Is this the future of Australian housing? See what others think about this massive change

Owning a home with a sprawling backyard has always been a part of the Australian dream.

However, Aussies have faced a harsh reality check that could change things drastically.


A photo depicting a newly built home has gone viral on social media but for all the wrong reasons.

Instead of an expansive outdoor space, the house has consumed the entire plot of land, leaving little to no space.

This image, shared by property firm Spachus, immediately became a symbol of the disturbing future of housing in Australia.

The photo sparked a wave of criticism and highlighted the irony of the housing crisis debate.


compressed-spachus.jpeg
The home for sale had little to no spaces in between other homes. Image Credit: X/Spachus


Australians have long cherished the idea of a spacious backyard, yet the new detached houses cropping up in the suburbs tell a different story.

The homes are virtually touching each other, with only tiny strips of grass at the rear.

Yet, this trend is not isolated to one area; real estate listings in Sydney, Melbourne, and southeast Queensland showcase similar homes, indicating a widespread shift in housing design.
Experts believed that the classic Aussie backyard could be a rarity soon.

However, the rise of apartment living is not to blame.


Dr Elek Pafka, a Senior Lecturer in urban planning and urban design at the University of Melbourne, pointed out that Australian houses have grown in size over the past few decades.

Australian homes now average 230 square metres, surpassing the average United States home.

This increase in house size, coupled with unchanged or reduced lot sizes, could leave homeowners with minimal green space and little room between properties.

The Death of the Australian Backyard, a book published by housing expert Tony Hall, documented the drastic changes in home design that began in the 1990s.

The shift towards houses within a few metres of the property boundaries has been rapid and dramatic, with an aerial photo backing up the claim.

These densely packed suburbs with detached housing are often found on the outskirts of major cities, where urban sprawl has been rampant for years.


The current housing development debate has been reignited by the urgent need to address a supply shortage and affordability crisis.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's plan to build 1.2 million new homes within five years leaned heavily on higher-density living, particularly through mid-rise apartment complexes.

On the other hand, the housing market has seen significant price increases since the pandemic.

National home prices at the time ballooned by 38.1 per cent, equivalent to an average price of $814,000.

Meanwhile, homes in capital cities jumped up to 33.6 per cent, with an average price of $900,000.

Renters also feel the pinch, with median weekly rents rising annually.


In response, authorities in Sydney and Melbourne have pushed for increased density near public transport hubs, with plans for hundreds of thousands of new, apartment-style dwellings.

These developments should accommodate growing populations in cities, all while maintaining liveability through the inclusion of parks, schools, and public spaces.

Other major centres like Brisbane and Adelaide have also turned to greater density to manage their expanding population.

However, with building commencements trending lower and dwelling approvals below the ten-year average, the construction industry has faced significant challenges, including a number of insolvencies.

This viral photo serves as a cautionary tale for Aussies, especially for seniors who are used to the idea of an expansive outdoor greenery at home.

The dream of a spacious backyard may be fading, but with informed choices and a push for better planning, there's hope that future generations could still enjoy the outdoor lifestyle that's been a part of the Australian way of life.
Key Takeaways

  • An image of a new home built on a small plot of land has sparked criticism and debate over the housing crisis.
  • The trend of houses occupying most of the land reflected a shift in Australian housing, with the traditional Aussie backyard becoming rare.
  • Experts pointed out that Australian houses have increased in size, resulting in less green space and a lack of space between homes.
  • There is an ongoing discussion about how to manage housing density and supply in major cities amid the housing affordability crisis.
What are your thoughts on the recent changes in Australian homes? What do you think about the rise of high-density housing? Share your opinions about this matter in the comments below.
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
It would be an interesting article if it were about all of Australia. Not sure whether the writer has ever heard of Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory. Pretty sure Australians live there as well.

However, with respect to the article, people require accommodation and the land size is a large contribute to the cost. Unfortunately, at least in WA, all young people building houses are easily conned by the large building companies into believing that they need to have four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a theatre room, WIP, scullery and a large alfresco. As a result, they are building significantly larger homes than they need. Larger homes means greater cost. Greater cost leads to either mortgage stress, delaying having children, reducing the number of children (or not having them at all), and two income - no kids in large houses. Plus the 25 - 45 year olds have to have their niche coffees every day, buy their lunch, have the latest car, latest furniture, gaming consoles, tattoos and the latest phones and other expensive toys. They spend more time dining and being 'seen' rather than wanting to be tied to a back yard or a vegetable patch etc.

This is not about councils being greedy, it is about councils and builders reacting to the changing expectations of younger people who need housing. No, it doesn't suit most of us because we want something different. However, it does suit a lot of younger families who really don't care about a big backyard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ricci
I spoke a while back, after seeing aerial photos of new developments, about how close the eaves of houses were to each other. If one of these houses catches fire, we could finish up with a minor Los Angeles. The fireies will have a battle on their hands to save a row of houses. I suggest councils start looking at minimum distances between actual houses or they could find themselves involved in an expensive court case for approving plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcelt44 and Ricci
It is all down to the hungry land developers and councils. Where do the children play? On the narrow street out the front OR in the local shopping centre. These narrow streets are a safety hazard with nowhere to park a car because there in very little front yard, just a few steps to the footpath if there is one. Also as stated, the fire risk is a huge concern. A fire could take out the whole suburb if a strong wind was blowing. Think U.S.A fires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcelt44 and Ricci
So
I spoke a while back, after seeing aerial photos of new developments, about how close the eaves of houses were to each other. If one of these houses catches fire, we could finish up with a minor Los Angeles. The fireies will have a battle on their hands to save a row of houses. I suggest councils start looking at minimum distances between actual houses or they could find themselves involved in an expensive court case for approving plans.
Some are joined together and there is no gap. The walls aren't brick.They should be using fire safe bricks like those used from chimneys.........A lot of houses in some parts of USA are 2 storey. Some have a basement and ground floor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ricci
Don't need a backyard if you're on your tablets, whether it's electronic or anti depressant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ricci
It's not just the fact that house are "slightly" larger these days, it's because people and councils are greedy. Smaller blocks mean more of them and more rate payers. I can remember when councils wouldn't let you build to close to boundaries etc, now the roofs of some places nearly overlap the fences. I can imagine what occurs during heavy rainfall?
I remember the building had to be at least 4foot from a side fence. Oh for the days of 1/3rd or 1/4 of an acre.
 
Houses may look big but with the size of blocks of land at 300m² doesn't leave much room for a house.
If and when a fire starts in one house the while neighbourhood would be in trouble
The one and only house I had built was a single story 32 square five bedroom "mansion". That equates to 297 square metres.

That 300 square metre block wouldn't have left me much to mow....
 
I visited my relative in Sydney a quite a while ago now. I was amazed the the house next could look into his kitchen as there was just a walk space between the houses then. Out the back was just enough room for a clothesline that was it. The kids had to play inside mostly on computers and tablets.I fear this is where it's all heading, no outside playing at all. Parents being to busy working to take the kids to the park 🏞️ etc. 😞
 
I wonder who approved such housing plans? When we designed our house late seventies,we HAD to keep one metre on the side of the house to the neighbours boundary.The back yard was not a concerning factor as here was sufficient room.Iam talking about the building Authority in Brisbane.
May be the builder NEVER got approval to build and therefore part of the each house should be demolished. I doubt anyone would buy such a house!!!!!!!!! the people living in such houses may be have to talk using sign langauge, It is reduculous
Any idea where these two houses are??????????????
All out in western sydney just go to google maps you will see them. I have friends who live in Colebee and when you sit out the back the kids next door are kicking balls against the fence and screaming and carrying on. I don't like staying for too long because you end up going around the bend.
 
For those dwellings, they charge $900 a week and they are built with cardboard. I watched them being built next door to me. The space between the properties is no wider than the fence. Concrete front and back yard.
 
It would be an interesting article if it were about all of Australia. Not sure whether the writer has ever heard of Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory. Pretty sure Australians live there as well.

However, with respect to the article, people require accommodation and the land size is a large contribute to the cost. Unfortunately, at least in WA, all young people building houses are easily conned by the large building companies into believing that they need to have four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a theatre room, WIP, scullery and a large alfresco. As a result, they are building significantly larger homes than they need. Larger homes means greater cost. Greater cost leads to either mortgage stress, delaying having children, reducing the number of children (or not having them at all), and two income - no kids in large houses. Plus the 25 - 45 year olds have to have their niche coffees every day, buy their lunch, have the latest car, latest furniture, gaming consoles, tattoos and the latest phones and other expensive toys. They spend more time dining and being 'seen' rather than wanting to be tied to a back yard or a vegetable patch etc.

This is not about councils being greedy, it is about councils and builders reacting to the changing expectations of younger people who need housing. No, it doesn't suit most of us because we want something different. However, it does suit a lot of younger families who really don't care about a big backyard.
The other states were mentioned as well, not just the one state!
 
I owned a house in Perth on a quarter of an acre block. When I sold it the developers erected 4 houses with a small cul de sac, hense to say you couldn't swing a cat in the spaces between them!
 
  • Angry
Reactions: magpie1
It would be an interesting article if it were about all of Australia. Not sure whether the writer has ever heard of Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory. Pretty sure Australians live there as well.

However, with respect to the article, people require accommodation and the land size is a large contribute to the cost. Unfortunately, at least in WA, all young people building houses are easily conned by the large building companies into believing that they need to have four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a theatre room, WIP, scullery and a large alfresco. As a result, they are building significantly larger homes than they need. Larger homes means greater cost. Greater cost leads to either mortgage stress, delaying having children, reducing the number of children (or not having them at all), and two income - no kids in large houses. Plus the 25 - 45 year olds have to have their niche coffees every day, buy their lunch, have the latest car, latest furniture, gaming consoles, tattoos and the latest phones and other expensive toys. They spend more time dining and being 'seen' rather than wanting to be tied to a back yard or a vegetable patch etc.

This is not about councils being greedy, it is about councils and builders reacting to the changing expectations of younger people who need housing. No, it doesn't suit most of us because we want something different. However, it does suit a lot of younger families who really don't care about a big backyard.
In the early 2000s a house had to be 4 feet from a side fence on at least one side. You could come to an agreement with one of the neighbours if you wanted to build a house closer than that or theadjoining carport or garage. It still had to be passed by the council. Houses may be sometimes be larger occasionally. There is more likely to be more rooms than larger ones. Standard is 3 bedrooms - one with an en-suite. 2nd & 3rd Bedrooms are never big. If you want to put 2 beds in one you have to put them very close to the walls. Robes in those often aren't big enough for sufficient clothes for 2 people
 
  • Like
Reactions: IAN3005
In the early 2000s a house had to be 4 feet from a side fence on at least one side. You could come to an agreement with one of the neighbours if you wanted to build a house closer than that or theadjoining carport or garage. It still had to be passed by the council. Houses may be sometimes be larger occasionally. There is more likely to be more rooms than larger ones. Standard is 3 bedrooms - one with an en-suite. 2nd & 3rd Bedrooms are never big. If you want to put 2 beds in one you have to put them very close to the walls. Robes in those often aren't big enough for sufficient clothes for 2 people
These modern duplexes are built with rooms so small you can't swing a cat by the tail and the walls are paper-thin
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie1
also in rural areas of Victoria this greed has to stop there is plenty of land in this country
Yes, there is plenty of land in this country as you say BUT putting in the infrastructure for housing (electricity, water, sewerage etc) is the biggest problem to expanding inwards towards the centre.

If expansion was westwards towards the centre from the eastern cities or eastwards from the western cities there will be the usual hue and cry of why are governments charging so much in rates, for electricity, for water, for everything else; that ‘everything else’ includes the cost of transporting fuel and groceries. It is generally much cheaper to expand from one suburb to the next north, south or east than it would be to expand westwards towards the centre.

We do have an enormous amount of space in Australia but think of the logistics of expanding inwards towards that ‘space’ that this country has.
 

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×