Big homes
Big homes
Vintage Matusik
The boss and I are on a four-week break walking through Tuscany. Lucky us! Well it has been a long time coming…paid for years ago, but delayed twice over recent years due to work, or ironically the lack of it, and again with more than a touch of irony, we are now taking this trip just as our workload is increasing. In fact it is back to pre-GFC levels. A bellwether?¹ Let’s hope so.
So in my absence, for the next couple of weeks you will have to put up with some past missives. The selection process was vigorous indeed. I just picked a couple I liked the most. Normal programming will resume on the 12th October. I might even bore you silly with some tales from Italy.
Sino a quel momento, acclamazioni² and yes, “vintage” might be pushing it a bit!
Big homes (September 2010)
One of the current social themes is that the consumer is to blame for wanting a big home. The new social order – excuse me if I get on my hobby-horse (again you all say) for a second or two – wants us to buy something smaller and magically make our housing problems disappear. Sadly, too many who clog up the blogosphere with urban commentary don’t understand the economics of new housing nor a rational buyer’s decision-making process.
Recent statistics published by the CBA show that Australia has the largest homes in the world, with the average floor area of a new dwelling (including townhouses but excluding apartments) topping 214m², up from 150m² just 25 years ago. The average floor area of new free-standing houses also set a record at 245m². Our homes are much larger than those within Europe and even many American cities.
Why has this occurred?
It is simply economics. The actual land component of a new house and land package is very high and fixed. The land usually costs around two-thirds of the total purchase price. This is particularly the case for basic or entry-level new housing. For example, the land component of a basic $375,000 house and land package in Queensland could cost as much as $250,000.
In contrast, a 150m² three-bedroom base level house on that land would cost about $135,000 or around $2,500/m² as a total price (including the price of the land). Now, a larger 250m² four bedroom house with a study might cost $175,000, making the end package cost $425,000. The buyer gets 100m² of extra house for just $50,000 more. The total end price per square metre has now dropped to $1,700 or 30% less.
Here is the real rub. Assuming that the buyer can afford to pay the extra deposit and fund a $425,000 house and land package, all it costs – assuming a ten percent deposit and using today’s rates – is an extra $10 per day in mortgage payments. The new home buyer can now own a home that is two-thirds larger for just $70 per week. To upsize the house, as outlined in the example above, would cost the buyer an extra $3,640 per year.
Given the high cost of land in and around our capital cities, the trend towards larger new homes makes economic sense. Consumers are just acting in their own interests and are making rational decisions to choose a larger and more valuable home for what is a small additional out-of-pocket expense in the broad scheme of things.
Unless there are real economies in the land content – for example the plentiful supply of subdivided land to keep land prices keen – building a small house on a more traditional sized suburban block of land is often not the best value for money.
PS And yet the large publicly listed development companies continue to peddle that the key to affordable housing is smaller homes (on smaller allotments). Yet at the coal face, agents tell us they are the last to sell and more often than not they resell quite poorly too. What would really improve housing affordability would be the timely release of land in major estates. Too often the big boys drip feed supply onto the market in order to keep the land prices high via the illusion of undersupply. Yet the mainstream media don’t question the press releases about McMansions and about how we should really live in smaller homes. I find such particularly rich given that those that are behind these statements live in whopping big digs on large-sized lots in great city locations.
¹ A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings. Yep, that sounds like us! The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) leading his flock of sheep. The movements of the flock could be noted by hearing the bell before the flock was in sight.
² Until then, cheers.
If you want to keep your comments private and confidential contact me directly onmichael@matusik.com.au
PPS. What is your greatest concern about the Australian residential property market? We’d like to know what you think. What changes would you like to see in order to improve the current state of the market. Please go to:www.matusik.com.au and respond to our Market Poll.
This report is republished with permission of Matusik Property Insights.