What would you consider a "smaller" home?

[alexsmommy]

Just curious. I had an interesting conversation and realized just how differently people define this. I do realize that it will be influenced by where you live, but I would like some ballpark square footage.

[Neatfreak]

Under 1000 sq feet is what I would call smaller ...

[infomama]

I would say under 1200 sq ft or so...

[egoldber]

I think under 1000 SF is a small home.

I'd call 1000-1500 SF a small"er" home.

I grew up in a small home. ;)

[vludmilla]

I think under 1000 SF is a small home.

I'd call 1000-1500 SF a small"er" home.

I grew up in a small home. ;)

I think this is a good definition and I agree with it.

[salsah]

I think under 1000 SF is a small home.

I'd call 1000-1500 SF a small"er" home.

I grew up in a small home. ;)

i agree with this.

[SnuggleBuggles]

I think under 1000 SF is a small home.

I'd call 1000-1500 SF a small"er" home.

I grew up in a small home. ;)

I'll go with that too.

I really think layout is king in this issue though. We live in 2 different 2 bed/ 2 bath apartments, each 1200 sq. ft and there was a huge difference in how they felt for us.

Beth

[salsah]

I'll go with that too.

I really think layout is king in this issue though. We live in 2 different 2 bed/ 2 bath apartments, each 1200 sq. ft and there was a huge difference in how they felt for us.

Beth

absolutely! where we live now has a lot of unused sq. footage because of the layout. it is a small house but feels smaller because of the wasted space.

[wellyes]

There is a magazine - the name is something like "Small Cottages" - for homes less than 2000 sq. ft. To me 2000 sq ft is a mansion! But of course it's regional. I'm in Boston, I know a woman in Texas with a 4000 sq ft home and she does not consider it enormous.

But still to me
Less than 1200 - smaller
More than 1800 - huge

[maestramommy]

12-1500. That would be less one bdrm, 1 bath, and no separate family room.

[Davids-Coco]

In this area of Oregon, we live in a small home - 1700 sq foot 3 bedroom. Small seems to apply more based on rooms than actual sq feet... so anything under 4 beds is small.

[neeleymartin]

in our area, cape cod, we live in an average sized home, 1200. its a 3bdrm ranch, we just added a 400sqft addition, so i guess we are living it up, lol.

in our area, small home is definetely under 1000, possibly under 800. there are many people that live in larger homes on the water (lucky!!!) but most live in ranches, many with 2 bdrms and 1 bth.

[lizajane]

in my circle of friends, i live in a smaller home. but to ME, i live in a big house. we have 2400 sq feet, including our basement that is open to the back (has sliding glass door and windows). we have 2 bed on the top, 1 bath, then 1 bed in the middle with eat in kitchen, dining room, living room and 1 bath, and the basement has 1 bed and 1 bath and a playroom/den.

i honestly don't need any more room and am not sure what i would do with MORE room. i would love to have 3 bedrooms on the same floor because of our sharing room/sleep issues. but that seems to be a lot better, as of the last week. and i wish i did not have to share a small bathroom with both my kids. but really, i don't need anything else.

in my area, a large home would be 5000 sq feet. a larger home would be 3500 sq feet. a smaller home would be 2000 sq feet. and a small home would be 1000 sq ft.

[WatchingThemGrow]

I like Beth's definition. I think it is also important to consider the inhabitants, though. When my (1250 sq. ft) house was inhabited by 3 grad school students, it felt big compared to an apt. When it was just DH and me, it felt big. We added a laundry/mudroom to max out at 1400, and it feels okay with 4 of us. Building the 2nd crib in DS' room tonight and making the train table our coffee table makes it feel smaller. 5 people in 1400 is going to be tighter than most anyone I know IRL could ever imagine.

Maybe counting sq. footage per person is a good way to judge "smallness."

[LexyLou]

I agree, but I would say anything under 2000 sq feet is "smaller" for a family of 4 or more. We currently live in a house that is about 1900 sq feet and I feel like we are busting out. Next house has to be > 2000 sq feet.

[MelissaTC]

I live in one of the smaller homes in my neighborhood and my house is a smidge over 2000 sq ft. 3 of the 5 houses on my cul-de-sac are over 3,000 sq ft. In comparison, my BFF lives in a house that is 1500 sq ft and everyone else can't believe how small it is. It is the mindset of the area.

[ahrimie]

You know, I thought of it differently when I first read your question then realized by the replies, people are answering what's considered "smaller" in their area. When you asked, what's "smaller," I was just thinking of any house smaller than mine would be smaller to me... well, of course, right?? :P

For me, something in the 1000s in a small home, something from 1800-2500 a smaller... but most people I know in my area live in the 3000 something sq ft. I would actually like to find a smaller house next and would love something aroud 25-2800 sq ft (currently live in 3500 not including basement).

[HIU8]

Our house is 2300 sq feet and I consider it smallish. However, the layout is very open so it feels large downstairs, but the upstairs is very confining and the basement is not finished--it is storage and not really useable for for a play area or anything. I grew up in a house that was over 3200 sq feet so that is why my house feels small to me. My first apartment was 981 sq feet, but felt bigger b/c of the layout and balcony.

[KpbS]

Smaller in my area would mean under 2000 ft. I don't mind smaller homes as long as the room proportions make sense. Our living room now and master br are ridiculously large in my opinion. I don't need or want all of the space in those rooms and find it makes furniture arrangement difficult. But I am not one to just fill a room with a ton of furniture or decorative stuff.

[Tondi G]

We currently live in a 1200 sq ft apartment. This is a LARGE 2 bedroom apartment as far as we are concerned. We are just hoping to buy something this size or larger for our first home. I consider 800 - 1200 sq ft to be a smaller home. How we would love to own a 1400 sq ft, 3 bedroom home with a yard of our own!!!!

[kijip]

We have 1450 sf but that number includes the garage. Our living spaces are are bit over 1000. It does not feel small to us at all. We looked at places under 1000. We have lived in places as small as 400sf (yes, with a kid, albeit a baby)

Anything over 2000 seems big to me when I am in it. Unless I needed a lot of bedrooms for a lot of kids or something, I can't see us going much over 2000 ever. I personally don't want for a separate family room or playroom and we have no hobbies we can't fit in our living space so that cuts down on the sf we can use.

I like the fact it takes no time to clean. We have been doing the bare minimum for weeks now with the newborn and I think a combination of good layout, lots of storage and a lack of space to clutter is the only thing holding it together. If it was a big space, I think it would be dirty right now. Really dirty. And then I would go insane. So that is why I don't see myself ever getting a big house, LOL.

[m448]

Our home is 1350 sq ft (not including the garage) and we feel fine. We have 3 bedrooms/2baths and a pretty large yard (a little more than half an acre). I call it cozy. I've never been one for clutter or knick nacks and every piece of furniture we own has to be functional, safe, attractive and pretty much be versatile enough to be repurposed around the house. My sunroom is my sewing room (it's a small largely windowed area), my hubby's home office is one of the bedrooms and the boys have the other bedroom as theirs.

About six years ago I read a book called "Organizing From The Inside Out" by Julie Morgenstern and that really changed how I looked at the layout of my spaces and the use of storage. I have a pretty teeny kitchen but about 2 years ago reorganized it so that I can crank out what most would need a large kitchen to do.

[Melaine]

Anything under 2000 would be considered smallish in my area of the country. I consider our home fairly small and it is 1500ish (IIRC). In my mind, though, it is all about the layout and extras. Like, the square footage I am ok with in our home, but I just wish we had some more closet/cabinet space. I LOVE the layout of my house and I think it feels bigger than it is, technically. If we had bigger closets, a garage, and a fenced in yard, I would be happy here for a looooong time. As it is, I feel like we need some improvements or will eventually need to move.

[Happy 2B mommy]

I agree that anything 1000 sq or less is small. I think much depends on if you count unfinished areas/garages as square footage. Around here most homes do have a full basement, but realtors don't count that as sq ft unless it's finished and has egress windows. So my house is about 1400 sq ft ranch, with a full, mostly unfinished basement (no windows) and a 2 car attached garage - average to smaller in this area. I think it's plenty spacious for 2 adults and 2-3 kids - although I would love an additional bedroom or a family room/sunroom on the main floor. DH's counsins live in Chicago area and their homes have the same sq ft, but no basements, so storage space is tight and their homes feel very small.

[Pennylane]

I would say small in my area would be 2000 sq feet or less. My home is 3700 square feet (including a half finished attic) and it is pretty much the norm around here.

Ann

[Globetrotter]

Depends where you live and how many people are living in the house!

In the Bay Area, I would say that anything below 1500 is small for a family of four. 1500-2000 is smaller. Anything above that is considered big, and huge is over 3000.

[newmomm]

around here, anything less than 2,000 is on the smaller side. Our house has about 2,500 usable space and is more than enough for us, but definately on the small side compared to most friends. I don't think there has been new construction here with less than 4,000-5,000 square feet in years...now, with the economy, that may be changing.

[JamiMac]

From what I'm used to anything under 2000 square feet is small. A big house would be 4000 plus. We have 3600 and fill it up quite well. Our family of 5 could easily live in a smaller home by cutting down on a few rooms, but this is comfortable for us. Part of the difference though is dh works from home about half the week and needs a separate room for an office. The girls could share a room if need be, but it's awfully nice for them to have their own, IMO. DS really doesn't need his yet, but he will. I would not want anything bigger than what we have. I wouldn't want to clean it! :)

[Dcclerk]

Around here, I think of anything above 3000 sq. ft. as a big house. We are right now living in less than 900 sq. ft. and a family of 5 (soon to be 6), and it is definitely small by almost anyone's frame of reference (well, maybe not NYC or some European big cities)...

Still, I have to say that it is quite a bit better than most people would think. I really think that it is all about how you use the space. The tight quarters are definitely teaching us how to be efficient. This is a rental and so often we make do, but if it were my own home, I would build it out with a ton of built-ins and we would be quite comfortable. I think that if you have good storage and well-edited stuff, you can do quite well in small spaces. I love how quick it is to get everything put away and spruced up. I also appreciate always knowing where my kiddos are. You can't hide very well in a 2 bd/1 ba space. ;) It also teaches you how to be creative-- we have made the back patio into an outdoor playroom, and we have created very specific storage for all the toys we kept so the kids have become much better about putting things away inside. I hope to use some of the tricks I learn here once we have our bigger space.

[trales]

We have 1400sq feet of usable space, plus a damp basement. I would consider it average. Some days it feels small, but there are parts we barely use. I would consider putting on a living room, ours currently only can fit a small couch and maybe a garage. It is an old house so the layout is small closed off rooms. There is room for more people and it has a nice yard.

[pastrygirl]

Less than 2000 sq ft is smaller around here. Over 3000 sq ft is bigger. Mid 2000's is about average.

[fivi2]

We are a family of 4 in about 1000 sqft. 2 beds, 1 bath, no garage, no basement, teeny tiny attic access, 2 small closets... I feel like it is pretty small! In my neighborhood, that is about average (older homes) but many are now adding on.

In the suburbs, where a lot of our friends live, they consider 2000 square feet small. So I guess it depends on what you are used to.

[Asianmommy]

I would say 1200 sq ft.

[alexsmommy]

So interesting. Someone commented how "small" our home was for five people. I would guess it's about 1650 - but I do not honestly recall. It does not feel small to me - ok, maybe, now, in March, in the midwest cold it has shrunk - but it is just fine when the kids can go outside to play. We are working on creating a playroom in our basement and I think that once we get the toys out of the living room it will feel fine. I think that layout counts for tons, and we have an old house, so not the greatest layout, but on the other hand, those "choppy" rooms DH did not like at first, allows everyone to have a fair degree of privacy if they so choose, so it helps. We almost bought a larger home and other than my kitchen size, I am so glad we did not. Just more to clean, fix, pay taxes on etc. I feel like if I had more room, I'd have more junk.
Since the hope is to remain in this home while the kids are school age, I am slowly working with the tiny closet spaces to make the most of it.
Thanks all.

[AnnieW625]

I have a 1122 sq foot home that only has 3 beds, 1 bath, and no separate family room. I would consider this small. We will be adding a fourth resident to our home when #2 arrives in the summer. Both children will have their own bedroom, which is a big thing for DH. #2 will be sharing a room with the computer and I don't know how well that will work, but we'll give it a try. The ideal home size for us would probably be between 1800 and 2300 square feet so we could have bigger bedrooms (ours aren't much bigger than 9x9; so 11x11 or 12x12 would be wonderful) plus a den, and or playroom, a second bathroom, and a seperate dining room or maybe a seperate living room would be great. I grew up in home that was 1400 sq. feet and there were five of us. Most of the homes in my general area in Long Beach are all early 1940s to early to mid 50s post war homes and are between 800 and 1600 sq. feet. The larger homes have a smaller backyard unless they are second story addition, the biggest one of those in my general area is probably 2800 sq. feet.

[nicanddrew]

I like Beth's definition. I think it is also important to consider the inhabitants, though. When my (1250 sq. ft) house was inhabited by 3 grad school students, it felt big compared to an apt. When it was just DH and me, it felt big. We added a laundry/mudroom to max out at 1400, and it feels okay with 4 of us. Building the 2nd crib in DS' room tonight and making the train table our coffee table makes it feel smaller. 5 people in 1400 is going to be tighter than most anyone I know IRL could ever imagine.

Maybe counting sq. footage per person is a good way to judge "smallness."

:yeahthat:

Totally agree. When DH and I first were married we had 800SF, then moved to 950. So when we bought this 1200SF house on an acre, it seemed enormous. Of course, now that we are expecting DC3, I feel totally claustrophoic!