Prevalence of 3-2-1 vs 3-2-2

Just wondering why there seems to be so many 3-2-1 townhouses ie. one garage as opposed to 3-2-2. I realise the simple answer is because you can get more units on the land size that way but if that's the case, aren't we just building undesirable places that no one will want to live in long term ? I know the developers don't care (or maybe I'm assuming this) but wouldn't it (shouldn't it ?) make more sense to build something a bit more suitable, and set the sale price of each unit accordingly ?

I've seen quite a few developments where there are 10+ 3-2-1 townhouses (sometimes dozens) and there are cars sprawled everywhere. I've also seen this issue of not enough car parking space in new estates but it seems to be worse in these townhouse developments.

The couple that are renting a house next to my PPOR now, rented in such a development with around 10 townhouses for a year and they told me "never again". It was cramped and they didn't have enough storage. Their car has got hail damage and when I asked them about it, they said it was because they didn't park it inside the garage, as it was used for general storage. They said that most people living in the development did the same. So you'd think at the very least, a carport would be provided seeing as most people park their car in their driveway.

As for storage in general, I asked them why they didn't just use the 3 bedrooms. One they said was used a study and the other was just a spare bedroom for visitors ... fair enough. I queried them further and said if it's a 3 bedroom townhouse, you'd think it'd be designed so that a family could live there. They just laughed.

I'm not suggesting we should be building massive mansions for all, but you'd think some basic provision for 2 cars and adequate storage would be driven by ... wait for it ... the market. But apparently not.

 

Then what they need is not 3-2-2 but rather 3-2-1 and storage space

If the market shows that price for 3-2-1 is the same as 3-2-2 why would developer build 3-2-2?

 

Totally agree. I have been looking at properties lately and all the new townhouses in a particular area are building only one garage. I wouldn't want one garage especially in a three bedroom house. Those built 15 years prior appear to have the double garage and seem more popular with tenants. Must be a cost thing as makes no sense to me.

 

You just give the market what it wants and will pay for. Doesn't always have to be ideal or even make sense. They demand X, they gonna get X. You gonna get biggest bang of profit for dollar spent. If the market wanted a snake-pit and is willing to pay premium for it, guess what they gonna get...

 

Maybe we can build some more storage space in an underground bomb proof bunker with an underground lift.

3-2-2 are always priced a bit higher than 3-2-1 in new developments, which is fair enough.

 

Give developers and government enough time, and they'll convince us that micro apartments are great to "live" in.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is shouldn't we as a society be building homes that are ... better. The onus isn't and shouldn't be on developers to work this out. They just have to follow certain regulations e.g. energy ratings, but after they comply with everything their job is done. The onus should be on government, both state and local to try and build the "beautiful" areas of tomorrow as opposed to the slums.

It could very well be the case that the big thinkers think forcing people to have 1 car park will mean they will use only 1 car. A drive through any new estate will show you it doesn't work like that. Just like they think making parking in the city into a nightmare will mean we will catch public transport, when in fact we'll more often than not, choose to go elsewhere.

 

I hear ya point but i don't think developers are being left to decide to build what they think is good. I think they mostly develop what society want and can realistically pay for in certain demographics. Society can want X,Y and Z but doesn't mean they can afford to pay for it, hence developers won't build it because they will lose money from no demand, therefore they build what is largely in demand from society. That my take.

 

Most council would require 2 car spots when Developer is proposing to build 3 bedroom dwellings, Unless dispensation is given (subject to closer to public transportation, etc)

Grey area is

2 bed + study . study to be used as a bedroom later and use tandom parking set up for 2nd car.

 

In WA if you have 3 bedrooms or more (or over 110sqm) you have to offer 2 car parking spots - unless it's 400m from a high frequency bus route or 800m of a train station. Those 2 spots can be a double parking bay, double carport, double garage or tandem of the above together with a store room of 4sqm.

I imagine it's very similar in QLD so I'm going to presume that you are close to public transport. I wouldn't blame the developer but they may have been fastidiously targeting profit over functionality.

I would blame the people who won't pay more for a double garage. If a double garage only fetches $5-10k more than a single garage townhouse then it may not be feasible for a developer to offer them.

If one person in the complex has 2 cars and thinks 'well it's a good price so I'll just park in the street' then there is likely to be another person that thinks the same and that causes chaos.

People should really think about their lifestyle before chosing to move to something with little storage and little parking even if the price point is attractive as they'll end up needing to move and the double up of stamp duty could have bought them a much better dwelling in the first place.

 

I think leo2413 has a point. I wishe he didnt cause it means that humans are still stupid.
In Darwin we see it not with Townhouses but with "hotboxes" cheap concrete houses that are great in Melbourne but cook you slowly like a big oven in the tropics...

People keep buying them so the developers keep building them......

Much like your Townhouses, to move everything round and sort out the building so it is actually functional only costs a little extra...but no one wants to pay for it....

 

Double garages are a pet hate of mine. Both as a developer and resident. They occupy a huge amount of space, and provide very little value.
Govts should be focusing on improved public transport networks, rather than on making all houses 'car friendly'. Reduce the number of cars required and a lot of logistics issues vanish.

In saying that wherever possible I would always put in a double garage - and then subject anyone listening to my endless ranting about the fact - purely because the market 'demands' double garages.

Blacky

 

I'm s firm believer in the free market. Vote with your wallet people. As a developer I will be forced to listen. But if the masses in your area don't value the 3/2/2 with their wallet then the developer is there to run a business not a charity.

In many estates people build such small 3/2/2s that they don't park even one car I the garage because it's the biggest living area in the house.

 

Exactly, one of my current investment builds is a 16.5sq 3/2/2. Its a decent design, but regardless the biggest living area of the house is the garage. Originally I had a lovely 3/2/1 design for the lot including a second living area.
But when the market has 3/2/2's priced from 25k+ more than a 3/2/1, then the second living area becomes a small study to incorporate the garage. Cost is negligible.

Having said that though, many 3/2/1's do incorporate a 2nd car space in tandem to the garage.

 

Nice post Westminster. I didn't know about the 400m/800m transportation exemption. Kind of makes sense though. I suppose a lot of these 3-2-1 I see around the place must meet these requirements. And yes fully agree about people buying something that doesn't suit them. Now just need to work out how to get all these cars off the road.

After living with a double garage, a real one where you can actually park two cars side by side and have storage as well, I can't see myself going back to the boxes they build today. Having said that, I agree they do take up a lot of space.

Thanks to Caltan and Connor also for your input.