 bedroomed detached new house with a large conservatory it seems tiny compared to the houses in OZ and for the workmanship, it was awesome. You can get a 450,000 thousand pounds house in Australia for 450,000 oz dollars near the coast. FACT, which is half the price. please don't reply to this by saying you can't and you will have to live in a rough area because its rubbish, just go to realestate.au.com there are hundreds of houses on there just like this in nice areas. Houses in OZ compared to the UK, Australia wins hands down. jim. I agree. If you can within your means, buy a nice big house in a nice area. If you don't buy what you can for now and upgrade later. Yet if you for now are not able to buy a nice house, don't try to tell the others that it is wrong to have a house larger than you NEED. That was OK in Russia some time ago and is probably ok in Cuba. Even China has thrown that concept away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 its because austraians are the most obese peaple in the world---- big fat peaple need bigger houses---- simple maths really:biglaugh: Wrong. WHO finds American Samoa most obese country The American Samoa is reported as the country with the highest number of overweight inhabitants based on national health surveys compiled by World Health Organization (WHO). Considering the dramatic surges in the prevalence of obesity worldwide, latest figures show one in every three adults is overweight and one in every 10 of them is obese. WHO officials estimate that the number of overweight adults would reach 2.3 billion — equal to the combined populations of China, Europe and the US — by 2015. According to the recently-released WHO report, the American Samoa, where 93.5 percent of its population is overweight, is the fattest country on the globe. Kiribati (81.5%), the US (66.7%), Germany (66.5%) and Egypt (66%) are the next four countries following the American Samoa on this list. Bosnia-Herzegovina, New Zealand, Croatia, and the United Kingdom are the other countries ranking among the 10 fattest countries in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 From your quote it says the increase in the size of the average family unit, not bigger houses, meant less houses need to be built. Sure, that makes a lot of sense...not! What is a family unit? Does it mean that because we are fatter the family unit weights more? It means the number of kids is higher. Now number of people in my books means increase in population, more population morehouses, it is that simple. As for larger homes, sure a person with 6 kids will NEED a larger home with more bedrooms. I live in a 5 bedroom house yet I have two kids soon to be one kid at home. I don't NEED a 5 bedroom home, I LOVE a 5 bedroom home, and I CAN have a 5 bedroom home. An I will probably move to a newer larger home with acreage very soon too. Not because I need it but because I can. This pseudo socialist articles written by someone on 30k a year who wants to dictate how people must live, is so ridiculous that it is not even worth debating. Everyone lives in the best house he/she can afford not the one the frugality of the ethics from the journo in the trading post points at. Fatter, number of kids. That's funny I think they mean the average number of people per household. This stat has been declining for 100 years but turned the corner in recent times and starting climbing again. Because, on average, households are housing more people, less houses are needed. Probably due to young adults shacking up with parents longer due to house prices. "Everyone lives in the best house he/she can afford" - yes, but "best house" doesn't have to mean biggest - the larger our houses get other aspects suffer - transport, distance to shops etc etc I agree it is wrong to dictate to someone that they can't live in the large house if that is what they see as best - but I do think it is worth debating whether overall we should try to construct more houses per square mile to stop the massive urban sprawl which is straining infrastructure due to low density. Having a city full of empty rooms but half the population not near a bus route is not a win in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish.01 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I agree. If you can within your means, buy a nice big house in a nice area. If you don't buy what you can for now and upgrade later. Yet if you for now are not able to buy a nice house, don't try to tell the others that it is wrong to have a house larger than you NEED. That was OK in Russia some time ago and is probably ok in Cuba. Even China has thrown that concept away. I don't think this debate is about what an individual can afford, or even whether they should buy a large, medium or small house. That is obviously a personal choice. I, for example, recently sold my large house because I think I made a mistake buying it. I decided I value location much more than size and even though it was only 15 mins off peak from town that was still too far away from my work in peak hour + was only close to shops, schools but little else of interest. But I understand other people see bigger the better as valuable and that is their right. But I think the broader debate of how dense our cities are, and therefore how large our land and houses are, is a debate worth having - it is one the Brisbane City Council, for example, is actively forcing on us anyway at the moment with talk of the need to fit masses of new people into our city and changing the planning laws to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30038 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 it is one the Brisbane City Council, for example, is actively forcing on us anyway at the moment with talk of the need to fit masses of new people into our city and changing the planning laws to do so. One only has to look at Bracken Ridge. What acreage plots there were have now sold up and been subdivided. In the last 12 months alone 4 of these have been put over to "town houses"............."semis" as we called 'em back in the UK. If I had to go back to the kind of living I had in the UK, where your bedroom backs onto next doors.......... I'd sooner live in a shed in the wilderness..........Jeeeeeeeeez, my next door neighbour's wife did some moaning and groaning at night.........yes, oh yes! yes! oh yes! :embarrassed: Never heard him though :biglaugh: kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marco1 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 The debate about house density / public transport + other infrastructure like schools and hospitals and immigration etc, is only possible as a whole. The only possible question is to those living here to ask, how do I want to live and that will most probably include with whom do I want to live. The above is not possible because no government is actually interested in your or mine opinion as to how we would like to live, besides then for seeking our vote and perpetuate themselves on the gravy train. So they employ the number cruncher who identify groups of people and label them according to their possible likes and dislikes. Identify their possible voting patterns and refine it further and further. Then a smorgasbord of policies is lined up and the best possible match of policy / group of voters is done and the results tabled. The policy that produces the best result in votes is the one that is implemented. If voters would ask for free heroin in primary schools, that is the policy the government of the day would implement without hesitation. This of course has a big fat flaw. That is majority rules, minority looses. How is it possible for a politician to support minorities and capture their vote as well without losing the majority vote? Simple you got the media to brain wash the majority into believing they have to "accommodate" the minority or they are bad citizen, intolerant, possibly responsible for global warming, the extinction of the three legged green frog and the giant kangaroo, not to mention the loss of one day in February. Please note that this request for largess from majority groups voters is always done at their expense. No converse policy has ever been attempted. Say, can I have a grant to buy a better boat? So you get idiotic articles like this who directly or by elevation, with elegance or with vulgarities, in any way possible try to distort the reality of offer and demand by attaching a component of guilt onto what is not convenient for the government. As you well point out, larger homes on acreage would require more roads and infrastructure for less people. The quality of life for those living that way is obvious for most, take away those who like to live in the city. But as we all know, governments are not there to make life better for us. They are there because we have put them there in a moment of folly and must now render tribute to those who want to remain in power forever. So if a group of people is prepared to live large and demands infrastructure for them, all you need to do is brand them egotistic megalomaniacs who dare take away from the populus their right to infrastructure. It does not matter if it is true or not, it works and eventually your Range Rover will be dutifully egged to show you that you are a criminal by driving such car. Get in line and drive a Toyota prius and show that you care! Yes, things are not as obvious as they appear, and we could start a thread and debate why is it not possible to debate WHO is allowed to immigrate and who should be banned from migrating here and why. Oh no! You can not do that, NO WAY!!! We are all equal! Sure we are, in that we are all human. Any further than that we are actually all different and we should be able to differentiate how and why. All you need is to drive through Punchball and then drive in North Sydney and tell me the difference please I really would like to know what the explanation between the behaviour of drivers in those two suburbs is if not their genetic make up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aldo Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 When i lived in daisy hill I could hear the neighbours coughing from 3 houses away!! The walls are so thin and poorly insulated, as for the windows:elvis: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.