How might we rethink our housing preferences and policies to create more practical and affordable options?

Australia is a country of big houses. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average floor area of a new house built in 2020-21 was 235 square meters, one of the largest in the world. While some may see this as a sign of prosperity and comfort, others argue that it is a symptom of a deeper problem: a lack of affordable and sustainable housing options for a diverse and growing population. But do we really need such big houses, or are we just following a cultural norm that is outdated and unsustainable? And?is our obsession with big houses contributing to?our housing crisis??

I can understand the appeal of big houses, because I used to dream of having one myself. I?used to think that owning a big house was the ultimate goal and the best way to show that I had made it in life. I was influenced by social pressures that told me that home ownership was an essential pathway to prosperity and the bigger the house, the better. I worked hard and saved money to build a big house in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, with five bedrooms, three bathrooms, a huge kitchen, theatre room, and a triple?garage. It was the long and often stressful commute that killed the dream for me. My big house was located in the outer suburbs, far from the city centre and my office. Some days I found myself commuting for up to four hours, which significantly reduced the time and energy I had for family, friends, and even my own health and well-being. Living in a big house came at a high price, not only financially, but also personally and socially.

Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in an affordable housing study tour in Europe, where I visited several cities and countries that have implemented innovative and effective housing policies and practices. I was amazed and inspired by the diversity and quality of housing options that I saw, which catered to different needs, preferences, and incomes of the population. I learned that many Europeans prefer to live in smaller and more compact dwellings, such as apartments or cooperative-housing projects, which are often located in mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods, with easy access to public transport, services, and amenities. I also learned that many European governments and communities support and promote affordable housing as a human right and invest in affordable housing models, such as cooperative housing, extensively which provide security and affordability for low- to?moderate-income households. The same cannot be said for Australia who, although being a signatory to several international treaties that enshrine Australians the right to adequate housing, have not embedded these into our domestic law. This means that many people in Australia do not have access to affordable, secure housing and are often evicted into homelessness because our laws do not protect them.

Like my younger self, many Australians share the same dream of owning a big house, even if they cannot afford it or do not need it. A growing group of these Australians?are known as the "missing middle", a term for people who earn too much to qualify for social housing, but not enough to afford market-rate housing. The missing middle?are often excluded from home ownership due to high prices, low wages, and limited supply. More than ever before, the missing middle are?at high risk of housing stress, which means that they may spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs, leaving them with less money for other expenses, such as food, education, health, or transport. Housing stress can also lead to housing instability (due to short term rental leases and high rental costs), which means that they might move frequently and live in poor quality or insecure housing.?

One of many contributing factors to housing instability and insecurity is the mismatch big houses create between the supply and demand of housing, as they occupy more space and resources than they need. According to the 2023 Housing Occupancy and Costs report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were about 13.6 million dwellings in Australia, but only about 11.2 million households, which means that there were about 2.4 million vacant dwellings. Approx. 9.1 million dwellings had three or more bedrooms, but only about 4.1 million households had four or more people, which suggests that there were about 5 million dwellings with at least one spare bedroom. On the other hand, there were about 2 million households with one or two people, but only about 1.7 million dwellings with one or two bedrooms, which means that there was a shortage of about 300,000 dwellings for smaller households. This imbalance indicates that many Australians are living in houses that are too big for their needs, while many others are struggling to find suitable and affordable housing that provides safety and security.?

One of the more common arguments in favour of big houses is that they provide more housing supply, which can help reduce housing prices and improve affordability. However, this argument is based on a simplistic and flawed understanding of the housing market, which ignores the complex factors that influence housing demand and supply. As we have seen, many Australians are living in houses that are bigger than they need, while many others are unable to find suitable and affordable housing that meets their needs. Simply adding more houses to the supply will not fix this problem, unless they are the right type, size, location, and price of housing that people want and can afford. Building more big houses will only increase the mismatch between housing demand and supply, and exacerbate the issues of housing stress, instability, and insecurity. ?

Why do Aussies love big houses??

Australia's fixation on building big houses can be traced back to the post-war period, when the country experienced a population boom, an economic boom, and a housing boom. The government promoted home ownership as a way of increasing living standards, social stability, and national identity, and provided subsidies and incentives for people to buy or build their own houses. It’s largely accepted that the suburban ideal of a detached house on a quarter-acre block became the dominant aspiration for many Australians, who saw it as a reflection of their prosperity, freedom, and happiness. ?

The demand for bigger and better houses has continued to increase with the rise of consumerism, mass media, and global influences, which shaped people's expectations and desires. Over time, Australia's housing culture has become entrenched and resistant to change, despite the changing demographic, social, and environmental realities.?

Some of the most common explanations suggest that:?

• Australia has a lot of land and a low population density, which makes it possible to build spacious houses with large backyards and gardens.?

• Australia has a strong culture of home ownership, which is seen as a symbol of status, security, and independence. Owning a large house is often associated with success and achievement.?

• Australia has a diverse and multicultural population, which means that many households have extended family members or guests living with them or need extra space for cultural or religious practices.?

• Australia is largely a consumerist and materialistic society, which encourages people to accumulate more possessions and display them in their homes. Larger houses also allow for more amenities and features, such as multiple bathrooms, bedrooms, living areas, theatre rooms and garages.?

• Australia has a climate that varies across regions and seasons, which requires different types of housing design and insulation. Larger houses can provide more flexibility and comfort for different weather conditions and lifestyles.?

More broadly, our obsession with housing has also been influenced by tax policies that favour home ownership and property investment. Australia has one of the more generous tax systems for investment property owners, who can claim deductions for various expenses, such as interest payments, maintenance costs, and depreciation. Property owners may also benefit from negative gearing, which allows property investors to deduct the interest and other expenses of owning a rental property from their taxable income, even if they make a loss. Negative gearing creates an incentive for investors to buy or build bigger and more expensive properties, as they can claim higher deductions and reduce their tax bills. This also reduces the supply and affordability of housing for potential home buyers and renters, as they have to compete with investors in the market.?

These tax incentives make property one of very few tax-effective investment strategies in Australia and encourage people to buy or build bigger and more expensive houses, hoping to increase their wealth and minimise their tax liabilities. This has contributed to Australia's obsession with home ownership and in many ways, to the housing affordability crisis.?

What are the challenges of big houses??

While big houses may have some benefits for some people, they also pose significant challenges for society and the environment. Some of the main drawbacks are:?

• Big houses are expensive to build, buy, and maintain. They require more materials, energy, and water, which increases the cost of construction and utility bills. They also increase the demand for land and infrastructure, which drives up the price of housing and reduces the availability of affordable options for low- and moderate-income households.?

• Big houses can be inefficient and wasteful. They often have unused or underused spaces, which consume resources and generate emissions without providing any value. They also contribute to urban sprawl, which reduces the density and diversity of neighborhoods, and increases the reliance on cars and roads, which adds to traffic congestion and pollution.?

• Big houses are isolating and exclusive. They create physical and social barriers between people and communities and reinforce the idea of individualism and separation. They also exclude people who cannot afford them, such as renters, young people, single people, and older people, who often face discrimination and marginalisation in the housing market.?

• Bigger houses reduce the supply and diversity of housing options for smaller and lower-income households. As more people aspire to own and live in big houses, they occupy more land and resources, and drive up the demand and price of housing. This makes it harder for people who cannot afford?big houses to find suitable and affordable housing that meets their needs and preferences.??

• Bigger houses also increase the dependence on cars and roads, as they are usually located in low-density and sprawling suburbs, which are far from public transport, services, and amenities. This adds to the issues of traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, which affect the health and well-being of people and the planet.?

What are the treatment options for big house syndrome??

Given the challenges of big houses, it’s clear that we need to rethink our housing preferences and policies and explore more sustainable and equitable housing solutions. Fortunately, there are already many examples of alternative housing models that have emerged in response to the housing crisis, that offer more affordable, inclusive, social and environmentally friendly solutions. Some of the more promising models include:?

• Community land trusts, which are organisations that own and manage land for the benefit of the community and provide affordable and long-term leasehold or shared equity (ownership) options for housing and other uses. Community land trusts can preserve the land for social and environmental purposes in perpetuity, such as affordable housing (through either a shared equity or ground lease option), community gardens, or cultural spaces, and prevent speculation and gentrification. Community land trusts can also empower the community to have a voice and a stake in the development and management of the land.?

• Housing cooperatives, which are organisations that own and manage housing collectively, and provide affordable and secure tenure for their members. Housing cooperatives can take different forms, such as rental, ownership, or mixed, and can cater to different needs and preferences, such as families, seniors, students, or workers. Housing cooperatives can also foster social cohesion, democratic participation, and mutual support among their members.?

Community land trusts and housing cooperatives can provide more sustainable affordable housing solutions in several ways. Some of the main advantages are:?

• Community land trusts and housing cooperatives can reduce the cost and increase the supply of affordable housing, by removing the land from the speculative market and sharing the ownership and management of the housing among the members. This can lower the barriers to entry and exit for low- and moderate-income households and provide more security and stability for their housing tenure.?

• Community land trusts and housing cooperatives can increase the diversity and quality of housing options, by allowing their members to design and adapt the housing to suit their needs and preferences, such as size, layout, accessibility, or sustainability. This can create more efficient and comfortable living spaces, that can accommodate different household types and lifestyles, such as families, seniors, students, or workers.?

• Community land trusts and housing cooperatives can foster social and environmental benefits, by creating a sense of community among the members and encouraging them to care for the land and the housing. This can enhance social cohesion, democratic participation, and mutual support of the members, and reduce the isolation and exclusion that big houses can create. It can also promote a culture of sustainability and responsibility and reduce the consumption and waste of resources and emissions that big houses can generate.?

?Housing cooperatives and community land trusts can also work together to complement one another by providing different types of affordable and secure housing options for different segments of the population. For example, housing cooperatives can offer more flexible and participatory forms of tenure and management, while community land trusts can offer more stable and long-term forms of ownership and stewardship. Housing cooperatives and community land trusts can also collaborate on the development and maintenance of the land and the housing, and share resources, expertise, and networks. By working together, housing cooperatives and community land trusts have the potential to create more diverse and inclusive neighborhoods and challenge the dominant housing culture of big houses and individualism.?

One possible example of how a community land trust and a housing cooperative could work together is as follows:?

A community land trust acquires a large plot of land in an urban area that is under threat of gentrification and displacement. The community land trust wants to preserve the land for affordable housing and other community uses. The community land trust also wants to involve the local residents and stakeholders in the decision-making and management of the land.?

A housing cooperative approaches the community land trust and proposes to build and operate a multi-unit housing complex on part of the land. The housing cooperative consists of low- and moderate-income households who want to live in a more affordable, democratic, and supportive housing environment. The housing cooperative agrees to lease the land from the community land trust for a nominal fee and to follow the community land trust's social and environmental goals and guidelines.?

The community land trust and the housing cooperative collaborate on the design, financing, construction, and maintenance of the housing complex. They also share resources, expertise, and networks to support each other's activities and operations. The community land trust provides the housing cooperative with legal and technical assistance, access to funding sources and subsidies, and connections to other community organisations and partners. The housing cooperative provides the community land trust with regular rent payments, feedback and input on the land use and development, and participation and contribution to the community events and projects.?

The community land trust and the housing cooperative thus create a mutually beneficial and interdependent relationship, that enables them to achieve their respective and common objectives of providing affordable, secure, and sustainable housing options for their members and the community. They also create a more diverse and inclusive neighborhood, that respects and celebrates the cultural and social diversity of the residents and the area. They also create a more resilient and adaptable community, that can respond to the changing needs and challenges of the housing market and the urban environment.?

We need to rethink our housing preferences and policies in Australia and learn from the European examples of affordable and sustainable housing. We must?challenge the cultural norm and the market pressures that push us to aspire to?build bigger houses, and instead embrace and support more diverse and affordable housing options for our diverse and growing population. We need to better understand how living in smaller dwellings can improve our quality of life, our social well-being, and our environmental footprint, and that we don't need big houses to be happy and comfortable.?

?Australia's fascination with big houses is simply not sustainable or desirable in the context of addressing the affordable housing crisis. Big houses can be expensive, inefficient, wasteful, isolating, and exclusive, and contribute to the housing crisis. Australia needs to move to more sustainable and equitable housing arrangements, that can provide more affordable, inclusive, and environmentally friendly options for a diverse and growing population. Housing cooperatives and community land trusts are some of the alternative housing models that can offer such solutions, and that can also enhance the social and economic well-being of our community. The answer to the housing question is not binary, but potentially multiple housing models, that can suit different needs and preferences, and that can coexist and even complement each other.?