the 3 picture limit just seems cruel. Small spaces are so hard to photograph :(

That photo of Rob's place is just delicious. I LOVE the way those paintings look with that whole desk/chair/lamp situation.

What a soothing palette. Quite nice. I don't remember this one so thanks for showing it again

I see Rob in a gray flannel suit with narrow lapels and a skinny tie, sitting at that desk smoking a cigarette.

Yeah, more pics! The way I have my 185 square foot apartment set up, it would be impossible to get it all in three shots. Does the three pictures allowed include a floorplan? Or can it be three pics plus optional floorplan? I'd love to see floorplans for other tiny spaces!

Is that bamboo flooring?

(as someone who will not be contributing but instead just enjoying immensely, I ask: ) why only three pictures? I can't really see any downside to allowing more.

I think it's a good idea to wait until they are all in. I feel like the people who enter early get forgotten as the contest comes to an end.

The photos are the fun part. Why don't you limit the TEXT to 3 paragraphs and let people submit 10 photos?

Tony G.

I think the scope of small/cool should also be defined with reference to inhabitants. After all, 1000 sf is plenty for one person, and 1200 sf is small for a family of 4.

1200sf small for a family of 4? Only in certain parts of the western world, I say.

In my opinion, 1200 sf in an apartment building with no outdoor space or meaningful common areas is small for four people. In my limited experience in four geographic areas, all within the US, I don't recall finding housing designed for more than two people that was smaller than 1100 sf.

I'm not sure what the limits of the "western world" are, but in certain parts (e.g., turkey), the area bordering a house is treated as an "outdoor living room" and is often furnished. In parts of Africa, private living areas, like huts, are arranged around a central area where common activities take place, like eating, cleaning, sitting, studying, cooking. Thus, in such places the "house" might be small, but the living space is not limited to the house. Such living spaces can be rather expansive - far more expansive than what an apartment dweller in NYC might access.

I'm sure there are statistics on this - I wonder where they might be found.

Original A, did you never encounter middle-class or working-class neighborhoods with housing from 1910 to about 1973? During that entire period, 700 to 800 square feet was considered highly acceptable for a family of four, in a single-family home.

Where we lived when I was five-ish, the entire neighborhood was 700-800 sq ft houses, built in the 1950s. Where my parents bought thereafter, the very biggest house in the tract was 1400-ish, and that was aimed at the large local Mormon and Catholic populations, with four bedrooms to accommodate lots and lots of kids. (And a family room! A very important early 1970s innovation!)

I've lived in a lot of two-bedroom dwellings that were under 1,000 sq ft, and you have to figure they were originally intended for a couple with one kid. I'm still startled that in Phoenix, it is normal to have 1100 sq ft in a two-bedroom -- 1100 sq ft! and a patio! If we were young and just starting out (i.e., fewer books, no big hobbies), this would be generous space to include a kid.