Jul 12, 2017
Michael Matusik

As mentioned yesterday, over the coming week or two we will try to demystify the 2016 Census results.  Today, we look at household size.

What’s going on is quite different to what we are often told.  Many seem to be caught in the wrong mindset.


Type 2006 2016
% population living in housing type Average

household size

% population living in housing type Average

household size

Houses 83% 2.77 79% 2.79
Attached* 7% 2.07 11% 2.19
Apartments 9% 1.77 9% 1.94
Other** 1% 1.84 1% 1.98
Total 100% 2.57 100% 2.59

*Townhouses, terraces and ‘plexes.  **Other dwellings like caravans.  Includes ‘not stated’.

Some observations:

  • As we found out yesterday, fewer of us are living in detached houses, yet some 79% of us still do. The big change has been in those opting to live in more condensed digs, but attached together on the ground, and not in the air.
  • One surprising finding – and to be honest, not to us or the more consistent Missive reader – was that average household size has increased. Overall, we are living in more crowded homes, not emptier ones.  This trend is likely to accelerate as the housing market reaches its current cyclical peak and low affordability, in concert with rising costs, starts to bite into household budgets.
  • Household size has teeth. It isn’t just some statistical proclivity. For example, most planning regimes, these days, aim to increase housing density.  They want to get more people living in their community.  They often use somewhat dubious targets and terminology – notably, ‘dwellings per hectare’ – to measure its success.  Now, if getting more bums on seats is the aim, then maybe ‘occupants per hectare’ would be a more apt descriptor and measurement.
  • So, if the aim was to increase the local population by, say, 100,000, then you would need to build some 36,000 new houses (100,000 divided by 2.79 people per house); or 46,000 new townhouses or similar or 52,000 new apartments.
  • Apart from the increased development risk – and in particular, sales risk – associated with higher density housing development, the need to build some 50% more apartments than houses to get the same lift in local residents, is something that’s worth investigating further.
  • Given what the 2016 Census is already telling us, it is high time for us to take a hard look at our settlement patterns, the dwelling stock that we are supplying and future housing needs.

Keen to hear your thoughts.

Until next time,


Michael Matusik


Not all Missives are posted on our website.  Sign up and we’ll deliver every Matusik Missive direct to your inbox. Go here to subscribe.  It’s free!


Want to comment?          |          Missive reuse policy          |          View other posts  

Share this article...Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Email this to someone