The Not-So-Humble Australian Home

I am often asked, “How can I make the house I’m building more environmentally friendly?” My first answer, which admittedly is not very popular, is, “Trim your house plan by at least 50 square metres.”

Australians live in the biggest houses in the world. Yes, even bigger than Americans. To provide some perspective, the average new Australian home is 248 square metres. In Britain in 2009, the average new home was 76 square metres. Denmark has the largest new homes in Europe, and at 137sqm, they’re still just over half the size of ours.

It makes me wonder why the merchandisers at IKEA even bother with the “Live in 20sqm!” displays. Many Australians consider 20sqm an acceptable size for, say, the laundry.

Our big houses are part of the reason Australians have among the least environmentally sustainable lifestyles in the world, according to the Australian Conservation Foundation‘s Sustainable Cities Index. It’s not just that our houses are big, fewer people live in them and they’re on smaller blocks. More house, less yard, fewer occupants. Take for example:

  • In 1986, the average home was 167sqm. That means houses have gotten almost 50% bigger in 25 years.
  • In 1911, the average house was home to 4.5 people. In 1986, that figure was down to 3 people. Now the average house is home to about 2.5 people.
  • In WA, the typical 1940s home was set on a quarter acre (1040sqm). This financial year, 60% of the blocks approved in Perth and Mandurah were less than 500sqm.

Bigger Isn’t Always Better

In some ways having nearly 100sqm to oneself sounds, well…spacious. But there are some real issues from an environmental perspective.

In WA, housing contributes over 20% of our carbon emissions because we continue to build huge, energy-hungry houses. If we reduced our homes to 1986 sizes, we would generate an average saving of one tonne of carbon dioxide per dwelling per year.

Today’s homebuilders are demanding more rooms – in particular, more living areas, bathrooms and home theatres – and those rooms have to be furnished, heated, cooled, and often kitted out with electronics. Even though those rooms are (statistically) usually empty. The cost of electricity is set to more than double by 2020, and the reality is that many of our big new houses are incredibly energy hungry.

The big house-on-a-small-block trend also means less garden. Of course a small garden may correlate with lower water consumption, which is a good thing. But plants and trees are critical to the environment’s ability to clean itself, to say nothing of the value to our personal health and well-being.

The Incredible Shrinking House?

There are some faint signs that we may have reached the apex of the house-size curve in Australia. Our population is growing and with it, urban sprawl. This in turn is driving an increased demand for more compact homes close to amenities such as public transport. According to The West Australian, “Trends among first-time buyers have also changed with new entrants opting for location over size.” And surely if our resources boom slows, along with it will come shrinking house size.

Simply building smaller houses would be a big step in living a more sustainable life. It would be even better if those smaller houses were built using passive solar principles, thus requiring minimal (or no) heating or cooling. Getting rid of black roofs and reinstituting the missing eaves would be good too. My list goes on.

We have a small house – actually, a very small house by Australian standards. One of McBean’s little friends famously asked, “Um, where is your second toilet?”  My answer, to his slight consternation: “The lemon tree.”

I won’t deny that as our two children grow, it’s going to get tight. Someday we would like to build a modest sustainable house. But in the meantime, our family is no worse for the wear because we don’t have a home theatre, or a second lounge room, or an “outdoor room.” In fact, it’s kind of nice to all cuddle up together on the (one) couch.