Family size & house square footage - interesting convo. today

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I was in a conversation today and was told the following:

 

A family should have at least 1000 square feet of communal space - the kitchen, dining room and one living room - and then 300-500 square feet per family member, this would include additional communal space and private bedrooms. Bathrooms weren't included in the total.

 

Her example was: a family of four should live in a home with a minimum of 2200 square feet, ideally 3000sf.

 

I won't list her reasons because I think they are a tad crazy but I would like to know what everyone else thinks. Is this what 'people' or the hypothetical 'they' believe?

 

I know my family doesn't come anywhere close to her ideal and I am thinking that most families probably do not.

 

What do you think?

[idnib]

Aside from issues of what people can afford, i think a lot of it has to do with layout. I grew up in 2000 sf and it didn't feel that big because it was compartmentalized. I later lived in 1100 sf and it felt spacious because the bedrooms were large and because I had roomates I spent most of my time in my room. I lived in a 3000 sf house but it was an older Victorian-era and it also had lots of small rooms and could feel close in. We're now in 1000 sf and it feels spacious, probably because of the large kitchen.

 

Aside from layout, I think the biggest factor is how much stuff you have. I think I would go crazy living in 1000 sf if we had a lot of stuff piled everywhere or all the surfaces were covered, with crammed closets. I could do 700-800 sf if we were more spartan.

[Freckles]

I think it's a bit unrealistic. We have lived in homes/apts ranging from 900 sq/ft to our current home of 3300 sq/ft. We have been happy in every living situation. My grandparents raised 4 boys in 900 sq/ft. They were one of the happiest families I know.

[Guest inoubliable]

I was in a family of five (mom, dad, myself, and two siblings) - always in 3000+ sq. ft. homes. I'm in a family of five now (DH, myself, three kiddos) in a 900 sq. ft. home. We're minimalist, so we're not drowning in stuff and we're not right on top of each other all the time. Small living room, small dining room, small kitchen, three bedrooms, 1.5 baths, two small hall closets. That's it. There is a basement, but we don't use it ever. I don't miss having a a bigger home. This is the smallest I've ever been in, but I love it. In the past, DH and I have been in bigger homes, but I don't see us moving back in that direction if/when the time comes to buy again.

[Veritaserum]

I've heard of the 300-500 square feet per person thing before, but that was for total living space rather than in addition to common spaces. The square footage varies by region. People in more densely populated areas tend to be more comfortable with or used to less square footage per person.

 

So, four people should feel comfortable in a home between 1,200 - 2,000 square feet. My family of 8 lived in 2,000 square feet 250 sq.ft. per person). Our bedrooms were tiny, but the common spaces were roomy so it was comfortable.

[staceyobu]

Ridiculous. Only in America (and maybe a few other wealthy, land abundant countries) would this conversation even take place. You do not need a McMansion to raise kids.

[violamama]

By her standard, most of the world is living in cramped quarters. I've lived in Japan and NYC and those kinds of square footages barely exist there.

 

That said, we are a family of 4 (hopefully soon 5) and live in a 1600 sf townhouse. It feels like it's 3 sizes too small lately. I've been thinking 3000 sf or even a bit bigger would be ideal.

 

Also, I think the size of the yard makes a difference, too. If our home was 1600 sf but we had acreage to ramble around on, it would be a different story.

 

Were you by any chance conversating with a realtor?

[Veritaserum]

Google found me this:

 

Square Feet Per Person

(various examples, not all US average)

 

2007 = 970 (2,521sqft/2.6 people)

1954 = 125 (1,000sqft/8 people, Levittown ad)

1950 = 289 (983sqft/3.4 people)

1947 = 208 (750sqft/3.6 people)

1845 = 150 (150sqft/1 person, Thoreau)

 

http://inexpensivehomebuilding.blogspot.com/2009/05/house-square-feet-per-person.html

[mamakim]

Bwaahhh haa haa . . . we're fewer people since eldest moved out. Good thing, now we'll just need to find a house with 3700 to 5500 square feet :rofl: :smilielol5: . oh my. gasp. OK, back to being fine in our 1799 square feet and good thing, too, since the budget is never goin' there!

[SKL]

Hmm, I honestly don't know how many sq ft our house is, but we definitely don't need that much space. Are they counting the basement and attic?

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

Wow, I wish we could afford that! We're in CA in 990 sq ft for the same price as my inlaw's 1600 sq ft house in ID. Hopefully we'll be moving soon, but even in ID we're not going to ever be able to afford more than that. (We're a family of 4 , maybe 5 someday.) I do agree with the people who said that layout of the house makes a big difference.

 

[8circles]

Well, I, for one, like those numbers if we're talking personal preference. It six of us in 2500 sq ft plus basement & I feel cramped. I do think that most of the world lives in cramped quarters. I don't think its necessary by any means, but I love space.

[Catwoman]

Ridiculous. Only in America (and maybe a few other wealthy, land abundant countries) would this conversation even take place. You do not need a McMansion to raise kids.

 

But there's nothing wrong with having one.

 

Some people like big houses. There's no shame in that.

 

Other people like smaller homes. There's no shame in that, either.

[Audrey]

I was in a conversation today and was told the following:

 

A family should have at least 1000 square feet of communal space - the kitchen, dining room and one living room - and then 300-500 square feet per family member, this would include additional communal space and private bedrooms. Bathrooms weren't included in the total.

 

Her example was: a family of four should live in a home with a minimum of 2200 square feet, ideally 3000sf.

 

I won't list her reasons because I think they are a tad crazy but I would like to know what everyone else thinks. Is this what 'people' or the hypothetical 'they' believe?

 

I know my family doesn't come anywhere close to her ideal and I am thinking that most families probably do not.

 

What do you think?

 

 

I know people who think that. They want big houses and they feel they have to justify a big house. Really, they don't have to justify it. If you want a really big house and you can pay for a really big house, then have a really big house. But, don't tell others they have to have one so that you can feel less misplaced guilt just because you have one.

[swellmomma]

My whole home is just under 1000 sq ft for a family of 5 (and basement is not suitable for anything other than storage it is more like a cellar than a basement), and it is only that big due to the additions that were put on this house over the years. When this house was built it was considerably smaller, I would hazard that the grandtotal of sq ft was close to half of what it is now. I would love a bit more space or at least a decent basement but I don't think my family would need 2500-3500 sq ft. But jumping up to 1500sq ft sure would give us some breathing room

[mazakaal]

I grew up in a family of 4 in a house that was around 1200-1500 sq ft. It was more than adequate for our family. With my family of 6, we've lived in 750 sq ft which was way too small, and we're now in about 1700 sq ft which is adequate. I'd love a similar sized house (maybe up to 2000 sq ft) with a better layout. According to that article, my family needs 2800-3500 sq ft. I can't even imagine having that much space, or cleaning that much space. No thank you.

[SKL]

I remember some years ago when they used to say that every child should have his own room. I think that theory is no longer popular, though.

[Hen]

we would be cramped by those standards, we have 6 in our family and are in 2200 sq. feet and that does include the bathrooms. Our house before this was 980 sq. feet.

 

I think our house is just about perfect for us, I like that we are in each-other's business and we have to be together. Our house has the main rooms open to each other. I think having a too big house might separate us into doing things more alone.

[Laura Corin]

I posted this article on another thread. Whatever the US version of this, the UK one will be (at least for new homes) about one third the size. The UK is about the size of Oregon (or so Google tells me) and has over 60 million people. There are strict planning laws to prevent urban sprawl, but they do make living space tight.

 

Laura

[CyndiLJ]

Interesting, and a little surprising. I grew up in a family of 4 in a home that was 1300 sq. ft. It felt fine. Today, I live in a home that is 2100 sq. ft for 7 of us, and I can't imagine needing any more space at all. We do have kids bunking together. 3 boys in one room (A large master) and two girls in a standard bedroom, all kids are in loft beds to have floor space. In fact, our home is larger than we first intended (and before we had any kids at all), as we added a second master for my mom to come live with us, who then later decided not to move to cold Colorado from sunny California. At the time, though we were not angry and understood, it was two of us in this big house and could never have imagined filling it up! Haha! We even thought about selling and downsizing, but we bought at the right time and financially it didn't make sense. So glad we didn't, as we ended up needing all that extra space!

 

Cindy

[CyndiLJ]

Interesting, and a little surprising. I grew up in a family of 4 in a home that was 1300 sq. ft. It felt fine. Today, I live in a home that is 2100 sq. ft for 7 of us, and I can't imagine needing any more space at all. We do have kids bunking together. 3 boys in one room (A large master) and two girls in a standard bedroom, all kids are in loft beds to have floor space. In fact, our home is larger than we first intended (and before we had any kids at all), as we added a second master for my mom to come live with us, who then later decided not to move to cold Colorado from sunny California. At the time, though we were not angry and understood, it was two of us in this big house and could never have imagined filling it up! Haha! We even thought about selling and downsizing, but we bought at the right time and financially it didn't make sense. So glad we didn't, as we ended up needing all that extra space!

 

Cindy

[Reya]

The average house a GI came home to was smaller than her "communal space" requirement. And I haven't seen many apartments that are anywhere NEAR so large! "Should" is a silly word. "I'd like" is better.

[mohop]

I generally tune out anyone who starts talking like this about what everyone "should do" or "should have."

[Renee in NC]

We are 9 people (when oldest is home) in 1500 square feet. It is cramped! I would be very happy with 2000-2400 square feet as long as we had a 4th bedroom and a linen closet.

[Lisbeth]

I agree with it, but we are a family of introverts who value getting away from each other some of the time.

[Tess in the Burbs]

All depends on the layout. We were in 2800 last year with lots of rooms. It was spacious. More than enough private space. But heck, you couldn't see but the next room over, so it felt like you were alone most of the time if no one was in the room with you.

 

Now we are in 1974 and it's completely open. I panicked about moving to so much less space but we love the space and it works much better for our family. But it's literally one open space of living space and a small area above the garage but we filled that with desks, futon and books. LOL

 

I grew up with 2000 supposedly but comparing to us now and other homes we have been in, it felt bigger. It had open space and other small rooms and 4 bedrooms. It was just a great layout for only 2000....

 

The only thing we don't have a lot of is closets right now and if I had only one linen closet it would help so much.

 

But I know people around the world live in much smaller spaces with larger families and do just fine. I think it's what you are used to. Americans have this idea we all need our own space. And kids need their own rooms. But it's what we are used to and it's the norm for us. Not that we NEED it.

[Carrie12345]

Lol. I WANT a big house, but we don't have one. We're managing to survive in our 1100 TOTAL sf with 7 people. (And 2 dogs and 2 cats.)

[JenC3]

I grew up in a tiny house, no privacy. We lived as a family of 5 in 1800 sq ft, now our house is 2700 sq ft. But we live in an old house, 1955, the upstairs beds are small. Our kitchen is huge, which is awesome, but the living room is average smallish. I like that the kids all have their own rooms.

[AMJ]

I was in a conversation today and was told the following:

 

A family should have at least 1000 square feet of communal space - the kitchen, dining room and one living room - and then 300-500 square feet per family member, this would include additional communal space and private bedrooms. Bathrooms weren't included in the total.

 

Her example was: a family of four should live in a home with a minimum of 2200 square feet, ideally 3000sf.

 

I won't list her reasons because I think they are a tad crazy but I would like to know what everyone else thinks. Is this what 'people' or the hypothetical 'they' believe?

 

I know my family doesn't come anywhere close to her ideal and I am thinking that most families probably do not.

 

What do you think?

 

 

I'd say that person has:

had a pampered and/or cluttered life

hasn't had to clean such a residence herself

hasn't looked at WHY people might live in the spaces they do, only sees things from her own limited perspective.

 

The majority of my life I shared a room with my sister. For two years that room was barely big enough for one bed and a dresser, yet we fit in bunk beds, 2 dressers, and some book shelves (and walked sideways between the bed and the other furniture). Later, when the new farm house was finally finished I had my own room that was twice as big, and I felt trapped. I felt I had to spend time in it to show appreciation for it, since my folks worked so hard on it (and to be available whenever my Mom wanted me to do something), when what I wanted most was to wander the fields with our dog.

 

Clutter expands to overfill the spaces we have, unless we are good at banishing clutter. When it builds most people tend to think "I need more space" -- if they go and get more space they then feel "I need/can have more stuff". Our family of 4 lives in a 2-story house of 2800 sq. ft. with a 3-car garage, shed, and no basement. More space has NOT done us any favors -- now we have even more junk to get rid of. Since we had more space it was easier to ignore the accumulation and spend our precious time on more important or more urgent matters. And the more stuff you have the longer it takes to do even basic house cleaning.

 

My biggest architectural gripe -- the oh-too-prevalent trend to eliminate utility spaces in order to maximize "living" space. It's the utility spaces that keep the living spaces livable. Our vacuum cleaner moves from room to room because we have no place to store it. There are woefully few (and undersized) non-bedroom closets in this house, and badly planned.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Ridiculous!

 

Obviously, I recently posted about wanting more room (for my family of 11). Really, one more bedroom (or an oversized one) and a small living area (or two) would be enough. THat would be what? 600 sq ft? That would put us at 2600 sq ft. I have my realtor.com account set for 2750+. 3200 sq ft seems perfect. My two fave houses in this search so far (the last month) have been 3349 and 4042. The first one won't work (though it would be my first choice) because they won't let my dog come. The second already rented. I found another. It is 4131, but the location is decent and that counts most. Layout matters the most. The best part about the new big one is that the parking is awesome (btw, so was it at my first choice, but the other big one had AWFUL parking for our circumstances).

 

Oh goodness. I am falling in love with this house now that I'm looking on my computer rather than my phone. But it isn't because of the extra square footage. The right house at 2800 sq ft would make me plenty happy...well, and really, I'm plenty happy HERE which is less than 200 sq ft per person (with no extra 1000sq ft tacked on too).

[edelweiss]

Well, I think that is absolutely ridiculous!! We live in a very large house. There are only 4 of us. We have a lot of square footage per person. Do I think it is necessary? Absolutely not. We could be perfectly happy and comfortable in a much, much smaller house. However, we love our house and can easily afford it, so I make no apologies for our situation.

[elfgivas]

i found this

Average House Size By Country

1. Australia - 214.6 sq m (2310 sq ft), 2.56 people per household (pph)
   
2. USA - 201.5 (2170), 2.6 pph
   
3. New Zealand - 196.2 (2112), 2.6 pph
   
4. Canada - 181 (1950), 2.5 pph
   
5. Japan - 132 (1420), this year the pph in Tokyo dropped below 2 for the first time (1.99)
   
6. UK - 76 (818), 2.1 pph
   

here

http://notbuyinganything.blogspot.com/2012/03/average-house-size-by-country.html

 

and this

here

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=171558&channelID=311

[Wheres Toto]

Well, we are 4, sometimes 5 in 750 square feet (includes the bathroom). It's cramped. There's no privacy, no quiet, no space, no storage, no basement or attic, inadequate closets, only a detached garage (with chipmunks, mice and tons of spiders). We could double our space and still be considered small by most standards. I'm working on decluttering as much as possible and organizing what's left but with two little kids and a teenager, it's not that easy. Our layout sucks too since we had to build a (n extremely small) bedroom out of the corner of the living room, which was the one room that felt spacious before.

[happypamama]

That means my family of six would be expected to have roughly 3000 square feet at a minimum. Ugh. We have about 2300 square feet, and it's plenty big. (It's also got an odd layout, and a lot of strangely wasted space that's really not usable for anything.) I have also read that 2000 square feet is about the amount that one person can maintain, and that's true -- it's hard for me to keep my house tidy by myself -- so I definitely would not want another thousand feet.

[bettyandbob]

More than a decade ago I ran into my former math teacher at church. I asked her if she still lived in XX (townhomes across the street from the high school). She said "No, we found that a townhouse was much too small for two retired people." So, as empty nesters they moved to a McMansion so they could be far apart from one another doing their own thing.

[KungFuPanda]

'Need' is a strong word. Our home is just under 2000 sq ft (I think . . . and they don't count the unfinished basement). It really is more space than we 'need.' There are 4 of us and 3 bathrooms . . .2 would be adequate. We don't 'need' an eating space in the DR and kitchen because we can only eat in one place at a time. We have a LR and a FR. The FR is empty and we use it as a dojo/dance room. This is clearly a luxury and could be trimmed without causing hardship. We could comfortably get by using less space (and resources) but we don't really have the motivation to move.

[jenangelcat]

We're 5 living in 1000 sq ft. There's another 1000 upstairs but it's not currently livable up there. When we eventually do and have all that space it'll be too much.

[gingersmom]

I think people today have this amazing sense of entitlement. Thus why we have/had thousands (million?) people in homes they could not afford.

 

Somehow my father managed to survive in a two bedroom apartment (tiny) with 5 people.

 

I know a ton of people raising their children in tiny New York city apartments.

 

I think your friend should come to my neck of the woods and see how much her desired house costs.

[Heatherwith4]

Well, I'd say that person has more money than me (which is fine!) :) We have a family of 5 in 1700 with a 3 car garage. We are good. We would be fine as a family of 6.

[VeritasMama]

We have 8 ppl in 2300 sq. ft. I agree that the size of the bedrooms and the layout make a huge difference, we used to live in a house that was 1300 sq. feet back when we had 6 ppl in our family, and it didn't feel cramped at all thanks to a nice basement for the kids to play in.

[regentrude]

A family should have at least 1000 square feet of communal space - the kitchen, dining room and one living room - and then 300-500 square feet per family member, this would include additional communal space and private bedrooms. Bathrooms weren't included in the total.

Her example was: a family of four should live in a home with a minimum of 2200 square feet, ideally 3000sf.

 

 

SHOULD??? Most families in the world can only dream of having 1000sq ft total to live on.

Sure, space is nice, but it is a luxury. We are very very blessed to be able to live on 2000sq ft as a family of four, but we don't NEED to - back home we had a roomy apartment of 750 sq ft, which is still much more than in most parts of the world.

[Ottakee]

Layout really does matter in how big a house feels and its functionality.

 

Right now our house is almost bigger than we need but when the highway bought out our last place and forced us to move this was the cheapest place on at least 5 acres in our area.....and the nicest.

 

We have 2 bedrooms and a loft room with full bath upstairs.

The main floor has a laundry room, 1/2 bath, open kitchen/dining/hearth room, small living room (about 12x12) and our master bedroom and bath.

The daylight basement has a tiny office for dh, mechanicals, 2 bedrooms a large full bath (with hookups for a 2nd laundry) and a family room.

 

For just dh and I with the 3 kids it is a bit much but we have at least 1-2 extras here almost every weekend, ds's bio brother stays with us quite a bit, and we do foster care. With the extras our layout is great as the girls go up and the boys go down and dh and I have the main floor.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Google found me this:

 

Square Feet Per Person

(various examples, not all US average)

 

2007 = 970 (2,521sqft/2.6 people)

1954 = 125 (1,000sqft/8 people, Levittown ad)

1950 = 289 (983sqft/3.4 people)

1947 = 208 (750sqft/3.6 people)

1845 = 150 (150sqft/1 person, Thoreau)

 

http://inexpensiveho...per-person.html

 

 

Thanks for the link. Lots of interesting info available on that site.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Hmm, I honestly don't know how many sq ft our house is, but we definitely don't need that much space. Are they counting the basement and attic?

 

She didn't really say anything about an attic so I guess not. We did discuss finished basements. Evidently an unfinished basement is undesirable.

 

 

To answer a previous question from a pp- no, the lady I was conversing with is not a realtor; she's more of a social worker wannabe. The discussion started when she asked me when we were moving to a larger home due to dgd and dd living with us. Evidently 5 people in a 3 bedroom home goes against some DCFS (or a similar government agency) regulation.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I agree with it, but we are a family of introverts who value getting away from each other some of the time.

 

 

This would be an interesting topic to investigate. Is there a difference in house size/sft per person in relation to personality (I vs E)??

[Granny_Weatherwax]

 

I'd say that person has:

had a pampered and/or cluttered life - I would say she has had a privileged upbringing

hasn't had to clean such a residence herself - she has a twice monthly cleaning service

hasn't looked at WHY people might live in the spaces they do, only sees things from her own limited perspective. I don't rightly know about this. She certainly seems to have an opinion on the subject.

 

 

Please don't think I am saying anything is wrong with this woman. She is very nice and i believe her heart is in the right place. I am not questioning her motives or her character. I simply think that her main premise does not apply to most people.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Well, I'd say that person has more money than me (which is fine!) :) We have a family of 5 in 1700 with a 3 car garage. We are good. We would be fine as a family of 6.

 

Now I have garage envy.

[Denisemomof4]

I have read none of the replies but am on board with you. Her idea is crazy, and not a tad IMO. :)

[bettyandbob]

I think the person has mistaken "need" and "want".

[Ottakee]

 

. The discussion started when she asked me when we were moving to a larger home due to dgd and dd living with us. Evidently 5 people in a 3 bedroom home goes against some DCFS (or a similar government agency) regulation.

 

There are DCFS regulations for some of this stuff but it applies to FOSTER and sometimes ADOPTIVE families, not a requirement for private families. The rules are there for a reason----esp. when you consider that many foster kids have been abused, neglected, highly sexualized, etc. Sometimes the foster child needs their own room for their own protection and that of the other kids.

 

In a regular family, a 3 bedroom home would be fine. I am assuming that you and dh share a room, your son has a room and dd shares a room with her baby. Totally fine.