21
HONEYCOMB HOUSING versus CONVENTIONAL HOUSING… …20 times more potential buyers for Honeycomb UPM SURVEY AT FRONT OF STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICE JOHOR BARU, 11-14 SEPTEMBER, 2006 Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan Yahaya Universiti Putra Malaysia and Mazlin Ghazali Arkitek M. Ghazali UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA HONEYCOMB H OUSIN G CONCEPT Report Published 29 September 2006

Johor Bahru Preference Survey

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Report on a consumer preference survey comparing Honeycomb houses against conventional terrace and apartment housing. A display and interview area was set up in the grounds of the government offices in Bukit Timbalan in Johor Bahru and civil servants and members of the public were opportunistically interviewed

Citation preview

Page 1: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

HONEYCOMB HOUSINGversus

CONVENTIONAL HOUSING……20 times more potential buyers for Honeycomb

UPM SURVEY AT FRONT OF STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICEJOHOR BARU,

11-14 SEPTEMBER, 2006

Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan YahayaUniversiti Putra Malaysia

andMazlin Ghazali

Arkitek M. Ghazali

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

HONEYCOMB HOUSING CONCEPT

Report Published29 September 2006

Page 2: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

JOHO

RBA

RUHO

USIN

GSU

RVEY

11-1

4SE

PTEM

BER

2006

The UPM Survey Team atwork at front of stategovernment officeJohor Baru,11-14 September, 2006.

Page 3: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

HONEYCOMB or CONVENTIONAL HOUSING?UPM SURVEY at

FRONT OF STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICEJOHOR BARU, 11-14 SEPTEMBER 2006

Honeycomb® is a unique Malaysian housing invention (international patentspending) and gaining wide acceptance from potential house buyers in consumersurveys and from housing professionals in exhibitions and seminars. It has beenrecently adopted by the Sarawak Government for the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

“Thermal Comfort Honeycomb Housing: the Affordable Alternative to TerraceHousing” is the title of a UPM popular science book (2006) and describes how thisinvention was developed over many years by Kuala Lumpur based Arkitek M. Ghazaliin collaboration with the Cool House research conducted by Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Honeycomb housing differs dramatically from terrace housing by clustering cool,modern houses with their own garden around small shady parks. This town planningdesign slows the traffic without speed humps and recreates a safe outdoor environmentreminiscent of Malay kampungs and rural towns. The Honeycomb concept offers a newurban lifesty le fostering three generation friendly neighbourhoods where children are

IN BRIEF

Contact:Mohd Peter Davis,Visiting Scientist,Institute of AdvancedTechnology,Universiti PutraMalaysia.

Off: 603-8946-7564H/p: 012-335-1938mohd_peter@

hotmail.comi

UNIV

ERSI

TIPU

TRA

MAL

AYSI

AM

oh

dP

ete

rD

avi

s,B

ukr

yma

nS

ab

rian

dN

uri

zan

Yah

aya

and

Ma

zlin

Gha

zali,

Ark

itek

M.

Gh

aza

li

the concern of the whole community .Even very young children are free onceagain to play outdoors together, cyclesafely to school and the shops andindependently explore and enjoy theworld around them as they get older,liberating their ‘tax i driver’ parents.

This consumer survey of mainly JohorState Government employees marks abreakthrough. It reports for the first timethe response to a complete range of 8types of Honeycomb apartments andHoneycomb houses priced from RM42,000 to RM 250,000 and compareseach of them to identically pricedconventional apartments, terracehouses and semi-Ds.

The survey reveals an overwhelmingpreference for the Honeycomb range ofapartments and houses and proves theyare affordable to 100% of potentialhome buyers. Should Honeycombhousing now be implementedthroughout Malaysia?

We think so but let the evidence belowand in the detailed report speak foritself:-

Page 4: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

HONEYCOMB TERRACE (FROM RM 130,000)

HONEYCOMB APARTMENTS (FROM RM 42,000)

ii

Page 5: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

UNIVERSITI PUTRAMALAYSIA

“Thermal comfort Honeycomb housing” a book recently published by UniversitiPutra Malaysia, in close collaboration with Arkitek M. Ghazali (1) describes 17 years ofpioneer research to develop an affordable and environmentally friendly alternative toterrace housing. Cluster houses consis ting of 2, 3, 4 or 6 units, rather than long rows ofterrace houses, are arranged like bungalows in a honeycomb pattern around smallneighbourhood parks planted with fruit bearing rainforest trees to shade the roads andprov ide food for birds and small wildli fe. The honeycomb arrangement, offering thesame or higher density than terrace housing, reduces the roads and through traffic,discouraging burglary and making the area outside the home much safer for childrenand more sociable for the residents. This new Malaysian architectural concept hasbeen widely presented to housing industry seminars and displayed at Inventorsexhibitions and Home Ownership campaigns. Scientific surveys conducted by UPM atthese events, have shown over 90% acceptance for the Honeycomb concept and astrong demand (80% ) amongst potential house buyers. This new housing form,representing the third wave of Malaysian housing following traditional kampong housingand post Independence urban terrace housing, has recently been accepted by theSarawak Government for State housing under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2).

Despite this enthusiasm for Honeycomb amongst potential house buyers, includingprofessionals in the housing industry , Developers are sti ll cautious. AlthoughDevelopers generally like Honeycomb housing since it makes better use of land andsaves on infrastructure costs, no one wants to be the guinea pig! This isunderstandable. The price of failure for a housing Developer is very severe.Developers fear that the Government authorities will not approve of such a radicaldeparture from terrace housing which is the predominant housing form in Malaysia andtried and tested over the last 50 years. Let someone else be the first to try Honeycomb;then we will follow! Faced with this industry reluctance the ‘somebody else’ had to beState Governments, a major client for housing in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION

1

HONEYCOMBor

CONVENTIONAL HOUSING……20 times more potential buyers for

Honeycomb

UPM SURVEYat

FRONT OF STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICEJOHOR BARU,

11-14 SEPTEMBER 2006

Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan YahayaUniversiti Putra Malaysia

andMazlin Ghazali

Arkitek M. Ghazali

Page 6: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

Arkitek M.Ghazali together with UPM has therefore embarked on a patient campaign to‘win hearts and minds’ for Honeycomb housing amongst Authorities, S tate Governmentsand their Government Linked Companies. Seminars to Authorities and housingprofessionals have proved every effective. This basic education work with key housingprofessionals has been reinforced by extensive market surveys conducted by UniversitiPutra Malaysia amongst all layers of the house buying public to scientifically measurethe acceptance level for Honeycomb housing.

In a pioneer survey in Johor, UPM was able reassure the Developer that the proposedHoneycomb project in a predominantly Chinese area did not conflic t with Feng Suibeliefs (3). The study also made an important step forward by estimating the number ofpotential buyers of the proposed RM220,000 Honeycomb house compared to a terracehouse of similar size and price. This random survey of 8830 households in Johor Jayawas able to conclude that 1010 potential customers existed for the Honeycomb house,some three times more than for the equivalent terrace house.

Similar survey and analy tical techniques were used in a very large survey of 513Government S ervants and Private Employees in the foyer of Government offices inKuantan to determine the number of potential buyers of a range of five Honeycombhouses priced between RM120,000 and RM250,000 versus matching terrace houses.The Kuantan survey was designed to answer two simple questions of great commercialimportance to PASDEC, the development company owned by the Pahang State:-1. Which type of house, Honeycomb or Terrace, do Kuantan residents prefer?2. How many potential Honeycomb buyers amongst the respondents?

The results showed that 95% of respondents preferred Honeycomb housing and that60% wanted to buy a Honeycomb house within 1 to 4 years. However, half the potentialHoneycomb buyers could not afford the RM120,000 price of the cheapest house in thesurvey.

The survey presented in this report covered a much wider price range betweenRM42,000 and RM250,000 and included for the firs t time a range of newly designedHoneycomb apartments. The survey was conducted outside the Johor StateGovernment Office Building and was met with an enthusiastic response fromGovernment S ervants and members of the public. In particular the survey was designedto determine the preference for Honeycomb houses and apartments and theiraffordability amongst different categories of public servants.

The response amongst the one million Government Servants is a key indicator of howthe whole house buying public in Malaysia will respond to Malaysia’s new invention,Honeycomb housing.

Johor StateGovernment

Survey,September 2006

2

Johor JayaSurvey,

April 2006

Kuantan StateGovernment

Survey,July 2006

Page 7: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

The type of survey conducted is always a key consideration. A random survey of thetarget group is by far the best type of survey since it quite accurately represents thewhole group. However, in this case ‘Opportunity ’ survey was chosen where GovernmentServants during working hours and members of the public were encouraged to v iew asmall housing exhibition outside the Johor S tate Government Building and thenparticipate in the survey. This type of survey is frequently used in Supermarkets, PublicTransport centres and on busy streets and is logistically much easier than a randomsurvey and yields many more respondents from a wider population in a short time. Whatit lacks in randomness is partly compensated by larger numbers of diverse respondents.An opportunity survey was particularly useful in this case for measuring the publicperception of Honeycomb housing as a completely novel form of housing sincerespondents could each view a model and the drawings of a range of Honeycombapartments and houses versus a matching set of conventional housing. Respondentswere able to v iew the exhibition, ask questions, form opinions and complete a detailedquestionnaire in a very short time (10 to 20 minutes). Universiti Putra Malaysia ispioneering and continuously improv ing this rapid Opportunity survey technique as ageneral ‘Citizen Survey ’ method, encouraging busy people to willingly participate insurveys of national importance which can be processed and published within a fewweeks.

METHODSSurvey

Techniques

The opportunity survey was conducted by 4 UPM student enumerators and a UPMteam leader from 8am to 5pm on four days (11-14 S eptember 2006) and generated249 respondents. The 190 Government servant respondents represented a sizableportion (about 16% ) of the staff working of the Johor State Government building and,as a bonus group, 59 members of the public attending Government Offices. Those whoshowed interest in the exhibited housing model and displays outside the GovernmentOffices were encouraged by a friendly University team to complete a questionnaire.Respondents were asked to select an apartment or house they could afford in 8 pricecategories (RM 42k, 60k, 80k apartments and RM 130k, 160k, 190k, 220k andRM 250k houses). Respondents were then shown site and layout drawings of theappropriately priced Honeycomb apartment or house and the correspondingconventional apartment or house at the same price.

InterviewTechniques

The University requested permission to conduct the survey from the Johor ChiefSecretary of Johor who kindly approved. The UPM survey team of 4 experiencedyoung graduates lead by a UPM lecturer was issued with a UPM ‘To whom it mayconcern’ letter (See Appendix) seeking the cooperation of staff.

The good response (249 fully completed forms with no bad data) in 4 days ofsampling was made possible by the cooperation of the guards, the relaxed conditionsoutside the Government Offices and the interesting Honeycomb housing displaywhich attracted curiosity and enthusiasm. After v iewing the exhibition and askingquestions, respondents were asked to complete a Malay language questionnaire of30 simple, tick the box questions. Apart from social demographic questions mostquestions required ticking the appropriate box, Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree,Strongly disagree.

3

StatisticalAnalysis

Back at UPM, the responses to the questionnaire statements were punched into astandard SPSS computer program “Statis tical Package for the Social Sciences”.Frequency tables were prepared and further cross tabulation analyses wereperformed within the same statis tical package.

Page 8: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Page 9: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

The 249 respondents comprised of 76% Government Servants (190) and 24% membersof the public (59) who were attending Government offices. Their response to 6 of thequestions is shown in Table 1.

The key finding is that 95% in this Johor survey preferred Honeycomb housingcompared to conventional housing. This overwhelming preference for Honeycombamongst predominantly Government Servants was almost identical to a similar survey inKuantan in July 2006.

Similar also to the Kuantan survey, there was an extremely high level of satis faction withtheir job (98% overall) and with liv ing in Johor Baru (94% ). Some 82% got to work inunder 30 minutes and 57% considered the Public Transport in Kuantan to be good.

Respondents were asked to select their preferred location to buy a house/apartmentfrom 7 current development locations around Johor Baru. 84% preferred eitherNusajaya (58% ) or Taman Impian Emas (26% ). Only 6% preferred Mount Austin, amajor development in Johor Baru.

Some 164 (66% ) of respondents preferred honeycomb AND wanted to buy ahouse/apartment within 4 years, making them potential Honeycomb buyers compared toonly 8 for conventional housing (Table 2). The main finding of this Johor report is thatHoneycomb housing has 20 times more potential buyers than conventional apartments,terrace houses and semi-Ds. This outs tanding preference for Honeycomb supports analmost similar finding from the Kuantan survey. Clearly , developers in both States needto take note that Honeycomb housing is capturing the imagination of the house buyingpublic and could replace the present market for terrace house and low-medium costapartment.

A novel scoring system on a 1 to 10 scale has been developed to compare Honeycombhousing with terrace housing based on responses to questions on a satisfaction scale(highly satis fied 10 points, satis fied 7 points, dissatis fied 4 points and highly dissatisfied 1point). When rated by 249 respondents on 5 criteria, Honeycomb scored 42% higher(8.47 out of 10) compared to terrace and conventional apartments (5.98 out of 10)Table 3. 4

RESULTS &DISCUSSIONS

95% PreferHoneycomb

High Satisfactionwith Job and JB

Nusajaya TopPreference

Potential Buyers

HoneycombScores High

Page 10: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Page 11: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

A wealth of information on housing affordabil ity was able to be extracted from this quitesimple housing survey taking up just 10 to 20 minutes of the respondents’ time. Theaffordability of the 3 Honeycomb apartments (Priced RM42k, 60K and 80K) and the 5Honeycomb houses (priced RM130k, 160k, 190k, 220k and 250k) is shown in Table 4,according to Government category and the private sector. All 164 potential Honeycombbuyers could afford either a house or apartment. None were excluded by price. Theaverage affordabil ity and the number of potential Honeycomb buyers for Category A, B,C and D Government servants is shown in Table 5. The affordabili ty amongst the Privatesector group is between category A and B government servants.

The housing affordabili ty of the different age groups which determines the type ofapartment or house they can buy, is shown in Table 6. The average affordabili ty by agegroup steadily rises from around RM93,500 for the potential buyers in their twenties toRM132,000 in the fifties age group (Table 7). Developers should compare these ratherlow affordabili ty levels with the apartments and houses they are building.

For the firs t time this survey proves that Honeycomb housing is affordable to allcategories of Government servants and Private Sector employees in the survey. Thus itwould seem fair to conclude that the whole Malaysian working population can afford therange of Honeycomb housing presented in the Johor survey.

5

HoneycombAffordability

Page 12: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Page 13: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

Government Loanor Bank Loan

Of the 164 potential Honeycomb buyers, 52% intended to use their Government housingloan entitlement whilst 40% would rely on Bank loan, as shown in Table 8.

Some 90% of potential Honeycomb buyers preferred either Nusajaya or Taman ImpianEmas. The breakdown by affordabili ty clearly showed that all income groups were happyto live in thes new development areas, although they are some distance from Johor Baru(Table 9).

The Basic data of the 249 respondents of the Johor Baru survey are shown in Table 10.6

PreferredLocation

Demographic Data

Page 14: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

The data presented in this report by Universiti Putra Malaysia, supports andreinforces earlier Honeycomb housing surveys by the University .

• Honeycomb Housing is overwhelmingly preferred by the house buying publiccompared to terrace housing and conventional apartments.

• There are 20 times more potential Honeycomb buyers than for conventionalapartments and terrace housing of matching features and price.

• The range of Honeycomb apartments and houses from RM42,000 to RM250,000are affordable to all income groups.

The Malaysian invention Honeycomb Housing is highly acceptable as the nextgeneration of Malaysian housing, following the present generation of terrace housingwhich superseded traditional kampong housing. Indeed the UPM Honeycombhousing surveys are equivalent to asking the public “Which do you prefer, horses orcars!”

CONCLUSION

7

Page 15: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

The authors would like to thank the UPM Survey team members for their excellentand enthusiastic work :-• Khairunesa Isa• Mohd Salleh Bacho• Mohd Ridzuan Hassim• Mohamed Azrul Syam Mohd Yusof

We extend our warm regards to the 249 Johor Baru residents for their willingcooperation in this survey and hope that one day soon they and their families willenjoy liv ing in a Honeycomb Township

• Mohd Peter Davis, Mazlin Ghazali and Nor Azian Nordin (2006) in ‘ThermalComfort Honeycomb Housing, the Affordable Alternative to Terrace Housing’,Hardback 186 pages, published by Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.Malaysia.

• Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan Yahaya (2006)‘Does Honeycomb housing conflic t with Feng Sui beliefs?’ Universiti PutraMalaysia, Report 13 April.

• Mohd Peter Davis, Bukryman Sabri and Nurizan Yahaya (2006)Honeycomb Housing or Terrace Housing…which does Kuantan prefer?Universiti Putra Malaysia Report 9 August.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 16: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

(RM

42,0

00)

iii

Page 17: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

(RM

42,0

00)

iv

Page 18: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

(RM

130,

000)

v

Page 19: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

(RM

130,

000)

vi

Page 20: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

(RM

250,

000)

vii

Page 21: Johor Bahru Preference Survey

(RM

250,

000)

viii