apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I disagree. throughout Europe families live happily and comfortably, my family home growing up had 1 bathroom for 4 people! American's think that everything bigger is better, not true, look at cars! People are starting to realise the benefit of down sizing.

"Modest homes of 2500 square feet"? Honestly, if you need that much space to insulate yourself from your kids maybe you shouldn't bother having any.

I grew up in a 3BR/2BA house in the late 70's early 80's that was less than 1500 s/f - and amazingly enough, nobody suffered from a "Lack of Space/Storage" or "Small Rooms". (Mom, Dad and us 2 kids)

Why people feel that they "need" 3500 s/f houses for a family of 4 is just ridiculous and wasteful - it's no wonder new housing is so "unaffordable".

I totally agree. I have never lived in a 2500 square foot home, not with my family of four growing up, nor with four other girls in college (and we only had one bathroom - try that!), and I have NEVER felt that I was cramped. You learn to adjust, you learn to be creative, and you learn to live together. It's not only possible, but it can be downright enjoyable. I enjoyed my experiences. I felt close to others, both physically and mentally. I can't even imagine what I'd do with 2500 square feet. Who would clean all of that??? :)

I've always thought that small kitchens are a litmus test for the happiness of a family. If you can peacefully cook a meal together in a small space, you know that you still like each other. Ditto shared bathrooms.

There are not many bungalowas or post war houses in the east bay that are bigger than 1200 SF so here here to the commenters above!

The one thing I CAN get behind is lots of bathrooms. My mom is a bathroom hog. I could never have left the house in the mornings if we'd only had one bathroom.

Other than that, though, I'm down with small spaces. I live in Manhattan now, so I kinda have to be, huh? :-)

catspajamas, your comment about insulation is interesting. I grew up in Connecticut in two one hundred-year-old homes (not small, particularly the first one, but with small-ish rooms). My mom then moved to California to a three-bedroom house with 3,500 square feet. What was weird was that you actually had less privacy/insulation in that house than in our CT homes, since about 2,000 SQF was one big open space. Nowhere to hide, people. God, I hated that house.

six kids,mom, dad, 3br/2ba/1100 square feet 70s rambler. we all lived to tell the tale.

We (2 adults, two boys ages 16 and 7) live in an apartment that is 850 square feet. It's efficient. I would like to see a small, cool contest for families with children older than babies or toddlers. That is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, in small living.

2500 sq ft is modest? Pull my other leg, it plays jingle bells.

How about making "small" a relative thing. If you have five people living in a home then maybe living in 1300 sq. ft. is "small" whereas 1000 sq. ft. for a couple is not.

I think the point that the reader brought up is valid and perhaps if the person has a flotilla of family members then 2500 sq. ft. really is modest.

7 kids, mom and dad all living in a 3 bedroom/2 bath in the South Bay in the 70's. 5 girls to one bathroom! Now as a parent with only 2 kids, trying to stay in SF, I often give kudos to my parents. We mostly grew up well adjusted and still enjoy close quarters.

Four people in a 1500 sq foot house in Southern California is fine, as the outdoors is another room. Same number of people in Duluth is misery. Does one adult work at home--does that adult have to clean off the dining room table at the end of the work day? (Remember Alex Keaton's kitchen--mom had her architectural drawing board in there--as if!)

You have to look at what's included in that square foot age--finished basements, common in the mid-west but not in SoCal, aren't counted in total square feet.

I live in a 3000 sq foot loft--and with no closets, trust me, it's not just tons of usable space in which to skate. I've lived in a smaller well designed house that seemed huge and in a Queen Anne that had cute little nooks and crannies, but no really decent sized rooms.

Old kids take up far less space than toddlers.

Now that the cost of gas and electricity and groceries are going up, bet a lot of people will be looking for smaller homes or be satisfied with not moving up. Property taxes in the USA has gone up 51 percent in the past five years. Rather than 'never catch on', the smaller homes will become more and more desireable. In fact, I predict a return to the city as the suburbs become too expensive to commute from and maintain.

I grew up in a 1950 sq foot home and honestly, it is anything but big! 4 people, in a 4 bedrooms, 1 and 3/4 bathrooms, living room, kitchen and add on den. trust me, its not as big as you'd think! and what's wrong with wanting space? if you dont need to be jammed into one room why would you? if that is what you need to make sure you are in contact with your family then maybe there needs to be some re-evaluation there.

and i agree with VM- having a small toddler is one thing- i know they can have more stuff than a teenager, but they dont have the mouth yet. or the friends or the ability to run around crazy! i like a big house where i know i can always have friends come to stay with me. where everyone can have their own space to express themselves. where i can have my entire family and friends over for the holidays to eat in the same room. you can fill a 2500, 25,000 or even a 250 sq foot room with just as much love. Small is nice, big is nice. whats the problem here?

Props to those kindly trying to "understand" the meaning/intent of that letter writer, but in the end he/she has their head in the sand. One major reason the U.S. is in such crisis economically and environmentally is that such living standards are NOT sustainable. I hate to keep touting Europe as some panacea of sustainability, but they HAVE been using mopeds, living in tiny homes, foregoing air conditioning, and hanging their clothes out to dry for (like) ever...sorry 'bout the humor.
The letter writer needs to understand that 2500 SF (unless it's a solar-powered straw bale house) is not downsizing or modest, and it is not sustainable. It is a luxury that has a great cost.

2,500 sq ft is considered modest? I'm not saying I want to raise a family of four in 500 sq ft but 1,500 sq ft is plenty of room for most families.

These same people who need 3,000 sq ft are the first one to complain about how much their utility bill is.

I know three couples who, in the last year, have up-sized from homes that ranged from 1,800 square feet to 2,500 sq. ft. to all owning houses that are from 3,300 to 3,500 sq. ft. They say they needed the space (all have young kids), but yet there are rooms that are nearly empty or furnished but unused. In one case, the house is 30 miles from the jobs of both parents.

I think it's wasteful, as someone who grew up in a small 1960s house with a sister, two parents and multiple dogs. Plenty of stuff (two groceries, parks, schools, my dad's office, my orthodontist) was within walking distance. I wish more people had that kind of option so maybe they'd be willing to give up the huge size and expense and waste of a giant house on the edge of suburbia.

I grew up in the 80s. There were six (four kids- two boys and two girls) of us in a three bedroom rowhouse in Philadelphia and often relatives would come and stay with us too. My two brothers' room was the size of a closet. And though my little sister and I shared a room, we would often crawl into bed with each other until I was about seven years old (and we're five years apart in age). When I was in high school we moved into a much larger single stone house and we all got our own rooms. Despite having our own space we spent most of our time together anyway in each others' rooms. When I finally move out of my tiny apartment into a house I hope to find a small cottage were my future children will share a room too. I think it makes for a closer family.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that scoffed at 2500 sqft being "modest." My family of 4 (two adults, two kids... not toddlers)(plus three pets) lives in half that... 1200 sq ft here and doing fine. It's all in how you effectively use the space you have.

I grew up in a family of five with one bathroom and survived. My mate and I are empty nesters need the two toilets but don't necessarily need both tubs and showers and three sinks! and yes, we're looking to downsize. A house with 2500 sqft is a lot of house to maintain, heat, cool and clean. Maybe the writer that wants the "modest house" should consider owning less STUFF!

The people who can afford big but are choosing small should absolutely be thanked, because they're trying to take steps to live sustainably.

My family is more than comfortable in our 1100ish sf floor of a three-decker. It's quite a bit more space than we need. We also love the $50/month gas bill and $30/month electric bill.

And for the people who just can't fathom living in anything smaller than 2500 square feet (that's MODEST?!), take a minute to remember how most of the world (and even most of the United States, where about half of children live in a low-income family) lives. You really don't need nearly as much as you think you do, and the world is a better place when you make simpler choices.

In the late 60's, early 70's, we had 5 in about 1,500 sq ft. And we RARELY used the living room and the dining room.

2,500 sq ft is about as modest as a stripper.

When I look at the costs per sq ft for homes, like the modular ones, and they start talking about $200 per sq ft, I gag. They don't even make homes small enough for me to afford to buy some of the time.

I think that the only way to "affordable housing" for some people would be to form a legal group entity, buy property as a group, everyone gets a dinky Tumbleweed House, and the group pitches in on the costs of a large multipurpose room available to all.

Like the pocket neighborhoods, except at much better prices.

That letter made me sad. Hole in my stomach, teary eyed, "what is the world coming to" sad. Seriously. My family (2 kids, 2 grown ups) lived in 850 sq. feet until I was 9, when child #3 was born and we moved into 1100 square feet. Some of my greatest memories were born of sharing a room with my sister, finishing my homework while sitting at the kitchen table next to my dad as he worked, and fighting over who got the next shower. (That was in Michigan which is not as cold as Duluth - but close.)

Recently my sister (who lives in a 5 bedroom house in Texas with her husband and two sons) moved her two boys into the same bedroom. She doesn't want them to miss out on everything she learned from sharing space and possessions and late night chats and mischevious games.

I've never found less space to prohibit the things in life that I love the most. In fact - I think it can help create a "sustainable family."

Everyone already knows from first hand experience that the floorplan/design of the house is a much bigger factor than square footage for livability. As meg_ues stated quite plainly, open floorplans are difficult to live with, because with a house full of people, everyone needs a hideout somewhere sometime.

Vertical space is also a key factor. What square footage giveth, short ceilings taketh away.

"modest as a stripper" >snork
I can only imagine what else a person who finds a 2500 square foot home "modest"-it boggles the mind... I have visions of 5 or 6 cars in the driveway, tvs in the loo, an 8-burner "Chef" quality stove, oh, the list goes on...

There are 5 of us in about 1200 square feet-ish (it's been 14 years, and I've forgotten) three of which are teenboys over 6 feet; it actually forces us to get along and work things out, when there is a disagreement; and we have a great patio that we live on during the summer; we also have multiple extra kids over, people over all the time.

oh-this is long but-did anyone ever see the PBS special where families had to live as settlers? there was this extremely wealthy family, and during the show, they all loved in a one-room cabin (I think it was 3mos); and I remember the final episode when they were all back at their real homes-the wealthy family lived in this vast, like 10,000 square foot palatial mansion-and one the daughters talked about how sad she was to be home and how lonely it was b/c on the show they were together all of the time, and now everyone hung out in there own rooms spread out all over the house, and she "never" saw her parents "anymore"-that kind of stuck with me..

I don't know the square footage of the house we lived in while growing up, but it was small. We also had a finished basement, one bathroom, and bunkbeds.

*their* rooms

2500sf is only modest when compared to a modern McMansion. By any normal standards, that's a roomy 4-bedroom house.

Although I will say that the floor plan makes all the difference, big or small.

Try 7 people in 850 sq feet, plus 2 dogs and a cat. Granted we had a basement but.....

Yeah, 2500 sq feet? I can only dream. 1100 isn't even in my budget!

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the guy who wrote that letter. Just google him ... not exactly the model of "responsible living".

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/abandoned_home_which_housed_co.html

I guess he needs all that extra square footage to house his combustible garbage.

I just have to say here - size doesn't matter - one makes a home whether it is 600 sf or 6,000 sf - it is the heart that really makes the home comfortable, not a ton of space.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. - Confucius

Growing up - mom, dad, and 3 kids in a huge farmhouse with a full basement on an 80 acre orchard in the middle of the country...

...It wasn't nearly big enough.

.
.
.

Last Christmas with my friends, their 5 kids, and me all in a small 3 bedroom condo, celibrating good times and everyone climbing over everyone else...

...plenty big.

While i agree that the typical 2 adults/2kids living in 2500 sf isn't the sustainable way to go, i think a lot depends on the way a family uses the space.

i grew up in a HUGE home. It was about 3000 sf, and if you counted the unfinished basement, it was closer to 5000 sf....but it served as a Grand Central Station to a constant rotating door of extended family, friends, people transitioning to other homes, and exchange students. We were a 3-generation family (Grandma, parents, 2 kids) who practiced an extremely self reliant way of life compared to the average suburbanites, and used our space to do so: in our house was a full woodshop, basement cold storage for preserves, auto repair equipment, sewing spaces, and more.
That all being said, i now live (and work part-time) in under 450 sf, and love that too.

i think that in addition to looking at how much space we're using, it's really important to look at HOW we're using that space. Space isn't inherently bad. Wasting it is.

As an AT addict from outside the US, I have been very impressed with both the quality and ethos of the 'small cool' contest.

As for this letter, I am not sure if I have the conversion right, but 2500 square feet seems to be 232 square metres. If this is 'modest', then heaven help the planet...

Rndrc: Was this it?:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/

AT is definitely aimed at an urban, sustainably-minded individual... I live in 1100 square feet with my toddler son, cat and dog (and significant other) and for the most part am happy with this. When we choose to have another child, I think it would be nice to have one more bedroom. I also would really appreciate a family/craft/office since we all have so many hobbies and do so much work from home. This would put us close to 2000 square feet.

For most middle class and above Americans, 2500 sqft is modest. To deny that is to purposefully ignore most of your fellow citizens-whether or not you agree with them. I do not agree with small families living in 3000 sqft and above and I have lived in Europe where large families coexist in smaller spaces. I feel like this is not the point of the reader's letter. Trying to force Americans to accept tight quarters is, I believe, as unrealistic as asking all Americans to be up on their world politics, be able to intelligently debate the US's foreign policy effects and understand climate change. Asking Americans to live in 2500 sqft is more doable-sort of like using compact fluorescents, buying Method at Target and every once and a while eating organic.

Bob in his 4500 sqft house doesn't need to feel alienated hearing about how you and your family of 8 grew up in 600 sqft and loved it, he needs to see how 2000 sqft can be big enough for his family and save him time (cleaning) and money (bills).

I'm just glad to see people finally discussing the issue of just how much space one actually needs. Up here in Vancouver, things have gotten really out of control. Because the land is so expensive ($1.7 million for a 54 x 125 foot lot!), people feel they have to go to the maximum square footage allowed to get their money's worth. So the new owners/builder knock down a 50-year-old bungalow, 950 sq ft on the main floor plus the basement, and which probably housed quite comfortably a four-child family in the 1960s-70s. In its place is a 3,500–4,000 sq ft home, housing probably not more than two children and parents, and with tumbleweed most likely blowing down the vacuous hallways. I simply don't get it. I figure if someone is going to knock down a house, and put up a larger one, at least turn it into a duplex to positively address increased density. But no, people up here flip out when someone wants to challenge the status quo of continued, wasteful, sprawling neighborhoods which rely on a car to get anywhere.
There. I guess you know where I stand on the issue.

A modest home is 2500 sqft? We live in about 650sqft and we are loving our small apartment. Our next door neighbour who has the same size apartment has two little girls and they are doing just fine.
I don't think that to enjoy your home, even as a family, you need a lot of space. We need to be creative on how we furnish our homes and enjoy the closeness that it brings.

People are taught what is desirable. By their culture, by the times, and even by sites like this.

But does "desirable" equal "necessary"? No. It does not.

Desirable is a fictitious creation of whatever is going on at the moment, combined with the then current abilities. Look at ANYTHING from history to see this to be true.

Art, architecture, clothing, even how people look and what is desirable is created.

The abilities of the times past may limit the height of structures or the availability of technology or tools.

If there was no local Home Depot a thousand years ago, folks probably didn't do a lot of huge building.

They did build smart though:
"The Ancestral Puebloans inhabited Mesa Verde for more than 700 years (550 A.D. to 1300 A.D.), but for the first six centuries, they primarily lived on the mesa tops. It was not until the final 75 to 100 years that they constructed and lived in the cliff dwellings for which Mesa Verde is known."
Source: http://www.nps.gov/meve/

See also (images): http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Cliff_Dwelling.html

And (basic history):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Palace

People will generally fill up whatever space they have, and then squawk at the suggestion of getting rid of the stuff they have accumulated to fill said space.

I have one ass. It can sit in ONE chair at a time. How many chairs do I really need? NEED? It is very convenient to have a chair at the computer.

How many bedrooms? None. I have a bed, and there's just me, and I don't need a separate room. If there were two people, then a separate room might be nice, but also might not be NECESSARY.

I don't complain about the cost of television cable, because I have not watched TV in a couple years.

I don't complain about the cost of gas because I do not drive, the car broke down and I didn't fix it. I will probably donate it.

It's not that I want MORE space, it's that I want my OWN space. Own, as in owned, owner, purchase, buy. How can I do that if there are no small spaces to buy?

There are plenty of large spaces and huge spaces for those who want, need, desire, or buy into the cultural concept of "bigger is better."

Do not "super-size" all houses, just because some people want them. Give me, and other small cool lovers, the option to buy our own home on a speck of land or in a building.

I can't buy in this area. The prices make me weep, and these are old prices:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2006/09/broderick_place_83_sold.html
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2006/09/the_glassworks_207_king_street.html

I live in Spain where our 1000 square feet are considered a luxery and the average new home is less than 800.

After three years here I am appalled by the waste of resources Americans consider entitlement. If you can't live well in 1000 square feet, you won't be happy in 2500 either.

Hello! I think the US, like Australia has had the luxury of space for far too long. And change - downsizing - is rarely welcomed by some. We live in a [tiny by current standards] 119sqm = 1281sq ft 4 bedroom 2 bathroom house built in the 1970's. And it is awesome. We have included in that space a separate living (bedroom/lounge/bathroom/toilet) quarters and second kitchen. We have two sons 3 and 7 with their own rooms, and my husband and I both have our own studios. Prior to each having a studio we had a tenant in the granny flat with a partner too! There has actually been comment in the news that society and community breakdown starts by seemingly inconsequential things such as upsizing your home and having separate lounge rooms/bathrooms/toilets...- people no longer learn to respect that there are others who need the very space you are occupying, etc etc. Honestly! I love our space, I love that we have or own private rooms and yet commune together in the lounge and eat meals together.... I hope this tradition continues!

Wow, eowes, that is just the bleakest, saddest picture of Americans I've seen in a long time. 'Bob' needs to act like a rational adult and realize that while yes, 4,000 sq ft of space may be nice, it is a full on luxury and he COULD live in a MUCH smaller space with his family if he CHOSE to.

I think the thing often missing from these conversations is a very clear cut distinction between NEED and CHOICE/WANT. I fall into the trap all the time myself - when we're purging or getting ready to participate in my in-law's big yard sale every year I often find myself saying "Oh but I need that". I don't mean that I NEED it, I mean that I really love/want it and would rather not give it up.

I teach an ethics class where one of the chapters is about the environment and consumerism and the first thing I always try to do is get the class to acknowledge that what you NEED to live - to just stay alive - is very, very little. Food/water, shelter, climate appropriate clothing. With just those things you could stay alive. Every semester it's a battle of the wills with people INSISTING that they NEED cars, phones, etc. Even though I tell them that we're talking about pure survival, they often just don't get it. There's a huge, huge gap there. You truly NEED very little, the rest are just luxuries, and it's up to 'Bob' and the rest of the humans on the planet (not just in America) to know when they're cluttering their lives with so many luxuries that it's making it difficult for other people to survive around them.

I don't buy the fact that Bob needs to take baby steps, I'm sorry but I don't. Sorry this is so long, it just gets me worked up every semester. Didn't mean to pick on Bob so much either :)

I'm a daily reader living in Athens, Greece and have been visiting AT for six months.
I'm just thrilled about this community of people celebrating their homes as they are...individual. It's all about loving and working with what you've got.
One of the problems about non-sustainable buildings is not so much the size but how suitable they are for their environment. For example, there are an embarrassing high number of glass office blocks in Athens. They reflect the already harsh sun on everything around them and require huge amounts of power to keep cool in Greece's hot and sunny climate. Yet, "architects" still insist on building more.
Why do people build structures that make no sense? I found many answers in Andre de Botton's book "The Architecture of Happiness" very interesting and readable and definitely a book that AT readers would enjoy.
Keep up the good work!

First of all, what an interesting discussion that is going on. I live in one of the smallest countries in the world, so one thing is limited, space. That said there has also been a trend here (as in all rich countries) that more space is better. I grew up in an about 800sft apartment with an extra room of about 150sft in the basement. It was me, my parents and our cat and we did just fine. Now I am living in a slightly bigger place 1000sft with just my husband and 2 cats. I feel like we have a lot of space and I have to admit that space was one of the things I was looking for when choosing an apartment. On the other hand we live very central, I walk nearly everywhere or take the train and we don't have a car. And it would also be enough space for another family member, and I sure wouldn't need another 1500sft for one or two children.

There is this idea in the States that bigger is better, more is better. But more for someone, means less for someone else. People are selfish, and most who can afford more will ultimately buy more. Only when it becomes too expensive will they cut back. So I have to agree with some saying that the high price of oil is good for the environment because only this way will Bob and others finally start changing their habits of big houses, big cars and big burgers.

Wow... I was trying to wrap my head around what 2500 square feet was so I just calculated my own apartment. 700 square feet! And it feels very roomy compared with our last one....

My home of 1950 sq feet (500 in basement) is very large for me and my family of 5. We recently added a second bathroom as I have 3 girls 2 of which are teens. I believe it is a matter of how your space is laid out. My rooms happen to be large for a 1975 ranch. I believe that as long as I have 2 bathrooms that we could live in a smaller home as could most people. Don't they say that anything above 3000 sq feet becomes difficult to keep clean?

OK, quit with the touting of "look at Europe" - you know with a minimum of 19% tax on stuff it's no wonder people buy the smallest cars possible.

And with energy here in Germany at least 4x the price in the US (more if we opt for sustainable energy sources) you can darn well bet we fight for flats with a balcony so we can air dry the laundry.

Did anybody stop to think that recycling takes up less landfill space, and where land is $$$$$$ (plus tax) - in countries that are smaller than most US states of course they're going to tell you to sort your trash (and fine you big time if you fail).

I'm sure there's some good will in there too but, as usual, it's all about the money folks!

My husband, son, daughter and I sold our 1400 sf home and built a 2300 sf house (4 br, 3 ba) in the suburbs, in a quest for bigger/better. Then we finished the basement, which added another br, ba and den, taking us up to nearly 3000 sf. Guess where we spent practically all our time? The basement. In fact, aside from preparing meals and sleeping, we barely spent any time in the original house, and it didn't take long for us to realize we had way too much house for the way we live. So we sold the house and moved into a 1300 sf (3 br, 2 ba) apartment. Granted, it is too small for us, as my husband requires a fully-equipped office for his business and the kids are getting too old to share a bedroom. But we are also just a short walk from the supermarket, bank and pharmacy, and only a few blocks from the freeway I take to work each day.

We have learned through trial and error that bigger isn't necessarily better, and we can live comfortably in a small-ish space. In fact, if there was a way of adding just one more bedroom to our first house, the 1400 sf one, we'd go back to it in a heartbeat. But since that's not an option, we are looking for a cozy little home in our school district with a back yard for the kids and dog to play in, which one would think wouldn't be too hard to find. But no--we've been looking for almost 2 years, but hardly anything in our area fits our criteria, as it seems every available home is a freaking mini-mansion. And we can forget about buying a lot to build on, because our plans don't meet the minimum square footage requirements of any neighborhood HOAs. It sucks.

While I agree that 2500 sq ft isn't "modest" (certainly not by New York standards!), I understand what the letter-writer is saying. Magazines are either about small spaces or ultra-large McMansions. There's almost nothing between 1,000 sq feet and 10,000 sq ft in the average design magazine anymore.

We are in the same boat as Cassidy06- the minimum square footage for us to build is 2,500sf. We really don't want the extra space. It's been a tiring search.

I think eowes said it well...and the last couple of posters reiterated it.

We just bought a house, and it was a struggle to find something larger than 1500 sqft but smaller than 4000. But anything old is usually smaller (and I'll admit we wanted something just around 2500) and anything new is atrociously large.

It would be so great for our families, our communities, and our planet if we quit with the 4000 square foot insanity. It's the house version of the SUV, only...they're houses. They stand for 100 years, not 12.

We moved from an urban 1500 square foot house that was lovely, but we were cramped. Now we're in a suburban 2750 and it feels enormous. The perfect size for us is probably more like 2200. And we're often all in the same room anyway...

This isn't Europe...you can't wave a magic wand and expect Americans to aspire to a lower standard of living. You certainly can't scold them into it, that's not a particularly persuasive tactic. My guess is it's going to happen naturally and gradually and painfully...we are going to have to live through increasing energy costs and a lowering of the standards people expect.

I do not mind if someone wants to live in a 2,500 sq. ft. home or even larger. However, I think that the costs of such a lifestyle should be reflected in the home and it's maintainance: the costs of new highways and roads, new water and sewage lines, new schools, other utility services, etc. With the rising costs of electricity and gas, suburban living will become even more expensive, stressful (long & conjested commutes), and unsustainable. If someone wants to live in a 3,000 sq. ft. home out in the suburbs with expansive lawns and shopping plazas, go ahead -- simply pay for that priviledge, and don't complain about the costs of such a lifestyle.

The house I grew up in was modest. It was built in 1952, a CA ranch house, 3 bedrooms in 2500 square feet. My parents bought it for $36,000 in 1966. The bedrooms were not large, nor was the kitchen with it's dishwasher that had to be rolled up to the sink to attach the hose.

Our house was in a tree-lined, middle-class neighborhood. No one was rich, but we were happy.

Make sure you consider the letter writer's location in all of this. In San Francisco or New York, 2500 is a luxury not many can afford. In small town America, it might just be a modest sized, average home. I bet Leave it to Beaver's house and the Brady Bunch house were both about 2500 square feet...

Try try try as you might all you 1000sq ft and 2500 sq ft championing people, you have yet to out do the almighty Penelope:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/11931/saturday-night-live-penelope--traffic-school

The idea of European homes being a lot smaller than American ones on average is a bit overstated here. I live in a city in a relatively rural part of France, the sizes of apartments and houses from the center of town and the rural areas are not very different than what I've seen in much of the US. There are plenty of Paris suburbs filled with giant houses. When people are touristing they don't usually visit the suburbs, so maybe not everyone has a true view. In Europe, people often go as big as they can, just like in the states. Also, the reason Europeans hang clothes up instead of using dryers, the reason they have dual flush toilets, the reason they use small cars and scooters, is that water, electricity, and gas are much more expensive over there. Though there is a recent trend of environmentalism in europe just like in the states, the reason they consume less energy is because its more expensive. Even on the AT blogs, with pretty sustainable members, people only write about cutting back driving because of the price of gas, not because we can. In the end its all about economic incentive.

Yep, i scour everywhere for an older home .lLoking for one that needs the basment finished out and the garage turned into a studio. I don't want a HUGE house but the original bungalows aren't big enough when i want two kids and have a steady stream of out of town guests half the year and do large projects at home. I don't mind kids sharing rooms, but i need just a little more space, just a little, maybe build-out the attic too.

New house plans are completely unhelpful as you can't buy land in seattle, if someone knows otherwise please let me in on it!

Those minimum square footage requirements for building your own house are ridiculous and it makes me mad to learn about such things.

The fact of the matter though is for most Americans, 2500 sq ft is "modest," at least for a family of 4 or 5. I hope this perception of what is needed changes and I think with current economic situations it is starting to. I recently read an article on the trend of downsizing homes(http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/02/real_estate/Downsizing_American_Home_Tully.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060407). While these houses are still huge by AT standards at least it's a small step in the right direction. At the same time it is sad that it's basically comparing McMansions to miniMcMansions.

what a ridiculous article.

"how to justify screwing the planet"

There is a book by Winifred Gallagher called "House Thinking" that discusses this topic at length. In it she brings up an idea about how we should really rethink the way we use the space in our home. One example is someone who desires a large kitchen with all the latest and professional appliances but rarely cooks. No one can say that desiring this is a bad thing but it certainly is an inefficient use of space if you don't use it. I think we convince ourselves that we should have all this space in order to be in the same status class as our neighbors but we don't give much thought to how we actually live. If a family is continually utilizing 2500 sq ft of space then that is a optimal use of space. However, if the same family is only utilizing a fraction of it then it's clearly not.

I have loved reading these comments.

I've got to agree with the LilyC above me though. I grew up in three houses throughout my childhood. The first two were small (but not terribly uncomfortable) but it had always been my parents dream to build their own house. We lived in a small town in Northern California (not San Francisco north but closer to Oregon north) and houses around 2500 square feet were actually rather normal. I think the house my parents eventually built was 2000 square feet and it was comfortable and every room was used. My mother was incredibly aware of our energy usage and we were pretty sustainable people all around. Most every house in our town was either that size or bigger, the only exceptions really being the apartments in the middle of town.

I'm fine with small. In fact at the moment I'm living in an studio apartment that I'd guess is under 200 square feet and its completely doable. But that doesn't mean that I don't wish for a bigger place (and by bigger I just mean a 1 bdrm around 400-500 square feet). My dream house is a small bungalow but with the market this way I can't see that happening for a very very long time.

My parents are retiring soon and when they do they are planning on moving into a house thats much much smaller. I think 2000-2500 is a okay thing if you use all the space and are conscious about how you are using your resources. Someone mentioned before that the floor plan of the house has a lot to do with its usability and I agree with that. I also think that some people do own houses that are far to big for them and are wasted.

Eh, I'm rambling now. :)

I have loved reading these comments.

I've got to agree with the LilyC. I grew up in three houses throughout my childhood. The first two were small (but not terribly uncomfortable) but it had always been my parents dream to build their own house. We lived in a small town in Northern California (not San Francisco north but closer to Oregon north) and houses around 2500 square feet were actually rather normal. Its far cheaper to own a house that size than a house the same size say here in the bay area. I think the house my parents eventually built was 2000 square feet and it was comfortable and every room was used (we had a large kitchen because every member in my house loves to cook). My mother was incredibly aware of our energy usage and we were pretty sustainable people all around. Most every house in our town was either that size or bigger, the only exceptions really being the apartments in the middle of town.

I'm fine with small. In fact at the moment I'm living in an studio apartment that I'd guess is under 200 square feet and its completely doable. But that doesn't mean that I don't wish for a bigger place (and by bigger I just mean a 1 bdrm around 400-500 square feet). My dream house is a small bungalow but with the market this way I can't see that happening for a very very long time.

My parents are retiring soon and when they do they are planning on moving into a house thats much much smaller. I think 2000-2500 is a okay thing if you use all the space and are conscious about how you are using your resources. Someone mentioned before that the floor plan of the house has a lot to do with its usability and I agree with that. I also think that some people do own houses that are far to big for them and are wasted.

Eh, I'm rambling now. :)

I signed up just to respond to this post because it seems like most ppl here live in urban areas and don't consider the "other side of the coin"

I think the letter writer means that he wants to see more examples of living (relatively) smaller for people who never had to. So if a magazine is really celebrating downsizing and reducing environmental impact, it would recognize that for a family that is used to 4000sq ft, going to 2500 sq ft is a very significant change but a good one, if not just for smaller bills. People should be helping and showing people that 2500sq ft is enough space as 4000 sq ft and not telling them they are the root of america's problems which I don't think is nice or a convincing way to get people to change.

Also most of the Small Cool contestants are single or two-people homes and almost entirely in urban areas or at the very least, in really old buildings. Not something that I can show/impress my parents or their friends...maybe thats horrible but its the reality. Personally, I find the ideas great for urban living but doesn't apply if I buy a 5-10 year old house in my old hometown/suburb. The structures and space division is very different.

I also want to say I can see both sides. I grew up in a 3000ish sq ft house in the suburbs of Vancouver. Now I moved into a 351sq ft studio (for purely financial reasons, if I could afford bigger, I would but I'm satisfied with what I got) that would definitely qualify for the small cool contest. Let me just say my current home is just slightly bigger than my bedroom growing up.

And to snoozy: the reason developers in vancouver build a monster house on a property is because they cannot recoup the costs of paying 1million for a 900 sq foot house on a standard sized lot by renovating the little bungalow. A duplex would also decrease the amount they can sell for (since the property the prospective buyer will have is not a standard lot size but half the size). AND they would have to rezone the property which can be lengthy and expensive in a city like Vancouver due to neighbor opposition or the numerous other red tape scenarios.

Though I don't necessarily agree with the writer, he has a point. As is so abundantly demonstrated on this website, living comfortably in a small space requires a lot of well-considered and executed design, especially where storage is involved. One cannot simply move into a small space and expect to live there happily for a number of years without incorporating efficient storage systems and other innovations into the space. Otherwise, the space simply fills up with clutter, eventually resulting in the occupant seeking a bigger place.

As for European housing, it should be understood that living in a small space there is inheirently easier due to better housing design, availability of scaled down and multifunctional furniture, cabinetry, and appliances, and the wide availability of products and services nearby negating the need for storage of large quantities of food, or other items.

My fiancee and I live in a ~240sq.ft studio with two daschunds. I would love to have 10x the space, but it's not really "needed" to live comfortably.

"This isn't Europe...you can't wave a magic wand and expect Americans to aspire to a lower standard of living."

OK -- this isn't Europe. I agree. And I agree it's not like we should uphold Europe as the land where everything is utopian and nothing is less than desireable.

However, what I take exception to is the idea that asking Americans to be satisfied with a smaller house or apartment equates to expecting us to aspire to a lower standard of living. I think one of the problems we have is a completely out-of-touch notion of what a good standard of living is. SMALL does not equate with LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING.

Give me a small, well designed house any day over a bigger space.

We're like greedy children who want every toy in the toy store, throwing a fit because we want it all. The fact of it is -- a McMansion makes sense, IF you've got extended family living with you. For the small nuclear family, anything over 2,000 is a luxury of space. For the single person, it's an obscene amount of space.

The writer definitely needs a reality check. 2500 square feet is "modest"? You can't raise children in 1,000 or less square feet? Sheesh!

the original owners of our 1800SF 1963 eichler had 9 kids. that said, ditto to john h's points above.

A most nimblefox observes:
"One example is someone who desires a large kitchen with all the latest and professional appliances but rarely cooks. No one can say that desiring this is a bad thing but it certainly is an inefficient use of space if you don't use it. I think we convince ourselves that we should have all this space in order to be in the same status class as our neighbors but we don't give much thought to how we actually live."

The best advice I've heard and the best advice I can pass on is to furnish and live the way you live 95% of the time. And it has been exemplified in the Small, Cool contest many times over.

I remember so well, this one person having a certain set up, and someone else asking "but where do you dine?". A dining table and chairs were NOT important to that person. What WAS important was having a good, comfy set-up for watching movies and playing video games on the TV. FOR THAT PERSON.

Not for everyone.

Each person has to decide what they NEED and incorporate that into how they LIVE.

One problem has been that these houses are built in a generic form. For the "average" person, and yet there is no actual "average" person.

One person's tiny kitchen is too big, as they don't use it, they might eat out all the time. And another person's huge kitchen isn't big enough because both people in the household are world-class chefs who have dinner parties for 30 on a regular basis.

Some people just need a place to sleep, which consists of a bed. All their time is on the go. They travel. They work long hours. They don't want or need a yard. They don't entertain at home.

Meanwhile, across the street, in a home of the same size, there are people with extended families and comings and goings of relatives: aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents.

My apartment fridge, it's a smaller "full-size" one. I could get by just fine with an under counter fridge and a separate mini-under counter freezer. I don't always have things needing the freezer, but I pay for it all day and all night to stay frozen, even if there is nothing in there.

I want to be able to turn off the freezer when I don't use it. In fact, I could probably use it for canned goods if it was turned off. Or towels. Or dishes. hahaha.

But I am provided with a non-Energy Star compliant fridge that is too big for my needs.

======

Every single one of these homes is "livable" for singles or a couple:
http://www.kephartliving.com/Browse.aspx

Made even better by Universal Design. That means nice big doors, nice big bathrooms. And amazingly, they have washers and dryers. Some have garages.

Rather than the "freedom" of someone to choose a larger home being infringed upon, it is really the "freedom" of people who want a SMALL home that is overlooked.

Those homes are touted as "secondary units" probably to add on to the already giant monstrosities that exist. So if you want to live small and cool, you have to rent it in someone's backyard. Or over their garage.

Hence some of us may never be able to be homeowners. Because I cannot afford a large home, nor can I take care of it.

I think economically speaking "small" will catch on, because heating and running a home has become exponentially more expensive. Not to mention that people's homes are being foreclosed at an alarming rate. I think people will be forced to go smaller.

It is perfect for me, I will have the dining room and the living room outside with some modern patio furniture them I will be very happy

I agree with all of the people saying they grew up in a smaller home w/ 1 or 2 bathrooms, etc. We kids felt lucky to be in a house with 2 bathrooms, but it was a 60's 3 BR ranch, with open, small LR/DR, small kitchen (no room for table) and screened in porch. Unfinished basement. That's it. No "family room" or "den" or "playroom" and we managed, somehow... We get along great, still, and I think it's because we were always together - we had to work out everything since there was nowhere for escape.

Hi! I'am adding more! I lived alone, and then with my husband and 12 month old son in my first place - 49sqm = 528 sq ft. And we did it well! And I am a clutterbug. I completely understand the request to showcase "normal" sized family homes and how to incoporate better living practices...... maybe there is a site out there precisely for that? People, we have a right to demand what we want when we are forking out 30 years of repayment, and yes there is often a financial factor involved when building your home or buying an older home where value for money is often reflected in size but has anyone ever thought about why they need more? We calculated and priced up an extension to our current home = AUD $50,000. Not bad in this climate. And then it hit us, we were willing to pay a small fortune simply to house our extra "stuff" .... extra lounge, foldout bed, second tv.... toy room area........... get my drift? Instead, I got to work and pared right back..... I love that these sites allow a person to look at the other side of the coin. It costs nothing to aspire, to imagine and to dream. Keep up the work AT - love your site.

Adding this WAY down at the bottom where no one will ever see it. I just came across this very small home (although it's been around awhile):
http://www.frontarchitects.pl/PROJEKTY/HOUSES/shauz/single_hauz_eng1.htm

No, it's not for a family, obviously. They point out that it's for singles. And I think of it as being ideal for younger folks especially. Or for people that have to travel all the time, but do want a home base.

There'd be just enough room for basics: A small kitchen, a small bathroom, a bed and a wee bit of furniture.

But wait, there's more...you've seen solar farms, right? Here's a couple of images of various kinds:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/solar-farm-in-california
http://www.ontariosolarfarms.com/solar-farm.html
http://www.ontariosolarfarms.com/

So, the idea could be that the face of the house is oriented south, with the panels angled, to act as an awning in summer for the expanse of glass in the house.

In winter, lower sun, passive solar heating for the house, with active solar on the outside.

But that itty bitty home isn't going to USE all that energy, especially if there are MANY of them, so that the homes can generate income for the people inside.

And there's even more, order by midnight tonight, and realize that all the ground space, other than the pillar is still available.

You don't have to garden on the roof if the ground is available. Of course, the kind of sun things will get will depend on how closely the singles homes are built. And where, as to what might be able to be grown.

Look, it's a small organic farm:
http://www.classiccountrylife.com/Food/Organic-Farms/52-Falls-Brook-Organic-Farm/View-details.html

And here, this fellow has a farm stand and also lets people pick their own:
http://tonopahrob.com/

And he's only open one day a week. Well, for the public at the stand, I'm sure he's very busy doing whatever has to be done the rest of the time. But plants are funny, if they have good soil and water, and there are not too many pests, they will take care of themselves.

So, now what do we have? Homes that may be affordable for singles that will generate their own power and help power up outside the area, with a full garden that can be bought by the residents and excess sold to the public.

Some people will not be interested in gardening, so it would be best to parcel out the land to people who CAN garden it and who may well end up living in one of those small homes. They would be paid, of course.

I'm not seeing motor vehicles or car garages. I do see in my mind's eye bike lockers and electric car chargers at the stairway. Those would be accessed via miniature roads. Those will be necessary anyway to run pipes and power lines and whatever else.

This means your car is charged by the solar attached to your home.

And instead of a lawn that is maintained by a landscaping company, you have food growing, maintained by the gardening group. Just like with common areas in condos, there is a charge for association dues, so that is what would cover the cost of the gardener(s). But the food would be free for the residents.

And just like condos, you pay for the maintenance whether or not you are there to enjoy the food. So if you travel a lot, you're still paying what everyone else is paying. OK, I haven't figured that part all out. It's just an idea.