This is something I’m curious about that is tied to housing shortages… As in, say a hypothetical government want to encourage real-estate develpers to build more housing to solve housing shortages. But said government still wants to make most of its citizens happy, instead of just cramming everyone in the smallest accommodations possible
As extreme examples:
- A shoebox studio (<= 10 m^2) is probably too small for almost any family
- On the contrary… a massive estate (>= 10,000 m^2) is probably too big for almost any family. At that point, upkeep of the house may need several full-time housekeepers, so you literally won’t have time to do it yourself
I’d imagine there might be some cultural differences regarding this as well…?
When we had 6 kids living with us, 2500 sq feet felt luxurious. Two kids in each bedroom upstairs, and we had a bedroom downstairs, there were 6 bathrooms in that house (5 full one just a toilet and sink) and it did feel big.
When we had 4 kids in a 1300 sq foot house, it was plenty enough room but there was only one bathroom and that made it more difficult.
We had 2 in a 1300 with 2 bathrooms AND a garage for storage and workout room, that worked fine, but the bedrooms were big and living room tiny, that is not ideal, it needed to be arranged differently.
Now we have 2 kids in an 1800 sq feet house and I would say this is ideal, it’s arranged so the kids have their own living room/gaming room outside of their small bedrooms, and we have a bedroom on the other side of the house where the kitchen and main living room are. Also a great big back deck that can be accessed from our bedroom and that main living room, which adds enough capacity we can have big parties. 2.5 bathrooms, 3.5 would be better. When these last 2 kids move out it will STILL be ideal, an office, a guest room or workout room, a den, we could even move the TV out of the living room then if we wanted.
So I think how it’s arranged makes a difference but family of 4 in 1800sq ft feels like we have a big house to me.