Dear Euric, I won�t comment on your note below. I found a lot of it quite incomprehensible, which I suppose is one goal of the inch-pound protectionists to make conversions as difficult to comprehend as they can. [By the way, what is �the stt.po. of 16 1/2' that older readers will remember from the back of school books�?]
However, leaving that aside, I would like to comment on the use of area measure of houses in Australia. I say houses because all commercial and industrial buildings are measured in square metres; it is only the na�ve buyers of houses who are treated to two old measures, 'square feet' and 'squares'. 'Squares' may be novel to the Australian real estate industry. If you buy or lease industrial property all area measurements are based on the 'net' lettable area, that is the internally measured area that will be available for lease. If you buy or lease a home or apartment you will be treated to a mishmash of 'square feet' muddled with 'squares'. This process begins with the sale of new homes and continues for the life of the building. The first point that I would like to make about 'square feet' and 'squares' is that they are calculated from the external dimensions of the house. This means that the area under the exterior (say 300�mm) and interior walls (say 120�mm) is included in the area although this is not available for the use of the owners or renters. Secondly, the (exaggerated) floor area is then calculated into 'squares'. To do this you take the (exaggerated) floor area and divide it by 100 to (theoretically) represent a square room that is 10 feet by 10 feet (but don't forget the walls). The calculated value in squares is then rounded up to the next 'square' or to the next 5 squares if its a large house. As an example, let us consider a rectangular house that is, externally, 20�metres long by 10 metres wide divided into 12 spaces; this obviously has an overall area of 200�square metres and an internal, usable, area of about 175, after allowing for the walls. Remember that this house, like all houses in Australia was actually built in all metric measures to the nearest millimetre. Now lets calculate this in feet for the real estate market. The steps go like this: Select the external dimensions 20 metres and 10 metres 20 metres = 65.6166 feet (say 66 feet); 10 metres = 32.80833 feet (say 33 feet) 66 x 33 = 2178 square feet 2178 � 100 = 2.178 squares (say 2.2 squares or say 2.5 squares). By the way, the initial calculation of 175 square metres usable area can be converted to 1884 square feet or (say) 19 squares. The real estate agents have achieved an impressive increase in size of this property by 16�% or 32�% just with the aid of a calculator. As Australia becomes more and more metric, I am led to the belief that if someone is using metric measures they are also more likely to be trustworthy. I have also formed the view that if someone (say a real estate agent) goes to a lot of trouble to give me old inch-pound figures (and then obfuscates these into 'squares') then it is highly likely that I am dealing with a thief, a rogue, a liar, and with someone who is trying to, shamelessly, rip me off. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Geelong, Australia -- on 2004-06-15 08.23, MightyChimp at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can anyone verify if some or part of this statment is true? What units are > property sold in world-wide? > > Euric > > IThe following is in reference to estate agents, letting agents etc dropping > "square metres" from official documents and using sq ft exclusively. In the UK > they started using sq m a few years back but now they've stopped. > > Although newer properties might use sq m and then translate it from foreign > into English, its also true to remind folk that the vast majority of > properties in the UK pre-date this and are as such imperial only. > > I cannot imagine them knocking down Edwardian listed or protected buildings > for example just so someone, at some point, can say the word "metre" so that > your sort can have a tizzy fit. > Tony, > > Regarding your bullet-in-board of June 13th @ 12.46 a.m. quoting the United > Kingdom of Ulster & Grand Breton 'Estates Gazette' of May 15th. > > "In real estate and building rentals at least, the sq. -/m is going the way of > the stt.po. of 16 1/2' that older readers will remember from the back of > school books. Folks simply do not talk in square metre'. They talk in square > feet. Realtors do it. Owners and renters do it. Even qualified investment > managers do so. So let's talk, and write, in sq.'." > > Tony, realtors do not use the sq. -/m in the U.K. for exactly the same reason > that realtors throughout the world do not use the sq. -/m. The sq. -/m is > unusable. > > All realtors, in all countries of the world, use the square foot, or something > based on the square foot. > > Most Napoleon Emperor's Republic of Europe Weights & Measures are difficult, > but not impossible, to use. But the sq. -/m is just impossible to use in > superficial measure. > > The nere scheme descended into gobbledygook when it supposedly created its' > NERE Superficial Measure. If you look at it you can see that it doesn't > measure anything. > > 43,560 sq.' = 4840 sq.yd. > 43,560 sq.' = 1210 sq.fth. > 43,560 sq.' = 160 stt.sq.po. > 43,560 sq.' = 16 stt. pennylands > 43,560 sq.' = 10 stt.sq.ch. > 43,560 sq.' = 4 stt. roods > 43,560 sq.' = 1 stt. acre > > 348,480 sq.' = 38,720 sq.yd. > 348,480 sq.' = 9680 sq.fth. > 348,480 sq.' = 1280 stt.sq.po. > 348,480 sq.' = 128 stt. pennylands > 348,480 sq.' = 80 stt.sq.ch. > 348,480 sq.' = 32 stt. roods > 348,480 sq.' = 8 stt. acres > 348,480 sq.' = 1 stt.ml. (superficial) > > 1.3333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 -/a > 1.3333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 da/a > 1.3333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 h/a > 1.3333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 k/a > > 13.333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 -/a > 13.333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 da/a > 13.333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 h/a > 13.333333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 k/a > > 133.33333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 -/a > 133.33333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 da/a > 133.33333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 h/a > 133.33333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 k/a > > 1333.3333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 -/a > 1333.3333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 da/a > 1333.3333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 h/a > 1333.3333 sq. -/m does not equal 1 k/a > > Info @ > > http://www.weights-and-measures.com > > And topics: > > Common Superficial Measure > Napoleon Emperor's Republic of Europe Decadent Superficial Measure >
