Typical Size Of A New Build Home: Japan 132.sq.m; U K 76.sq.m

[Tired of Waiting]

.

The magazine "Homebuilding & Renovating" has in its current edition (Jul 2012) this very interesting table (on page 16) :

"Typical size of a new build home"

• Australia - 206m2
  
• USA - 203m2
  
• N Zealand - 176m2
  
• Japan - 132m2
  
• Greece - 126m2
  
• Belgium - 119m2
  
• Netherlands - 116m2
  
• France - 113m2
  
• Germany - 109m2
  
• Spain - 97m2
  
• Austria - 96m2
  
• Italy - 82m2
  
• Britain - 76m2
  (I couldn't find it on-line.)
  

This confirms the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) report about it ( link ) We also had a thread about that ( link ). And the Telegraph had an article ( link )

And today I found an oldish Article on the Guardian about the issue:

RIBA condemns 'shameful shoe box homes' now built in Britain

Architects' report claims new three-bedroom houses are being constructed 8% smaller than guidelines advise

( Link )

But they think we need "more finance"?? (In the Guardian article.)

They can see the problem, but they can't see the main cause!

We don't need even "more finance"! We need bigger and cheaper plots!

in short: We need a more liberal planning system!

Planning permits are virtually impossible to get - specially in the southern half of England. With a more liberal planning system we could even afford a plot and build our own home!

And smaller builders/building companies could build many as well!

:angry:

Edited June 2, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[vzzzbx]

That's a really damning statistic regarding house size compared to Japan. According to:

this article

The population density of the UK in people / km² is 255, whereas in Japan it's 337.

And even more astonishing when you consider that

This site

Says:

Japan is an island nation, with a population of about 127,350,000 with an area of only 145,925 sq mi, giving a population density of 873.1/sq mi, making Japan the 36th most densely populated country on the planet. Of the total 145,925 sq mi of Japan, between 70-80% of this land is forested and mountainous, and unsuitable for industrial, agricultural and residential development. This area of unsuitable land makes the habitable areas in Japan even more highly populated than the numbers would suggest.

So you've got a country with more than twice the UK's population and about the same land area, but only 20-30% of this you can actually build anything on and they still have houses that are bigger than ours.

This seems to emphatically put to rest the argument that says that the UK is a small country with too many people and not enough land and that therefore land prices are higher and by extension house sizes are necessarily smaller. If they manage it in Japan, why can't they do it here? We don't even have to worry about earthquakes and tsunamis.

[Tired of Waiting]

That's a really damning statistic regarding house size compared to Japan. According to:

this article

The population density of the UK in people / km² is 255, whereas in Japan it's 337.

And even more astonishing when you consider that

This site

Says:

So you've got a country with more than twice the UK's population and about the same land area, but only 20-30% of this you can actually build anything on and they still have houses that are bigger than ours.

This seems to emphatically put to rest the argument that says that the UK is a small country with too many people and not enough land and that therefore land prices are higher and by extension house sizes are necessarily smaller. If they manage it in Japan, why can't they do it here? We don't even have to worry about earthquakes and tsunamis.

Absolutely right !

IIRC 2 million new houses would use much less than 1% of the South-east's land. Including the roads.

The younger generation in the Southern half of England is living in very cramped and crowded conditions. We need more housing here. We should allow cities, towns and villages to expand a bit, say their radius by 5%, that would be around 10% more area! (If my geometry is right?), and use it mainly for housing. We have enough work-space and public services/areas, but the young generation is living in very crowded conditions.

Besides, if we allowed more new builds, the prices of ALL houses would come down, making housing more affordable overall.

.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[ScrewsNutsandBolts]

That's a really damning statistic regarding house size compared to Japan....

So you've got a country with more than twice the UK's population and about the same land area, but only 20-30% of this you can actually build anything on and they still have houses that are bigger than ours.

I am not going to look for evidence to back this up (I wouldn't know where to start), but there is a huge difference between the ratio of house/plot between Japan and the UK. I would guess from experience that in Japan 70-80% of the plot footprint is used for the house. House width drives at the front, and big gardens at the back, just don't seem to occur in Japan. I think it makes a big difference to the figures. Most Brits would look at a suburban Japanese house and think "no-way".

[Tired of Waiting]

I am not going to look for evidence to back this up (I wouldn't know where to start), but there is a huge difference between the ratio of house/plot between Japan and the UK. I would guess from experience that in Japan 70-80% of the plot footprint is used for the house. House width drives at the front, and big gardens at the back, just don't seem to occur in Japan. I think it makes a big difference to the figures. Most Brits would look at a suburban Japanese house and think "no-way".

Perhaps, if this Brit could have instead your usual British suburban house, with its usual large garden.

But we are talking about a different reality here - and a different generation of "Brits" : A young British couple living in a rented flat with 76m2 and NO garden, looking at a suburban house with 132m2 and a small garden, I don't think they would go "no-way".

.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[ScrewsNutsandBolts]

Perhaps, if this Brit could have instead your usual British suburban house, with its usual large garden.

But we are talking about a different reality here - and a different generation of "Brits" : A young British couple living in a rented flat with 76m2 and NO garden, looking at a suburban house with 132m2 and a small garden, I don't think they would go "no-way".

I am with you on principal, but the comparison is really not good. The Japanese house you are referring to is three times the price of the flat. And little garden is more like no garden, rather than small garden. Plus how much has the average buyer in Japan got in saving compared to here. It really is a different situation. I would say that comparison with the other European figures is damning enough, and more like-for-like.

[vzzzbx]

I am not going to look for evidence to back this up (I wouldn't know where to start), but there is a huge difference between the ratio of house/plot between Japan and the UK. I would guess from experience that in Japan 70-80% of the plot footprint is used for the house. House width drives at the front, and big gardens at the back, just don't seem to occur in Japan. I think it makes a big difference to the figures. Most Brits would look at a suburban Japanese house and think "no-way".

A valid point. You don't tend to see many gardens in Japanese houses. I noticed the last time I was there that everything seemed a lot greyer than in the UK. Big gardens are something they don't have space for, which is hardly surprising given the above land and population statistics. A simple way to confirm this is just by doing a quick flyover of Japan with Google Earth and looking at some typical Japanese houses. You see an awful lot of grey scenery with very few open green fields like in the UK.

Maybe new build British houses have bigger gardens than Japanese ones, but anyone who has ever been to a new build estate can tell you that those gardens aren't really any kind of decent size. Just considering the disparity in suitable land you'd expect the UK to have around 3-4 times the land area available for an individual house than Japan has.

[thirdwave]

That's a really damning statistic regarding house size compared to Japan. According to:

this article

The population density of the UK in people / km² is 255, whereas in Japan it's 337.

And even more astonishing when you consider that

This site

Says:

So you've got a country with more than twice the UK's population and about the same land area, but only 20-30% of this you can actually build anything on and they still have houses that are bigger than ours.

This seems to emphatically put to rest the argument that says that the UK is a small country with too many people and not enough land and that therefore land prices are higher and by extension house sizes are necessarily smaller. If they manage it in Japan, why can't they do it here? We don't even have to worry about earthquakes and tsunamis.

You miss the wider picture.This is all part of the government's plan to achieve long term economic sustainability through natural selection. Those who live in small houses will have offspring who, over generations, will become progressively thinner and shorter in stature, would consume less and, in the long run, eliminate the budget deficit and bring about economic prosperity..

[sigma]

This might help explain the Japan stat; I'm assuming the numbers are far lower for the UK

Many young Japanese adults choose to live with their parents, rather than seeking a separate residence, a phenomenon known as parasite singles (パラサイトシングル). A 1998 survey by the Ministry of Health and Welfare indicated that about 60% of single Japanese men and 80% of single women between the ages of 20 and 34 lived with their parents.

After marriage, the young couple often live in the same house as their parents. A desire for some separation between the generations has led to the phenomenon of nisedaijūtaku (二世代住宅?), literally "two generation housing", a single house which contains two complete separate living areas, one for the parents and one for the younger generation.

[Tired of Waiting]

I am with you on principal, but the comparison is really not good. The Japanese house you are referring to is three times the price of the flat. And little garden is more like no garden, rather than small garden. Plus how much has the average buyer in Japan got in saving compared to here. It really is a different situation. I would say that comparison with the other European figures is damning enough, and more like-for-like.

I understand. But I think the most useful thing from that table is to see that there is no necessary link between a country's population density and its house prices. Houses are very expensive in large wealthy cities, of course, as space is limited, like London and New York for instance. But just 10 miles from the city centre of London or New York you already start seeing empty fields. And just 20 miles from their centres tou have really lots and lots of empty space.

Compared to human housing, countries are really huge. Just look down when you fly over any country. They are mostly empty. Even if you fly out of Gatwick!

I think our green-belt legislation / culture is a straitjacket destroying the quality of life of the young generation.

[ScrewsNutsandBolts]

I understand. But I think the most useful thing from that table is to see that there is no necessary link between a country's population density and its house prices. Houses are very expensive in large wealthy cities, of course, as space is limited, like London and New York for instance. But just 10 miles from the city centre of London or New York you already start seeing empty fields. And just 20 miles from their centres tou have really lots and lots of empty space.

Compared to human housing, countries are really huge. Just look down when you fly over any country. They are mostly empty. Even if you fly out of Gatwick!

I think our green-belt legislation / culture is a straitjacket destroying the quality of life of the young generation.

Completely agree, although I guess you meant "there is no necessary link between a country's population density and its house prices sizes". As has been said hundreds of times on hundreds of threads, the UKs housing problems all boil down to the ridiculous planning laws and NIMBYism.

And one other small thing about Japan. I lived there for a few years, and the oldest house in the town I lived in was not much more than 100 years old. That age was enough for it to become a small museum, and we are talking a town with approx. 500,000 population. A history of earthquake and fire meant that houses never used to last long, and housing is not associated with permanency. That seems to be ingrained in the Japanese mind-set, and is pretty much opposite to the craving for brick-built solidity in the UK. I know the build quality on modern estates in the UK is dire, but the overall cost per sqm may still be less than in Japan were materials are more basic, internal walls thinner, etc.

[Tired of Waiting]

Completely agree, although I guess you meant "there is no necessary link between a country's population density and its house prices sizes".

Yes. Well, both size and price actually.

As has been said hundreds of times on hundreds of threads, the UKs housing problems all boil down to the ridiculous planning laws and NIMBYism.

And one other small thing about Japan. I lived there for a few years, and the oldest house in the town I lived in was not much more than 100 years old. That age was enough for it to become a small museum, and we are talking a town with approx. 500,000 population. A history of earthquake and fire meant that houses never used to last long, and housing is not associated with permanency. That seems to be ingrained in the Japanese mind-set, and is pretty much opposite to the craving for brick-built solidity in the UK. I know the build quality on modern estates in the UK is dire, but the overall cost per sqm may still be less than in Japan were materials are more basic, internal walls thinner, etc.

[Britney's Piers]

You miss the wider picture.This is all part of the government's plan to achieve long term economic sustainability through natural selection. Those who live in small houses will have offspring who, over generations, will become progressively thinner and shorter in stature, would consume less and, in the long run, eliminate the budget deficit and bring about economic prosperity..

You know I wouldn't be surprised if this was the result of a hangover of British class mentality. The new aristocracy see nothing wrong with cramming the serfs into boxes and the population with their serf mentality accept it as a matter of course.

[Dorkins]

Most Brits over 40 would look at a suburban Japanese house and think "no-way".

Corrected for you.

[StainlessSteelCat]

I wonder how much UK building land is banked - and then trickled out to maintain high prices and small plot sizes.

[Tired of Waiting]

You know I wouldn't be surprised if this was the result of a hangover of British class mentality. The new aristocracy see nothing wrong with cramming the serfs into boxes and the population with their serf mentality accept it as a matter of course.

+ 1

[Dorkins]

I wonder how much UK building land is banked - and then trickled out to maintain high prices and small plot sizes.

There is an entire social class that has been doing this for centuries.

[Tired of Waiting]

Corrected for you.

I agree 100%.

People who bought houses before the boom started, say over 10 years ago, have NO IDEA how cramped and crowded the younger generation lives, and how much it costs! - specially in the southern half of England.

They have absolutely NO idea. It's a completely different world.

And it affects so many aspects of life that it's like these two generations live in parallel universes!

Edited June 1, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[River Man]

IIRC 2 million new houses would use much less than 1% of the South-east land. Including the roads.

Hang on. 2 million houses at say, 30 dwellings per hectare, requires 66,666 hectares or 667 sq km. The land area of the south east is 19096 sq km, so the land area required is 3.5%, and that's not taking into account roads, schools, other infrastructure, etc etc, shops

if we drop it to 20 dwellings per hectare - the figure increases to 5.2%.

[Tired of Waiting]

I wonder how much UK building land is banked - and then trickled out to maintain high prices and small plot sizes.

There are thousands of land owners in Britain. It would be impossible for them to organise a cartel, without the planning system doing that for them. The rewards for the first to sell plots would be too tempting. Remember, the first to sell would profit the most. ("Games theory" must have a name for this.)

The enemy is the planning system.

[easy2012]

.

The magazine "Homebuilding & Renovating" has in their current edition (Jul 2012) this very interesting table (on page 16) :

Yap, as many informed poster above have mentioned, it is silly to compare to Japanese houses for the following reasons:

(1) Japan average worker (even in the past) could not afford to live in a house. It is like saying the size of house in Beverley Hill is big.

Only reasonably well to do Japanese can afford a house. Others live with parents or in flats.

(2) They build right to the edge

(3) Their cost of building is higher than in the UK and uses inferior material (the only exception in high quality Japan) due to their rather close economy in the construction material sector.

Edited June 1, 2012 by easy2012

[Tired of Waiting]

There is an entire social class that has been doing this for centuries.

Maybe, but probably on a local scale? I think that until the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act ( link ) the planning gain was not this huge.

It's indecent now. Total inter-generation exploitation.

BTW, I think that not only "land owners", but MOST property owners support the planning restrictions, even owners of a single little terrace bought through the "right to buy"!

[Tired of Waiting]

Hang on. 2 million houses at say, 30 dwellings per hectare, requires 66,666 hectares or 667 sq km. The land area of the south east is 19096 sq km, so the land area required is 3.5%, and that's not taking into account roads, schools, other infrastructure, etc etc, shops

if we drop it to 20 dwellings per hectare - the figure increases to 5.2%.

1) WOW! 30 plots per hectare not including roads???!!!

You mean 10,000 m2 / 30 = 333.33 m2 / plot = say 10 m x 33m !!!

You sir are posh. Respect. You must be over 40.

I was thinking of terrace houses, with plots of 125m2.

5 m wide (enough for 2 cars on the drive), and 25 m long (5m front garden, 10m house, 10m back garden)

2) I don't know what do you consider "SE", but even if we restrict it to, say 70 miles from central London ( = 100km, for easy maths ) that means 31,416 sq.km. Not your "19,096" sq km.

So, 2 million plots of 125 m2 each = 250 million sq.m = 250 sq.km.

250 / 31 416 = 0.007957 = 0.7%

Less than 1%.

------------

And we are talking about allowing more living space for the younger generation, remember? We are NOT talking about importing more people to fill up these houses. So, no need for more work space, public services, etc.

Wake up. Read the thread first. I did say that above.

Think!

Or are you a VI?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Yap, as many informed poster above have mentioned, it is silly to compare to Japanese houses for the following reasons:

(1) Japan average worker (even in the past) could not afford to live in a house. It is like saying the size of house in Beverley Hill is big.

Only reasonably well to do Japanese can afford a house. Others live with parents or in flats.

The data says "home", not "houses". Usually these data refer to dwellings, including flats.

(2) They build right to the edge

I don't mind. I need a home, to start a family. I can live with a small garden Better than nothing.

(3) Their cost of building is higher than in the UK and uses inferior material (the only exception in high quality Japan) due to their rather close economy in the construction material sector.

Relevance?

[MrPin]

The data says "home", not "houses". Usually these data refer to dwellings, including flats.

"Home" is a misused word! It means studio flat!