apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

When I was little I wanted the wherehouse loft on Waynes World (where you could rolorblade around). I have one now but it's only 400sf, nowhere near the size I thought I would have.

Another key point to add is "for how many people." MG and SKGR's brave example aside, I bet the vast majority of the 500-800 s.f. votes are single people, perhaps even without pets. The 1,400 s.f. I now have is a bit more than I would normally really need for one person and two cats, but due to frequent houseguests it's been perfect.

I choose 800-1200 given my present situation, as a single person with no pets. I am leaving a 1700 sf house shared wtih my sister(she got married had a kid)and moving into a 573 sf owned loft on my own. I love the location and the bones of the space. If I could have afforded to go a little bit bigger I would have. Big enough to accomodate an overnight guest comfortably and lots of friends for entertaining. Not so big that I have rooms I never use and that I have to waste preciouse time cleaning.

I want a huge, cavernous double-height loft. Like the YMCA loft in Chelsea:

http://www.theapt.com/news/ymca.html

Except with parking, too.

I live in about 550 sq ft with a large man, a small cat and a bird. I could use at least double that, but even more important than extra space would be individual rooms and a hallway. I dream of hallways. I live in a railroad with no doors and that was fine when I was single, but I'd like to have one door to slam when I'm in drama queen mode and trying to make a point. The bathroom door just isn't cutting it.

i share 750 sf, and honestly, it's good enough for me and my roommate. i have to admit that with two of us living there, i wouldn't mind a slightly bigger (or maybe just better designed) bedroom, or some more closet space. a little niche i could fit a table into in the kitchen. but i can't imagine having more than 800-900 square feet shared between my roommate and i. and i feel like anything more than 750 would be outrageous for just myself.

I now live in a 1200 sq.ft (120 sq.m) Dutch apartment, with boyfriend and toddler. Our living room (500 sq. feet) is perfect, but kitchen, bathroom (only shower, no bath) and kid's bedroom (2x3m, that would be about 6x9 feet!!) are waaaay too small.

I'm dreaming of a house/apt with garden or large terrace, larger kitchen and bathroom, and 4 (!!) decent bedrooms (one for BF+me, one for our son, one for next-upcoming-kid-hopefully, and one guest room). Disagreeing with Judy, I think hallways are a major waste of space though...

But, even more important than surface: I would appreciate a house or apt. that offers the *sensation/impression* of airiness and space. Meaning: higher ceilings and architecturally sound, playful layout. Actually, I would value those much higher than additional square feet.

Layout is a huge part of this discussion. With a family of four, my sister is feeling very cramped in around 2,000 s.f. right now, in part because it's an 80's layout that doesn't suit their needs.

The kitchen only fits two comfortably at a time (and it has a W/D in it too!), lots of space is essentially wasted on vestibules and bathrooms, and there's no easy way to provide bedrooms for both kids along with an additional space for a home office/overnight guest.

All these things could certainly be accomodated in the same square footage, but not in the apartment where they live now! So I'm sure she dreams about having 4,000 square feet even though she doesn't really need it ;-).

I have 850 Sq feet, and I live with my boyfriend and 3 cats. I voted 800-1200. The category being very broad, I think really I would like 1000 SQ feet. Our place is great for entertaining because we have a huge living room/dining area. But honestly, I would like a second bedroom. Guests have to sleep in the living room on the couch, so I think a second room would be more accommodating.

I think another important question is how you distribute the square footage that you have. Do you need giant closets and modest bedrooms/living rooms, or the other way around? It seems that new aparments that I've seen lately prioritize closets and bathrooms, whereas older places (turn of the century) are the other way around.

Does it not depend on how many people and pets share the place?

For me, the key factors for livability are access to outdoor space and a "mud room" for bike storage and wood working projects. With those two pieces, 500 sf of interior space is enough for me and my husband. I think we'd be more comfortable in 800-1000 sf if we were to expand our family.

I suspect that how much space you "need" is closely dependent on how much space you can afford. When I lived in the midwest I thought that a 1000 sf 2 bedroom apartment was the minimum amount of space for a couple.

When we moved to the west coast, we found ourselves paying 50% more for half as much space. We've adjusted and now 500 sf feels just right. Although we could use just a little more room for the bikes...

I picked 1500 - 2000, but part of that would include a studio, preferably removed from the main living space - I actually don't mind my current 1085 sq ft, it's almost too much for two people, but it's laid out poorly (something we're trying to fix) so it feels small. I am aware though of how much is wasted.

I would *love* in all ideal worlds, 1200 for the living space, and then 300 each for two studios, one for my husband, one for me.

I wouldn't care if it was urban, suburban, rural, though I'd prefer urban over all three. My husband would definitely prefer to have at least a garden.

But the 1200 for living, if it was laid out well? That would be a downright luxury.

I have a just under 500 sq ft 1 bd room (plus a small patio) to myself. It's plenty of room for general living, but I wish I had a separate room for a studio/office as well as a real entryway into the apartment. I think it's definitely more about layout than actual footage.

Either way, I would do fine in a smaller space. I do have to admit after living in a decrepit share in Brooklyn where my bed ate up 90% of the space in the bedroom for a year, I am thrilled to have enough room to make my bed from three sides! I do believe I actually clapped the first time realized I could do it.

But there are definitely those out there who are true space hogs in terms out the amount of resources it takes keep large amounts of space comfortable when the weather isn't so great.

I just toured an 18,000 home that is the feature of Atlanta Magazine Dream Home....The excess, waste, and sheer extravagabnce made me queezy.
My entire house would fit into the master bath suite. Seven bedrooms, 9 baths, 2 kitchens,3 dining rooms, a library, 2 offices, 5 patios, pool, theater, gym/spa...Americans and their excess make me ashamed to be one.
On the way home in a rain storm I passed 20 homeless people huddled under an overpass with all of their wordly goods around them....America the beautiful?

I just toured an 18,000 home that is the feature of Atlanta Magazine Dream Home....The excess, waste, and sheer extravagance made me queezy.
My entire house would fit into the master bath suite. Seven bedrooms, 9 baths, 2 kitchens,3 dining rooms, a library, 2 offices, 5 patios, pool, theater, gym/spa...Americans and their excess make me ashamed to be one.
On the way home in a rain storm I passed 20 homeless people huddled under an overpass with all of their wordly goods around them....America the beautiful?

I think that this question is confused by the apparent subjectivity of square footage based on rental agents aproximations. I live in what I was told was a 700 sq ft apartment but is probably more like 500.

It seems a common theme that people would like *just a bit* more.

I live in an 800 sq. ft. 2 bedroom apartment with my girlfriend and my son. My son's room is barely big enough for his bed and a tiny dresser; and the only storage is the two closets in our bedroom. A larger 2nd bedroom and some more storage would be great, but a lot more expensive

I think Leah brings up a very real problem [realtors' overestimates of square footage]. I to have dwelled in apartments that upon measurement were 200-300 square feet less than the advertised area. It is much like the realtors' excalmations of high ceilings - somehow an 8'-4" ceiling doesn't quite qualify for such lofty prose.

But the real problem being discussed here is another manifestation of the profound greed, sense of entitlement and woeful lack of imagination in terms of how many Americans elect to live their lives.

I said 1500-2000 square feet. Right now my wife, dog, and I are in about 1200 square feet. We're planning on trying for a kid in the relatively near future, and by the time that kid is around four or five I'd like him to have his own room.

Our space works perfectly for us now, I don't want any more. But our space needs will change along with our family.

I have just over 1,000 sg. ft in Toronto, and it's _lots_ of space for my roommate and I. The co-ownership apartment dates from the fifties and has a simple layout with generous rooms. I've carved a home office out of the official dining room area, and our frequent guests are accommodated on a sofabed with an expanding screen for privacy. My roommate has the larger bedroom; her home office space is tucked behind a screen in the room. Another younger owner in the building are using their dining room areas for a recording studio/mixing station. We could use more storage; that will come as the budget allows for built-ins.

We don't have bicycles cluttering up the space because we staked out the bottom back stairwell space. The building will be setting up a bicycle room as renovations proceed... and all the younger owners are cheering. :)

I live in a 2 level with a semi-finished basement rowhouse built in 1953 in Alexandria, VA. The main level and second level consist of approximately 950 square feet, which is perfect for me and my partner and our soon to be adopted two dogs. My friends thought I was crazy downsizing from an 1800 square foot rowhouse in DC. I considered buying a 2500 square foot townhouse, but when I saw my it, my immediate reaction was, "What a waste!"

I do agree that it is less about size than about layout. The DC house had a formal living room and dining room that I never used. My home in Alexandria has a kitchen and living room (no separate dining room) on the main level, and three small bedrooms upstairs. We use every square foot of the rowhouse. And with the increased costs for electicity and natural gas, I'm even more happy that I went with the smaller rowhouse.

Plus, I really despise that cheesy new-construction colonial-style McMansions and Mctownhouses that seem be popping up everywhere lately.

I chose 800-1200 because it's what we have now (1060) and it's more than enough for 2 people and 3 cats. If we had a child it would be tough, but that has more to do with the layout than the amount of space. We moved here from a 2,000+ house with 4 bedrooms, library, family room, the whole bit. The only thing I really miss is the yard where we had lovely gardens that provided the neighborhood with strawberries and tomatoes and other goodies. Our teeny balcony doesn't get enough light to grow anything :-(

My husband and I live in 300 square feet. It's enough.

I think about 1200 is ideal for two. But it really is an issue of layout, so many apartments are so poorly laid out that even if they are larger, there is a ton of wasted and unusable space. In Japan I lived in much smaller apartments because they had better layouts.

Large houses are typically ostentatious, not well decorated and not very personal. How can one make a place feel like home when it is really a concert stadium? I think houses like Marmol Randziner's are perfect in size and never really would live in anything larger. If I had more money, I would just spend it on improving the things in my house and be content.

I agree with eeeck's point about layout. In San Francisco, we were comfortable with about 800 square feet because of where the walls were, plus the presence of large closets and extensive built-ins. When we moved to Phoenix, we needed 1,150 square feet to contain the exact same stuff (and we had to buy shelving and cabinets).

We both have space-intensive hobbies, so we tend to settle on homes around 1,000 sq ft, give or take. It would be a couple hundred bucks cheaper to rent a 2,400 sq ft mini-mansion out in Surprise (as in "Surprise! Your AC bill is $500 this month!" or "Surprise! Your 20-mile commute takes 2 hours!"), but you couldn't pay me to do it.

Amazing what you all say about layout - I just renovated my 550 sq ft place and changing the layout (kitchen is now an "L" instead of a "C" and the living room and hallway are one large room - makes it look huge even with the same amt of sq footage. I even got rid of a closet and added builtins and I have TOO much storage!

I agree with you guys!

I voted 1200-1500, which is funny because I'm living with my husband in a 260 s.f. studio right now and find it plenty big for both of us and our cat: It's well laid out, has 14 foot ceilings and lots of sunlight. However, eventually, we'd like to have children -- several -- and will definitely need 3 bedrooms and a proper dining room.

I think the amount of space you think you need has a lot to do with how you lived when you were a child. I grew up in the country with 3,000 square feet for my family of 4, and tend to think 2,000 square feet is the minimum amount of space needed for family harmony.

My husband grew up in the city with 1,000 square feet for a family of 5 and says it was a piece of cake. However, whenever I visit his family, I start getting really claustrophobic after about 6 hours (although maybe that has nothing to do with the space).

So we've compromised on 1,500. It seems about right for our future plans and is as much as we could ever comfortably afford and still live in the city. In the meantime, the 250 s.f. studio makes it easy to save for that 1,500 dream condo.

I picked 800 - 1200 s/f. I rent a 2bdrm. - 2 bth. apt. which is open and does not feel cramped don't know the s/f; but at times living with both my husband and daughter, it can feel too tight. I still wouldn't trade it for a larger space. I like apartment living - there's nothing else like it. For me the more space/or property one has the more maintaining, cleaning, and odds and end jobs you'll have - too much trouble.