The average size of a British new build (house) is 76 sq metres - according to this report from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8201900.stm) quoting the British government's adviser on architecture.
Meanwhile a quick google search revealed that the average size of an HDB 4-room flat is 90 sq metres. That's down from the 100 sq metres in the past. But 90 sq metres is generous compared to 76. In fact a 90 sq metre flat would feel a lot more than 14 sq metres more spacious than a 76 sq metre house - because in the flat, it's all spread over one floor whereas the house needs space for the stairs and stairwell. The Royal Institute of British Architects has also expressed concern that new builds in Britain are about 8 sq metres short of its recommended size.
Britain seems particularly parsimonious in this regard. According to the BBC article I quoted, British new builds are the smallest in Europe. Other countries have much more spacious housing - 113 sq metres in France, 137 sq metres in Denmark, 206 sq metres in Australia and 214 sq metres in the USA. So it seems that the original poster was not inaccurate in their comments, and in the light of these British statistics (no anti-Western bias there surely), it would seem that your criticism is not supported by the empirical data.
Meanwhile a quick google search revealed that the average size of an HDB 4-room flat is 90 sq metres. That's down from the 100 sq metres in the past. But 90 sq metres is generous compared to 76. In fact a 90 sq metre flat would feel a lot more than 14 sq metres more spacious than a 76 sq metre house - because in the flat, it's all spread over one floor whereas the house needs space for the stairs and stairwell. The Royal Institute of British Architects has also expressed concern that new builds in Britain are about 8 sq metres short of its recommended size.
 |
| Are British houses really that small? |
Britain seems particularly parsimonious in this regard. According to the BBC article I quoted, British new builds are the smallest in Europe. Other countries have much more spacious housing - 113 sq metres in France, 137 sq metres in Denmark, 206 sq metres in Australia and 214 sq metres in the USA. So it seems that the original poster was not inaccurate in their comments, and in the light of these British statistics (no anti-Western bias there surely), it would seem that your criticism is not supported by the empirical data.
I welcome your comment Lila but your argument very flawed in many ways I'm afraid. If you want to talk about understanding and interpreting statistics and empirical data, you've come to the right place. With all due respect, please let me tell you why you're wrong in so many ways.
 |
| A farmhouse in rural Wales |
Your statistic of 76 sq.m only includes new builds from the period 2003 to 2006 and the sample size includes a small sample taken from the Greater London area - that doesn't include older homes built before 2003 or newer houses built after 2006, nor does that includes homes in other part of the country. There are many old houses which are still used for accommodation in the UK. Why? Because these houses were built to last and sure they need some modern adaptations but otherwise the buildings are structurally sound. Years ago I lived in a beautiful old house in Kensington which was built in 1841 - that house has been constantly occupied from 1841 till today. Now that house in Kensington wouldn't have been included in that study at all because it was originally built in 1841 (even if it was renovated very recently). Why should that old house in Kensington (and many like it) be left out of any comparison or study when there are people still living in old houses like that today?
The original accusation made on reddit which I cited was this, "British houses are crappy, and small. Entire houses smaller than the tiniest HDB flat." Now note that these accusations were about "British houses" - rather than "new British houses built in the period 2003 to 2006, excluding all older housing stock". You want to talk about empirical data, how about you understanding the data set you are dealing with in the first place Lila?
 |
| Regent Street - note the old building on the left being renovated and restored. |
What about older British homes (and buildings)?
Old British houses do not get knocked down - no, they get sold on, resold, redecorated, renovated and they change hands over and the process starts over again over again. This is a concept that Singaporeans are just not used to! The housing market in Singapore is so different. In Singapore cars of 10 years old are scrapped and buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s are knocked down - whereas in the UK, more care is taken to preserve and restore buildings which are old: renovations and adaptations are made to ensure that they meet modern requirements. This is cheaper and far more environmentally friendly than knocking down an old building and building a brand new one. Hence you need to look at the entire housing stock available in the UK which will include buildings which are over 100, even over 200 years old - rather than just new builds per se.
Recently, a good friend moved house because his wife was pregnant. They already have one daughter and with a second child was on the way, they decided they needed more room for their family so they moved to Putney - a nice suburb in south-west London. They found an old house which was recently renovated - so whilst it had all the modern facilities your money could buy (including a jacuzzi, ooh), the building itself was actually built in 1925. So this house doesn't come under a 'new build' per se, but it does feel very modern indeed after the renovation. There are four bedrooms, upstairs, downstairs, nice big garden at the back, driveway in the front to park the car - typical family home in Putney. It's not new, but it's very nice and most importantly, very big.
 |
| HDB flats are newer than many British buildings but are they nicer? |
New housing tends to cater more for the gaps in the market, namely dwellings in city centres for younger, rich professionals who want to experience living right in the middle of the city - hence new builds tend to be a lot smaller. Furthermore, in the article you have referred to - the word 'house' was never used. Instead, the word 'homes' was used - thus homes can include flats or houses (or igloos, teepees, kelongs, castles, forts or whatever you call home). So you're completely barking up the wrong tree when it comes to talking about stairs and stairwells in houses for this statistic covers mostly flats rather than houses per se.
In any case, why did Lila assume that a house must include a staircase? There are houses that are single-storey and indeed in rural parts of the UK where there is plenty of land, such single-storey houses are pretty common. Why did she make the assumption that your typical British house would be a small, narrow, multi-storey house? If land is scarce and/or expensive (which is the case in the London area where this study is based on), then most developers will build flats rather than houses to make the most of the land they have.
 |
| A typical residential street in North London |
Living space per person
In any case, these new build flats are designed for either singles or couples - they are typically one-bedroom flats. However, HDB flats with 90 sq.m are really designed for families, not singles. Families with children jump to the front of the queue when it comes to buying a HDB flat - so let's talk about the concept of personal living space, rather than the area of the flat per se.
A man in a 76 sq.m flat = 76 sq.m of living space per person
A couple in a 76 sq.m flat = 38 sq.m of living space per person
Family of 3 in a 90 sq.m flat = 30 sq.m of living space per person
Family of 4 in a 90 sq.m flat = 22.5 sq.m of living space per person
Family of 5 in a 90 sq.m flat = 18 sq.m of living space per person
 |
| How much personal living space do you have where you live? |
HDB flats are really designed for young families to share - one bedroom for the parents and one bedroom for the child(ren). Whereas these 76 sq.m one-bedroom flats in the UK are not designed for families with children - it is highly unusual for parents and children to share a bedroom. When couples have a child, they tend to move to bigger homes so as to have the privacy to sleep in a separate bedroom. By that token, the amount of living space per Singaporean is still considerably less than per British person. Singapore is one of the most densely populated countries in the world whilst the UK is way down the list in terms of population density - any surprises here? I think not.
What happened in 2004?
The population of the UK is barely growing - in fact in the period of 1975 to 1982, the population fell by as much as -0.04% (in 1982). The population has grown a bit more in recent years, in 2011 it grew by 0.66% - but this is not natural growth due to couples having more babies, no no no. This growth was mainly due to immigration from Eastern Europe - when the EU expanded in 2004 to include poorer Eastern European countries like Poland, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania etc, the UK welcomed these migrants with open arms to settle in the UK. Population growth in 2003 was 0.4% and it jumped in 2004 to 0.51% and by 2005 it reached 0.59%.
Given that there is already sufficient housing stock around for couples with families (remember, people used to have more children a generation ago and the houses these families have lived in are still standing and used today) - there is really little reason to build bigger homes when there is no demand for such homes in the market. Supply & demand - such is the basis of the free market economics.
 |
| Supply & demand - that's what drives the free market |
The free market: supply & demand
The Royal Institute of British Architects can wax lyrical all they want about how much ideal living space we should have - but at the end of the day, the size of homes are determined by supply and demand in the context of London. This study which you have quoted is very London-centric: "The Cabe survey questioned residents of homes built between 2003 and 2006, in London or within an hour's travel time of the capital."
This is London for crying out aloud - it is a much more expensive city compared to the rest of the country. London and the London commuter zone (ie. within an hour's travel time to the capital) tends to be the kind of place where these new Eastern European migrants flock to because you go to the big city to find good jobs - you don't go to some little village in the middle of nowhere to find good jobs. There are huge Eastern European neighbourhoods in London now - for example, Leystonstone in East London now has a new nickname - Leytongrad or Лейтонгрод. Walk down the streets of Leytongrad and it doesn't feel like London - you feel like you're in Eastern Europe.
 |
| London attracts young people from all over the world. |
Older folks in the UK
Lastly, I want to finish off by talking about the older population in the UK. We simply do not have the Asian practice of adult children living with their parents - the moment they turn 18, they start to leave the nest. They go to university or get a job and move out of their parents' home. So parents with adult children will typically find themselves with many spare rooms once all their children have grown up and they have some options. If they have plenty of money, then they can live in a house with plenty of spare rooms (for guests or extra storage). They can take in lodgers by renting out those spare rooms. However, many older folks who are not that rich depend on downsizing from a big family home to a smaller home for two to help fund their retirement.
 |
| Do you know how you are funding your retirement? |
A common practice is for the aged parents with grown up children to sell the big family home and move to a smaller dwelling more suited for an older couple (as opposed to a big family). Downsizing like this creates a pot of surplus cash which could pay for everything from healthcare to holidays. There is a growing market now to provide grey-friendly adapted homes for older couples to move into, these would mean ramps instead of stairs and railings by the toilet and bath to help older folks with mobility issues maintain their independence. This is a new and growing market in the UK which is trying to cash in on older folks who have retired, have built up a lifetime of savings and are cash rich. Developers are competing fiercely for this market of the grey pound and this market is for smaller, not bigger homes. Again, this is all about economics: supply & demand at work.
In conclusion
Lila has picked a survey with a very small sample size that only including new homes built but ignored the existing housing stock. The study was conducted in a period which coincided with the most significant event of pan-European migration in a generation when all those Eastern European countries joined the EU. Furthermore, Lila mistook 'homes' to mean 'houses' and for some bizarre reason, assumed that all houses would have a staircase? Lila did not consider the concept of 'living space per person' but looked only at the size of the flats per se - ignoring the fact that British people do have far more living space per person than Singaporeans. Oh gosh, if this was a sociology or geography assignment, I would've failed her for the way she misinterpreted the data. Major fail Lila, you get an F - sorry, nothing personal. I'm just using your mistake as an example.
 |
| Lila, you need to work harder on interpreting statistics meaningfully. |
It is not that I want to crucify Lila for this misinterpretation of the study she found - I don't know her, I have nothing against her. I just want to use her post as an example of how Singaporeans can take one piece of information or one set of data and totally misinterpret it without even reading it properly and jump to all the wrong conclusions. Such is the way Singaporeans pick and choose information of the internet and interpret (or misinterpret) the data in a way to suit their preconceived notions of what the truth should be (rather than what the reality is).
So there you go - if you have any questions, comments, responses - you know what to do. Let me know what you think. Don't be shy, please leave a comment below - thanks!
Was going to start a comment but as my thoughts started to meander down the stream of possibilities, I realized I wouldn't have time to write anything but a meaningless jumble of thoughts and ideas. Maybe I'll get back to it later, but the gist of it is we seem to be making rather meaningless quality judgement calls based on the mere average value for the sizes of new homes. All in the absence of the many other factors that play a role in both the London (as Limpeh has alluded to) context and the Singapore context.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole, I'm with Limpeh here. My own anecdotal story? At UIUC, as a graduate student I could only afford to rent a crappy student apartment (BUT ... one as large as a HDB 4-room flat!) on my stipend. If I earned then what I do now, I'd be off to either purchase or rent a much nicer townhouse. Guess what? It'd only be slightly bigger. And my student apartment was still crappy ... big or not.
Thanks for your comment. I've said many times already, you can't compare size per se, you also have to look at location. Even within Singapore, the same sized flat is going to cost a lot more if you want to be in the CBD, as opposed to if you were in Sembawang or Woodlands.
DeleteI actually expected that there would be some form of response to the point of insisting that British housing is indeed small, and that Lila girl’s comment seems to affirm it. Still, I guess that it is a Singaporean thing to pick-and-choose what one will to reinforce a version of the story. Prior to coming to Japan, Singaporeans will always paint various versions of Japan such as high radiation (they portray it as some holocaust scenario basically with some cloud of dust floating around and poisoning everyone including pregnant mothers), limited land space and small housing (think of your two hands outstretched and for them, that is basically the size of a room…ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE at all whatsoever). I currently live in university-sponsored housing, and while it might not be a proper house per se(it’s an apartment block), for USD 150 or so(the equivalent in Japanese Yen, and not including utilities), I get what is the equivalent of a HDB 3 room flat! It’s anecdotal, but still, honestly, those stereotypes are amusing and ridiculous at times.
DeleteOf course, the key difference between Singapore and other western countries is the fact that many Singaporean adults tend to live with their parents whilst in the west, many adults move out the moment they turn 18. Therefore the average number of people per household in the west is actually much smaller than in Singapore as a result of this practice, therefore there is a greater demand for housing catering for adults living on their own or with their partners - as opposed to the situation in Singapore where the demand tends to be for families with children looking for a home big enough for parents + children. Any analysis of housing patterns, any kind of comparative studies must take into account that huge difference which still results in your average Brit having far more personal living space than your average Singaporean who has to share the HDB flat with the rest of the family. Go on Singapore, keep on lying to yourself.
DeleteProperties in the city are bound to be smaller than those in towns further afield. Houses have definitely got smaller as the years have gone on, but would be surprised if the UK has the smallest on average in Europe. France has tiny places as do many European countries, especially ones where property to rent is the norm.
ReplyDelete