We Americans have an obsession with size. If SUV's, fast food combos, the popularity of Costco, and cosmetic surgery are any indicator, we like 'em big. Americans like to live large. Literally. Ask someone what the size of their ideal home would be, and many people will reply anywhere between a modest 800 sq. ft. to a palatial 10,000 sq. ft. We even once heard someone claim they absolutely needed 3500 sq. ft. for their family of three, lest they live like pauper sardines.
Most of my close friends rent and live in fairly modest sized homes and apartments. Many share spaces with roommates, partners, husbands/wives, wayward hobos, and such. Yet even those of us who choose to live in smaller spaces in urban, population-dense areas often dream of having "just a little more room". Personally, I want a few more hundred square feet for a proper dining room and a larger kitchen (our kitchen accommodates only one person at a time), but we get by fine well enough. But who doesn't want maybe just a smidgen more storage?
How much is enough? What would you consider sufficient: not an extravagant amount of living space, but enough that you'd feel like you have enough space for you, your partner/family, and your possessions? Any reasoning and opinions in specific are welcome too!
I've got a 900SF 1BDRM which is ample ample for a single person. I just wish I had a second bedroom for guests.
Some food for thought -
ReadyMade's current small space issue includes spaces ranging from 639 to 992 square feet. Two of their three small spaces house only one person; the other houses two. They're still small spaces by current standards, but I would be THRILLED to have 992 square feet all to myself. Number of people per square foot makes a difference.
We're at 200 per person right now.
I'm increasingly suspicious that there is something wrong with the clicheed statistic about the increasing size of the American house.
It's got the trend right - it is obvious that things have become larger and that the mcmansion has replaced the suv as the Sympton of All that is Wrong with American Culture. But when I read this: "the average size of a new house ballooned to 2,349 square feet" (RM, 61) and that this is double what it was in the 50s, I have to wonder if the numbers include unfinished basements. Because 1200 square feet as an *average* size just doesn't seem right for the 50s houses I know in a variety of cities. They seem to be more like 1500 or 1600 with the basements, which homeowners often finished with a second bathroom and the requisite bar and wood panelling as the family expanded.
And "ballooned" to 2349? C'mon. In medium-sized cities, that just doesn't sound that extravagant to me.
2350 square feet is certainly spacious, but if it includes a basement, it's hardly extravagant. Not in most parts of North America, anyway.
The flipside of this is that I'm a total sucker for small space issues, and get very cranky when their version of "small" is 2200 square feet. So cheers to RM on that count.
What about those that have less than 500 sq ft?
I only have 490 sq ft, so I rounded up....
As for houses being small in the past... The house I grew up in was from 1972, and it only had 1350 sq ft. It was a typical 3br 2ba, California ranch. It was plenty big for my family of three. Ironically, when I moved out, my parents bought a 2600 sq ft house that they are swimming in and are now looking to downsize. Personally, I can't imagine needing more than 900-1000 square feet for myself ever.
original blues: that's amusing, since those two people sharing the space in the current issue of Readymade are my girlfriend and I :)
But that's the thing: the concept of livable space varies so much between cities, cultures. We personally think 320 sq. ft. per person (and two cats) in our place is very comfortable. But for others, its equated with poverty. I once lived in a 3500 sq. ft. home and it was ridiculously large (when a home has its own wine cellar and cheese storage area, its gonna be big). Mention 2350 square feet to people in the city, its going to sound Trump-esque. Go into the suburbs, and 2000+ square feet is where the idea of acceptable begins. And to me, a basement is a usable space like any other...I'd take the extra space in a heartbeat (though most new developed community homes do not include this feature here in LA and outlying areas).
Kudos to you for your true small space living!
I don't equate a small house with poverty or anything, in fact if it was just me and my cats, 500 sq feet would be plenty. However, I run a business at home that needs it's own room, and my husband races, meaning he needs garage space. Both of these things take more space than the rooms we actually live in.
Since your survey doesn't account for how many people are living in the space, I'll just chime in that I selected 1601-2000 sq. ft. because there are four of us, including two teenagers who would like some privacy from us, and us from them. We're currently at about 1300 sq. ft. and things are fairly cramped, but would would probably seem palatial to a family in Manhattan or Paris.
i think this poll would be even more interesting if you also asked everyone's geographical location and created an info graphic tracking the two.
My husband and my cats and I currently reside in about 1600 square feet and I could use a smidge more. Even though I'm an organizing expert and as such, not a clutter person, we'd like more space because we have specific interests which we'd love to have dedicated space for. (home gym and a card room come to mind immediately). ~Monica
Oh - Gregory, I liked your place a lot. It looks very fresh. Nice shadowboxes, and I'd love to know where you got your bedspread.
In fact, I liked all the places. It's just that 900 square feet for one person (the final place) struck me as a luxury. Ain't nuthin wrong with that, but I find it hard to knock a family of 4 (especially with teenagers) for increasing the market demand for the "ballooned" 2350 square foot house.
Now what I REALLY like to see in a magazine article is a small and dumpy box with absolutely NO redeeming architectural value and 8-foot ceilings turned into something stunning through clever use of artificial light, paint, and furnishings. The rarity of this kind of thing even on AT is an indication of just how hard this is to pull off.
Let's throw in the further challenges of it being a rental with popcorn ceilings, just to make it even tougher. Hell, what about a basement suite?
We'll reward the best example with a spacious 19th century apartment in the European city of their choice.
Oh, and to give my answer to the question, 800 square feet for my family of four just barely works (although it sure limits your choice of washer and dryer), but 1200 would sure be nice.
my kids are still small, though - I don't think 800 will do it for the long term.
And the smallest place I ever lived in was a 350 square foot studio (there were two of us), but it had 12 foot ceilings, which make a pretty huge difference. Thus, my obsession with redeeming the dull, boxy, pokey architecture of the apartments built from the 60s through the 90s.
I think a lot of it depends on layout.
Our house has a big open living/dining area and a large kitchen, all with high ceilings, and this house feels BIG to me. There is no basement or family room, but this large sort of great room area.
We could lop off the two pitiful guest rooms, taking the total to 1600 sq ft. and that would be fine.
My husband and I live in a 3 bedroom, one bath 1950's house and find its 1,248 square feet too big.
We have a 600 square foot house on the drawing board with a detached 128 foot mudroom for our gardening supplies and art projects.
We have found the more room we have, the more we will fill it with junk.
Since our main interest is gardening, we also find that company wants to spend time in our backyard and not in the house. So we plan to use our garden for entertaining and keep the house as small as comfort will allow. This will also make our taxes and energy use much less.
original blues: by coincidence, I am helping someone transform their "rental with popcorn ceilings" at this moment. My friend is completely decor clueless (she admit she jumps from idea to idea without any cohesive vision of what her home should look like). If it turns out well, I'll try to convince her to share before and after photos :)
original blues wrote:
"Now what I REALLY like to see in a magazine article is a small and dumpy box with absolutely NO redeeming architectural value and 8-foot ceilings turned into something stunning through clever use of artificial light, paint, and furnishings. The rarity of this kind of thing even on AT is an indication of just how hard this is to pull off."
Yes, yes, yes!!!
In my opinion, 900 sf for one person is luxurious!
We are a family of four living in 250 sf per person (1000 sf total). Our children are small but their stuff takes room too (especially because they are constantly changing clothing size and toys and books according to their size and developmental stage). Our apartment size might work if we didn't also have two home-based businesses (with filing, desktop computers, equipment, and merchandise) and storage needs for things like camping and sport items. Layout is a biggie too. The layout of our place is modern and works quite well, except for the wastefulness of having a powder room right beside a full bathroom - occasionally convenient but really not needed. Also, if we could afford lots of built-ins we could probably use the space more effectively but realistically fitting out this apartment perfectly could cost quite a bit.
I voted for 1100-1400 sf because I think that's what our family needs.
Location, Location, Location.... To me that is what is most important. Whats outside your front door?
I would rather have my 490 sq ft and live in the epicenter of a great city, than a 10,000+ sq ft gold plated mansion in a nearby suburb.
I guess it boils down to priorities.
We live in a 650sf apartment rental for two humans and two cats. When we downgraded from our last place (a 800?900?sf with two bedrooms) I lamented the loss and have always felt a little grudge towards my current apartment. That said, having seen some of the amazing things that folks do with their small spaces (and participating in the 8 week cure) has me convinced that our current space is plenty for us.
We are planning to start our family in the next year and also move cross country. While researching real estate (both for rental and purchase) I am still a little drawn to the larger square footage homes. Then I remind myself that 1200 sf will mean THAT much larger a space to keep clean and I am happy with staying the course of a smaller home. I think if we had two bedrooms (one for us and one for baby) 600-900sf will do (probably will feel palatial). This includes having a space for a home office for the both of us (writer and designer). For us it's been a matter of prioritizing how much stuff we need in our home. Our needs are pretty simple --no wine cellars or cheese rooms for us.