Australian Homes the Smallest in 2 Decades

Find this interesting

I actually thought Aussies were actually building bigger homes so this surprised me

Perhaps something to consider as investors..... Will mac mansions become those big white elephants, I know it has been discussed many times but the stats don't lie.

Millennials want convenience, location, transport and close proximity to city hubs.

Australia's homes the smallest in two decades: CommSec

Extract (Domain News)

The nation’s properties are now the smallest in two decades, with a shift towards apartment-living slashing the size of the average new dwelling, new research shows.

The smallest apartments are in Canberra, at 95.8 square metres, while the largest are in the Northern Territory at 154.5 square metres.

NSW, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania all have averages under 130 square metres.


But the decline in the average dwelling size is also due to the rising popularity of semi-detached homes and townhouses, CommSec chief economist Craig James said.

“Generation Y, millennial couples and small families want to live closer to work, cafes, restaurants, shopping and airports and are giving up living space for better proximity to these desirable amenities,” Mr James said.

“There are still McMansions being built, but there are fewer of them.”

While apartments were getting smaller, he said design had improved to make these spaces more liveable with larger windows and open-plan layouts.

 

It's not just the better location. Way less gardening, cleaning the whole house takes less than an hour and the mortgage isn't crippling.

 

My understanding is that they have included units in with houses and since units are smaller and there have been lots of them sold, it is skewing the data. If you look at just the house data in NSW they are actually getting slightly bigger.

 

Those damn stats... I should know better,

OK, Aussies love big houses, but Yanks like them bigger.... average US house I think is around 2200-2500 sq ft, that is huge.

Back to the topic....personally if I had to sacrifice size of house over living in my ideal location, by this close to city, community atmosphere etc. I would pick location over size every day of the week.

MTR

 

That is why I have been building 13-17 sqm 3 brm houses near transport and infrastructure for the last few years.

Being close to train stations pay off....not everyone can live in the inner city...but increasingly people want to be near transport and other conveniences.

Has my strategy payed off well you can say so.....

 

squares perhaps , not sqm

 

Yep...otherwise they would be studios in Hong Kong!

13 Sq is about 120sq.....17 sq is about 159sqm

 

Same. One of @Westminster's one bedroom townhouses would be a perfect size for me.

I hate big houses to live in personally. They are good for families though.

 

They look amazing

 

I think those mcmansions far from transport links and far from the city will become white elephants for quite some time. Until it becomes economic to demolish and do something higher density.
Not at that point yet but we will get there.

 

@sash , isnt the perception that 120m2 would be small for a new build. Interesting concept. I imagine 3.1.1 ?

Do they rent and sell well?

 

Nope....just tenanted it for $365pw ....end value is 370-380k according to the bank.

Tenant was living in a old 2 brm villa .

 

I don't mind 120m2 - 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 1 LUG.
I find it fantastic - less cleaning, no grass to mow, walking distance to shopping centre and train station 10 mins.
10 mins drive to the city centre.

I do wish I had 2 LUG.

 

My first property was a 42sqm 1 bedroom flat and looking back I loved the simplicity it brought to my life.

My electricity bill was circa $40 every 2 months back in the early 2000s. Used to only ever have 1 light on at a time but there was only 4 lights so not hard.

Once the tinlids fly the coupe I can see us in a lock and leave apartment complex (as renters not owners).