Housing Size Options

[2527]

We talk a lot on here about sensibly sized houses.  My perception is mainstream construction is not creating any houses smaller than 2000 square feet.  The only option for anything smaller than that is something 40-70 years old.  What is the situation where you live?

[Unionville]

Wow 2,000 feet sounds huge (we are 950 for 2 people). Do you have a large family?  Usually more sq ft just means you end up filling it up with unnecessary stuff.

[Evie]

Where I live most new development (and there isn't much of it) is town houses and condos, so I see 700 sq feet to 1600 sq feet new construction but not in houses.  One new development even has condos up to 2400 sq feet.  I think the mix of sizes is really important for condos and townhomes, but only one development seems to think such units should go above 1500 sq feet.   I agree anything smaller than 2000 square feet generally means older homes.

I was seriously considering a 650 sq foot 1.5 bedroom 1 bath house built in 1920, but I just couldn't pull the trigger. I like the idea of a smaller place and think we could make 800 sq feet work, but 650 was a little too small even for me.  Part of me still thinks about it, though!  The house has not sold.  The 650 sq feet was very well laid out, and I wonder if it wouldn't actually be better than a not so well laid out 800 feet, especially since we could build some built in cabinets and storage.

[MrFancypants]

We encountered that problem where we moved.  Our old townhome was 1250 sq ft and outside of a lack of storage space and lack of a dedicated dining area it served our needs. 

There's an ongoing housing boom in the new area and the average house size is in excess of 2000 sq ft.  Our aim was to find something around 1800, but ended up with about a 2200 sq ft house.  Oddly, the smaller houses in the area tended to either be of noticeably sub-par quality given the local builder of houses of that size tends to go with all of the cheapest possible materials.

We look forward to downsizing at some point in our lives, but right now we're very happy with what we have.

[Emilyngh]

I don't know if there are new construction smaller homes where we live because I haven't looked (but I guess they are all probably 2000 sq ft+).   Our current home was built in 1905, but since renovated, and is 2100 sq ft.

When we bought it we had 2 stepkids at home and were thinking of having another 2.   The stepkids have since grown up, we had one daughter, and have decide that's it as far as kids.   So, I would like to downsize in the next 5 years or so.

I'd love to get a home that's closer to 1000 sq ft if we can find a super efficient layout, but may have to wind up going up to more like 1500 sq ft.   I'd like to get an older house anyway (and renovate it to exactly what we want), so I am not worried about finding one that's smaller.

[Carrie]

This is just one reason I'd like to move out of our suburban town.  The city has an ordinance that all new construction has to be a minimum of 2400 square feet.  Apparently our house and some in our neighborhood were built pre-ordinance because we're at 2250 sf. (which is plenty big, almost too big, for our family of 5). 

I have an interest in designing/building small affordable houses -- in the range of 650 sf - 1500 sf, but my DH says there isn't enough demand to make a go at it.  I keep thinking the movement will be picking up steam, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.  We're in the land of mcmansions --- a "starter" home is at least 1800-2000 sf and the "we've finally made it" home is 4000sf+++.  I'm really pretty sick of being amongst all the consumption.

[MrFancypants]

This is just one reason I'd like to move out of our suburban town.  The city has an ordinance that all new construction has to be a minimum of 2400 square feet.   

Holy hell...  that's ridiculous.

On one hand, a decent builder can put together a fairly energy efficient house that, even at over 2000 sq ft, won't hurt much in terms of energy bills.  But on the other.....  that's still a LOT of house to maintain, furnish, and clean over the years.  We're in the process of simply repainting the interior of our house and given the amount of time it's taking I can't imagine taking on a larger home, especially if it needed more than just paint.

[jjquantz]

Although I sympathize with the argument for smaller houses, there are instances (besides large families) where a somewhat larger house makes sense.  For instance, the DW and I share a love for 18th century music and musical instruments.  We bought our first harpsichord just after I graduated from college (at a garage sale). At that time we already had her upright piano.  Since then we have replaced both of those instruments with better ones and have added a clavichord, a fortepiano, a reed organ, several flutes, recorders and other miscellaneous instruments.  These items take up a lot of space.  They aren't just to have around either.  I play several of them every day and often have people over for jam sessions. As much as the DW shares this interest, she MUST HAVE a place to get away from it when I am practicing.  Our current house, although larger than the mustachian ideal, provides spaces that are sufficiently isolated acoustically that we can both engage in our favorite activities at the same time.  Unfortunately, in 35 years of looking for homes, we have not seen a floorplan under 1800 sq ft or so that would provide this separation.  I could certainly DESIGN a small house with a devoted music room, but I don't think I'm headed that way.

Again, I am not arguing against the general principle, I'm simply pointing out that there are exceptions.

[seattlecyclone]

Seattle (and probably other cities as well) is a bit different than the suburban areas many of you are talking about. At least within the city, there are a lot of older small houses. I personally live in a 900 square foot (plus unfinished basement) two-bedroom house, and it's a great size for me and my wife. We don't have any minimum building size established by law, other than some very minimal regulations saying each housing unit must have at least one room of at least 120 square feet, and each bedroom must be at least 70 square feet.

In general, the land in this city is expensive and very little of it is unoccupied. So when new housing does get built, it's almost always a new house (or set of townhomes) replacing an old house. It makes little financial sense to tear down an old house to build a new one of the same size, especially with most of the cost being in the land anyway, so new construction usually comes very close to the maximum size allowed for that zone. There are quite a few small new construction townhomes and condos available, but if you want a small detached single-family home, you probably have to buy an older one.

[Cassie]

In Nevada there are some new housing developments with homes between 1250 sq ft-2200. However, many start at 1800 & go up to 4,000.  We live in an older home that we totally remodeled and is 1400 which is perfect for 2 people.  I have lived in as small as 869 when it was just me.  Once hubby moved in with his junk it was too small. 

[backyardfeast]

This is a question that drives us crazy too.  We would love a 1200-1500 sq ft house on a few acres of land.  But in this area, there are old tiny homes right in town (800-1000 sqft) on equally tiny lots, "family" homes at 2000 sq ft + (4 bdrms--there are only 2 of us and we sleep together! :) ) on lots of various sizes, or McMansions (2700-4000+) on larger properties.  Sigh.

We lucked out with this house at 1800 sqft on a half-acre, but after 5 years, the house feels to big and the lot feels too small... we're hoping that an opportunity to build will come up in the next few years, but we'll see.

One interesting twist, though, has been how we use our extra space now: food storage, workshop storage, etc.  When you have a bigger property, much like the music example above, you do need storage space.  The question is whether this needs to be in the house or not--a double garage and a detached workshop would make us comfortable in a lot smaller living space.

[Jamesqf]

From what I see around me, smaller houses are generally modular, manufactured units rather than stick-built.  And curiously, the people I know who've built them have done so on lots of at least several acres, while thr 5000 sq ft McMansions tend to be built 10 or more to the acre.

Where I live is fairly rural, without much zoning.  Many of the houses are 60s-era, but within a mile or so there are some recent McMansion-types, a few literal mansions on estates, and some small houses from the '50s and earlier, so the modular ones fit right in with the eclectic mix.

[jba302]

This is a question that drives us crazy too.  We would love a 1200-1500 sq ft house on a few acres of land.  But in this area, there are old tiny homes right in town (800-1000 sqft) on equally tiny lots, "family" homes at 2000 sq ft + (4 bdrms--there are only 2 of us and we sleep together! :) ) on lots of various sizes, or McMansions (2700-4000+) on larger properties.  Sigh.

We lucked out with this house at 1800 sqft on a half-acre, but after 5 years, the house feels to big and the lot feels too small... we're hoping that an opportunity to build will come up in the next few years, but we'll see.

We just bought a house on exactly this thought process and same exact numbers. The only appropriately sized houses we could find on enough land were a 40+ mile commute. You aren't in the twin cities by chance?

[BPA]

My neighbourhood is mixed.  McMansions near the edge of the escarpment and little shitboxes like mine further back.

Evie:  My house is 1200 sq ft but has 4 bedrooms and 1.5 baths and very cozy but not crowded living space. At first I didn't want a galley kitchen, but I love that I can't see kitchen mess from the eating area/dining room.   Layout makes all the difference.  I say, go for it!!! 

[horsepoor]

Layout that matches your lifestyle makes all the difference.  We have an embarrassingly large house for just two people (nearly 3,000 sf with the finished walk-out basement). About a third of the house just doesn't get used much.  We bought it because we liked the location and the rock-bottom foreclosure pricing. Our rental, which we used to live in, is right around 1,500 sf, and I think if I could have torn out walls and totally reconfigured the space, it would have been more than adequate (we moved to cut our commutes down from 20 miles to <4 miles).  There was a lack of closet space, cramped kitchen, bathrooms and laundry area, but two dining and living areas.

My first house when I was single, was 860 square feet, which again, could have been fine with a little reconfiguring.  The master was an ample size, and the second bedroom made a great office, but would not have been such a great bathroom, since one had to go through it to get to the bathroom.  Plus it had no laundry room or dishwasher, since it was a post WWII bungalow.  It was cozy, easy to clean and cheap to heat & cool.  If it had had a garage or any other type of outbuilding, the 860sf would have been just fine for a couple.

[backyardfeast]

This is a question that drives us crazy too.  We would love a 1200-1500 sq ft house on a few acres of land.  But in this area, there are old tiny homes right in town (800-1000 sqft) on equally tiny lots, "family" homes at 2000 sq ft + (4 bdrms--there are only 2 of us and we sleep together! :) ) on lots of various sizes, or McMansions (2700-4000+) on larger properties.  Sigh.

We lucked out with this house at 1800 sqft on a half-acre, but after 5 years, the house feels to big and the lot feels too small... we're hoping that an opportunity to build will come up in the next few years, but we'll see.

We just bought a house on exactly this thought process and same exact numbers. The only appropriately sized houses we could find on enough land were a 40+ mile commute. You aren't in the twin cities by chance?

Nope, West coast of Canada. ;)  Not surprised this is a trend elsewhere too, though!

[stevesteve]

Plenty of East Coast cities like mine have infill houses at around 1,000sqft.  Condos you can get even smaller.  Granted, in my area these are being built on small lots.  When your zoning is about 2 FAR it doesn't take much lot to get you well over 1,000sqft.

[Thegoblinchief]

There's plenty of new construction in my area less than 2,000 sqft but I don't think I've done any houses below 1,500. Once you get to ~1,000, the market price for the completed house is lower than the actual sqft cost to build it.

Almost all the houses in my neighborhood, for instance, would cost 30-50% more to build than their actual market price. That's the main reason why you don't see small houses being built, unless they're being built DIY or are special cases like that absurd house in NY that was linked a few days ago.

[kolorado]

I think the size of the builds now has a lot to do with how much profit the builders can get per square foot of living space. It's my understanding that the builders actually don't make a lot of money per lot so they make up for it through increased square footage.
In my neighborhood of 1990's homes, the average is 2200 square feet. We have just under 1500 since we have not finished the 400sq ft basement. The neighborhoods that abut ours are 2600-4000 square foot homes, built in the 2000's.
 When we were shopping for a home here in 2012, we were desperately trying to find a rural home with a large lot/garage/unfinished basement around 1200 square feet. Having left an 800 square foot bungalow in NJ with no basement/garage we liked the idea of less space to upkeep. As another poster said, older homes on the east coast are about 1000sq ft average. Even my uncle's 1990's new build was only 1200 before he finished the basement. Anyway, the homes we found here in the west in our size range were built in the 60's but on postage stamp sized lots with a big city built around them. Even manufactured homes out in the rural areas are 1400sq ft and up. So went bigger with finished square feet to have the other things on our list. 1500 sq ft is much to big for our family of five, and we're here all the time as a homeschooling family. I liked it better when our house was small and we spent a ton of time outside to stretch out.
 Custom builders will be happy to build a new small home for you but without the bulk pricing of the neighborhood lot, medium grade standard building materials and group, you will pay much, much more per square foot. This is a driving force why many people go larger than they intend, because the cost of custom seems less appealing than the space and amenities you get for less with big new homes.

[MrsPete]

I live in 2400 square feet, and we have two rooms I don't set foot in for weeks at a time.  However, my square footage isn't in the right places!  I have those two extra rooms, huge bathrooms . . . but a cramped pantry and too-small laundry room.  And although my bedroom could be cut down by 1/3 without being too small, I wish my closets were twice as big! 

We're planning to build a house in the fairly near future, and we are going to put the square footage where it'll actually WORK.  We're going to build a small kitchen (easier to keep clean, and we can afford nice finishes for a small kitchen), and it'll work because we're going to have a HUGE pantry.  Storing things in a pantry is considerably cheaper than putting them into expensive cabinetry -- easier to find them too.  And we want various other things that aren't typical. 

I regularly read a home building board, and essentially no one is building anything less than 3000 sf, and MANY are building 5000+.  Essentially everyone on that board is building multiple living rooms plus a playroom for the kids, walk-ins for every bedroom, and more toilets than people.  I want to ask these people what they do for a living and how much of that house they're going to finance -- but that isn't the climate on that board, and I do value the information on making good choices in layout and materials. 

[CarDude]

It really depends on where you are. Near northern Illinois, for example, there are plenty of new (i.e., post-2000) houses well under 2000 feet; you just need to look on the lower end of the price scale to find them (and filter out the old ones in your search). This has also been the case in many parts of Kentucky, from what I've seen.

[lauren_knows]

We're in a ~1500sq/ft townhouse (2 adults, 1 toddler, planning for 1 more kid) and it's plenty of space.  We do want to look for a single-family home in the same area when we have our 2nd kid, mostly because we want a yard... but we run into a similar problem.  I've found very little evidence of homes that are less than 2000sqft in my area, and when they are less than 2000sqft, they cost just as much as the bigger home (or more!) with similar finishes. 

If we could uproot our townhome and plop it on an empty lot, I'd be pleased.  Maybe the market will change by the time we're ready...

[oldladystache]

My neighborhood was built in 1955. Nice 1100-1200 foot 2 bedroom & den, (2 regular bedrooms and a walk-thru room) and 1 bath tract houses on decent sized lots.

My house is one of the very few that is still the way it was built. In the 1990s and 2000s there was a wave of McMansion building. I think they are mostly 4 bedroom/2 bath now.

I expect when I eventually sell my house the buyer will McMansionize it. That's OK with me but I hope they leave the fruit trees I've cherished since I planted them 11 years ago. I think they are far enough back on the lot that they should be safe.

[rocksinmyhead]

I came across these recently and thought it sounded kinda cool:

http://www.capitalhomes.com/Find_Your_Home/Tulsa/Kendall-Whittier

it's an area we would consider buying in if we decide we are going to be in Tulsa long enough to make buying worth it :) the only part that made me laugh was that for the Oakmont (which is what I would want, call me paranoid but at least in that part of town I don't want my kids' bedrooms at ground level in the front of the house), the only "option" you have is to lengthen the garage. umm, instead of clown-car-sizing the garage can I extend the front porch so it's actually functional?!

[Emilyngh]

We talk a lot on here about sensibly sized houses.  My perception is mainstream construction is not creating any houses smaller than 2000 square feet.  The only option for anything smaller than that is something 40-70 years old.  What is the situation where you live?

I don't know if they are builder any smaller houses, but there's always the possibly of renovated 100+ yr old homes where I live (which is what we have and what I prefer anyway).

[Zikoris]

I don't know about house sizes, but apartments in Vancouver are trending smaller and smaller - there are some micro suites downtown that go as small as 150 square feet. We're in a 600 square foot apartment and looking forward to downsizing to something smaller in a few weeks.

[Bateaux]

We currently have 2500 square feet and I want to reduce that to 1000 when I retire to Florida.   It is all about less work and more play.  I want a bomb proof easy to maintain place and not the maintenance nightmare we have now.

[gooki]

The minimum new build here is 1800 sq foot.

Our place is 1200 - 3 bedroom, 1960s build.

[nvmama]

We live in a 1050 sq foot house, 3 bedroom, 1 bath, with a small unfinished basement, with a decent sized yard.  Our house was built in 1960 and is very dated, but it fits our needs well.  Its my husband, me, and two kids.  The only thing I wish we had was another bathroom, at least a half bath, because without fail the time I go to use it, my kids also have to go. 

[agent_clone]

So far as I know there is no minimum build size in the region I'm in.  Certainly a few years ago the houses being build were all quite large.  However I think there is a lot more variety in size being built now.  The house sizes seem to have reduced a little bit from a few years ago (then again I could be wrong).  This is probably more to do with the reduction in block sizes though.

As a personal preference I would like a 2 80m2 (860ft2) - 100m2 (1075ft2) or 3 bedroom  100m2 (1075ft2) - 130m2 (1400ft2) separate title house or townhouse (There are a lot more 3 bedroom separate title places around here).  As other posters have indicated the layout is important, I have found that 0.5 - 1m length/width in a room can make a significant difference to the feel of the size of a room, while not making a big difference to the overall house size.  Unfortunately a lot of places in the size and price range I'm looking at in my opinion don't have the room sizes correct (e.g. I would prefer bedrooms to be at least 3m x 3m, whereas they often are 2.7/2.8m x 3, I would prefer the lounge to be a minimum of 4m x 4m, whereas they are often 3 or 3.5m by another number (note if it is the lounge/dining combination then add at least another couple of meters on there so you can actually have a dining table).

Edit: Oh I should also add, that rather than house minimum sizes for blocks greater than some size (i think 400m2) you can't have a house on more than 60% of the block.

[ketchup]

Layout that matches your lifestyle makes all the difference.

  This.   We currently live in 1560sqft with four adults.  Until February, we were in a place that was 1800sqft, which had more "space" but this house is far better laid-out, and we actually make use of pretty much all the space.  The other house had rooms that were big to be big, and led to a lot of either empty space or clutter.  Quality of space over quantity of space, etc.

Both houses discussed were built in last 15-20 years.  Western Chicago suburbs.