In November 2002, a magazine called the *Estates Gazette* dropped metres as the prime measurement of floor area - in other words, they stopped leading with square metres and putting square feet in brackets afterwards. They reversed this, putting floor area in square feet first.

In April this year, the magazine decided to drop the square metres in brackets, with all measurements of floor area now given in square feet only.

Similarly, in May this year, the upmarket estate agents *Knight Frank* (formerly Knight Frank Rutley) dropped the use of metric from its research reports.


On 15 May this year, the Editor of "Estate Gazette" commented as follows:

"In property at least, the square metre is going the way of the rod, pole or perch - medieval measurements of length (about five and a half yards) that older readers will remember from the back of school exercise books.

"People simply do not talk in square metres. They talk in feet. Agents do it. Occupiers do it. Even educated investment managers do so. So ler's talk - and write - in feet".


Source: Eurofacts, 11 June 2004, page 4

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 feet. Realtors do it. Owners and renters do it. Even qualified investment managers do so. So let's talk, and write, in feet".

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 N.E.R.E. scheme descended into gobbledygook when it supposedly created its' N.E.R.E. Superficial Measure. If you look at it you can see that it doesn't measure anything.

10,890 sq.' = 40 stt.sq.po.
10,890 sq.' = 4 stt. pennylands
10,890 sq.' = 1 stt. rood

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.' = 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

escaped madman and former cult leader, Rori Eli Cole, was discovered last night in the orang-utan cage at London zoo trying to teach the Simians how to measure their body mass in N.E.R.E Unusable Units by inserting ice-cream cones into their ear sockets.

It is quite clear that Tony hates metres from the above. What is wrong with having both measurements so everyone can understand?

Richard, at first look you may appear to be right, but when the number of people who wouldn't understand feet is so miniscule, the cost of listing square meters could not be justified.

re (Richard): "It is quite clear that Tony hates metres from the above"

REPLY: That's a far-reaching conclusion to draw from merely posting a factual quote with details of the phasing out of square metres and a quotation from a property magazine editor.

Still, I admit to disliking those who try to force compulsory metrication on an unwilling British people by the use of criminal penalties and classroom indoctrination.

The argument against dual measurements is that it creates unnecessary confusion - try looking at a dual display in any supermarket or butchers, for example. The Department for Transport also recognises that dual measurements on road signs would be confusing for motorists

I always thought preference for the square foot was down to the fact the we, as humans, occupy about one square foot when standing (excluding Vanessa Feltz) and thus if one was confronted with the desciption "40 square feet" one could imagine the room as big as one with 40 people standing "shoulder to shoulder like Blair and Bush".

God its getting political in here!

P.S. Whenever I see the SI unfriendly "sq m" on very few boards (and usually in brackets) I always think of "squirm"

Factual Posting June 14 2004, 11:10 AM


re (Richard): "It is quite clear that Tony hates metres from the above"

REPLY: That's a far-reaching conclusion to draw from merely posting a factual quote with details of the phasing out of square metres and a quotation from a property magazine editor.

Still, I admit to disliking those who try to force compulsory metrication on an unwilling British people by the use of criminal penalties and classroom indoctrination.

The argument against dual measurements is that it creates unnecessary confusion - try looking at a dual display in any supermarket or butchers, for example. The Department for Transport also recognises that dual measurements on road signs would be confusing for motorists


metre:
I just wonder, who had the temerity to force people to send their children to school? You can take it from there.
I fully agree with dual measurement mayhem. Had politicians put the welfare, especially of children, ahead of their own, metric would almost reign supreme now to everybody's advantage.

.........and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why estate agents prefer to use sq ft.


(jeesh)

Steve,

There are two reasons why Estate agents prefer to use sq ft over m²:

1. Inertia

2. They can con you into making you think that you are getting more than you really are (1210 sq ft sounds more than 100m²).

There are however a few good reasons why people should use m²:

1. If you are rewiring your house, then according to the electrical regs, a single ring main can service an area of 100m² in domestic arena.

2. If you are a shopkeeper and wish to trade on a Sunday, the law for premeses of under 280m² is different to the law for premeses that are over 280m².

You missed out "what people prefer" in the sq ft bit.

Over to Tony on the shopping thing.....

<<
1. If you are rewiring your house, then according to the electrical regs, a single ring main can service an area of 100m² in domestic arena.

2. If you are a shopkeeper and wish to trade on a Sunday, the law for premeses of under 280m² is different to the law for premeses that are over 280m².
>>

So apparently the strategy to force people to adopt square metres was to convert other things to metric, such as electrical wiring and laws, in an effort to make using square feet difficult and thereby encourage people to switch. This obviously didn't work, it only caused more confusion.

An Australian N.P. from Geelong, posted a very informative essay on real estate agent's use of squares and square feet on metric sucks. I took the liberty to post it here. That guy explains very lucidly why some agents hang on to superseded measurements that have absolute no connection to metric built houses.

I won¹t comment too much on your note below
because 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 Othe stt.po. of 16 1/2 that older readers will
remember from the back of school books¹?]

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 naïve 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) 1.9 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,
P. N. Geelong, Australia --

<<<So apparently the strategy to force people to adopt square metres was to convert other things to metric, such as electrical wiring and laws, in an effort to make using square feet difficult and thereby encourage people to switch. This obviously didn't work, it only caused more confusion>>>

Correct, it didn't work.

BTW:

http://www.metricsucks.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=19384

At the risk of repeating what Martin has already said, the reason for the continuing popularity of the sq ft is simply that it is a smaller unit of area than sq m (1 sq ft = 0.093 sq m). Quoting office space as say 1 000 sq ft sounds more impressive than 93 sq m.

The driving force is competitive pressure. This phenomenon was seen a long time ago (back in the 70s) when carpet and floor covering retailers started reverting back to pricing by the sq yd instead of sq m. Quite simply the smaller unit looks cheaper (1 sq yd = 0.84 sq m). Customers may or may not be silly enough to think that £5 sq yd is cheaper than £5.98 sq m, but the difficulty in comparing the two was enough to tip the balance in favour those who priced by the more traditional sq yd.

Compare this however with selling petrol by the litre in place of the gallon. There was virtually no resistance to that particular change, in fact petrol retailers liked it. The litre is less than a quarter of a gal. The key to the smooth changeover for petrol was universal compliance. If everyone does it then the customer doesn't lose the ability to compare prices. The same would be true for other commodities.

There is also, to be fair, the factor of customer familiarity and traders having to adjust backwards when dealing with them (though it wasn't an issue with petrol).

But customers won't make the adjustment unless the traders stick to metric only. It's worth noting from Tony's above notes that the Estate agents always kept sq ft at least as a supplementary indication.

For those who disagree with metrication, none of the above will cut much ice. But I hope no one sinks to the level of nonsense we see with the x-cole gobbledegook.

I agree with much of Stan's post. It is in the consumer's best interest for all retailers to change units at the same time in order to facilitate price comparisons.
But, after the conversion has taken place, the consumer is no better off than he was before it started. The conversion of petrol from gallons to liters is a good example.

<<
Compare this however with selling petrol by the litre in place of the gallon. There was virtually no resistance to that particular change, in fact petrol retailers liked it.
>>

At the time petrol was about £1.60 to £1.80 per gallon. The price on many petrol pumps was physically limited to £1.999 per unit of petrol. The petrol retailers ralised that they could either switch to litres or erplace their pumps. They chose the latter and the industry regulated itself.

Are you saying that the government never told the petrol stations to switch to liters?

Bud asked

<<
Are you saying that the government never told the petrol stations to switch to liters?
>>

Yes - Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister at the time.

Then how did all the stations do it simultaneously?

There was a dual pricing policy that lasted a number of months

<<<At the risk of repeating what Martin has already said, the reason for the continuing popularity of the sq ft is simply that it is a smaller unit of area than sq m (1 sq ft = 0.093 sq m). Quoting office space as say 1 000 sq ft sounds more impressive than 93 sq m.>>>

People are simply not that dumb.
Especially when those who buy by the square foot are likely to be businesses, where the emotive argument doesn't some about, nor the apparent cost-look.

What's wrong with my initial opinion that the square foot (like the pint) is a very handy size indeed? It's aesthetically perfect, while a square metre is clumbsy at best

If there was a dual pricing policy, it must have been government-sanctioned. I can't imagine all the petrol stations voluntarily displaying dual prices for several months, unless an industry association required it.

Bud,

The petroleum industry requested the change. They put to gether a suggested set of regulations which were then examoined by the Department of Trade and Industry (a Government Department) (to ensure that the consumer was not getting ripped off) and then the law was passed. That is the way that things work in the UK.

Bud,

The petroleum industry requested the change. They put to gether a suggested set of regulations which were then examoined by the Department of Trade and Industry (a Government Department) (to ensure that the consumer was not getting ripped off) and then the law was passed. That is the way that things work in the UK.

<<
What's wrong with my initial opinion that the square foot (like the pint) is a very handy size indeed? It's aesthetically perfect, while a square metre is clumbsy at best
>>

It lacks substance and is vague.

Measuring floor area in square feet gives big numbers. One of the things metric gets criticised for. Suddenly it becomes aesthetically pleasing.

Carpet and flooring covering is generally is sold by the square metre nowadays. So measuring floor area in the same units would at least make practical sense.

It always amazes me how little response good posts from recently converted metric countries get. P.N. from Australia has obviously more knowledge of the real estate scene over there than anyone here. Then again it is understandable that the last thing ideolically blinkered ' imperialists' want to be told is that their beloved anachronism costs them money and leaves them wide open to fraud.

<<<Carpet and flooring covering is generally is sold by the square metre nowadays. So measuring floor area in the same units would at least make practical sense.>>

This is down to EU fiddling (again).
And have you noticed what has happened as a result?
Most "in town" carpet shops get around the problem by having ready cut carpet to various "room friendly" sizes.
And guess what unit they use?
You guessed it!

At Homebase we sell floortiles marked in Imperial siizes (6 sq ft) and some obscure metric number.

Call me shurlock but I think I can now guess what company you work at to subsidise your other sources of income as a student.

Oh, and beer money.

;-)