Is 1500 square feet too small for family of four? (Atlanta: homes, buy)

[cqholt]

It all depends on preference. I someday plan on raising 2 kids in a <1400 sqft house. I was raised with my sister in a 900 sqft, so being close is nothing new, plus kids should play outside; in the yard or at a park.

[Clayton white guy]

There were many families of five or more that lived in small but sturdily built Sargent ranches from the Truman era in the Forest Park area when I was in high school. Most of these homes also had one bathroom. I had many friends that were wowed by our slightly larger split-level in Morrow; it was 1900 square feet. We did have two bathrooms though, which I felt equaled zero with two, older teen-age sisters LOL!

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by equinox63

Is 1500 square feet too small for a family of four in Atlanta? Could any Intown residents reveal the pros and cons?

. Of course, you can do it--how hard or easy it is depends on your preferences/adaptability, and the house. Also, there are a lot of homes Intown that are very 'choppy'--a lot of their space is less usable than you would hope. So, even the usability of square-footage varies a lot.

Pros--a smaller house can be less expensive at every level--initial cost, taxes, upkeep. Your kids get used to living in a way that is more in line with how the rest of the world lives.

Cons-explaining to your friends and relatives how "you paid that much...for THAT!"

[GeorgiaLakeSearch]

It is livable, but it could get tight especially if you entertain regularly. The biggest negative about the 3/2 is no guest bed/bath. If it has a basement with a reasonable ceiling height your opportunities really open up.

[ATLTJL]

Nobody ever wished for LESS square footage.

So my take is this....if you can't afford more square footage, then definitely, you make do with what you have. If you can easily afford 2500 square feet and are trying to save money, want to be a half mile closer to something, or some other rather silly reason, you'll definitely live to regret making that tradeoff.

At least that's what I think. But it's all based on your point of comparison. Ask a Haitian earthquake survivor, and they would say you can easily fit 10 people in 1500 square feet, and it's like a palace because it has indoor plumbing and air conditioning.

But this is the United States, and it's the 21st century. Kids have lots of toys. People entertain guests. Families visit. Adolescents take 45 minute showers. Some kids need more alone time than others. If I was stuck in that close proximity to my family the entire time I was growing up, I would have been an anxious nervous wreck.

Yes, people do downsize. Yes, there's even that weird tiny house movement. But if we're talking 21st century United States, the median of our society would say that 1500 square feet is probably tighter than you wanna be for a family of four.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Nobody ever wished for LESS square footage.

So my take is this....if you can't afford more square footage, then definitely, you make do with what you have. If you can easily afford 2500 square feet and are trying to save money, want to be a half mile closer to something, or some other rather silly reason, you'll definitely live to regret making that tradeoff.

At least that's what I think. But it's all based on your point of comparison. Ask a Haitian earthquake survivor, and they would say you can easily fit 10 people in 1500 square feet, and it's like a palace because it has indoor plumbing and air conditioning.

But this is the United States, and it's the 21st century. Kids have lots of toys. People entertain guests. Families visit. Adolescents take 45 minute showers. Some kids need more alone time than others. If I was stuck in that close proximity to my family the entire time I was growing up, I would have been an anxious nervous wreck.

Yes, people do downsize. Yes, there's even that weird tiny house movement. But if we're talking 21st century United States, the median of our society would say that 1500 square feet is probably tighter than you wanna be for a family of four.

They don't need all those toys and having a smaller house can keep down on the clutter and accumulation of crap. We have more public storage sites in America than McDonalds, that is how much crap Americans think they need. I try and live by a saying, 'live simple, so others can simply live.' The more house a family has, the more stuff they feel like they have to buy to fill those rooms up.

[ATLTJL]

Yeah, let's see how much that tune changes after you actually HAVE kids.

[Dkeating]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Nobody ever wished for LESS square footage.

So my take is this....if you can't afford more square footage, then definitely, you make do with what you have. If you can easily afford 2500 square feet and are trying to save money, want to be a half mile closer to something, or some other rather silly reason, you'll definitely live to regret making that tradeoff.

At least that's what I think. But it's all based on your point of comparison. Ask a Haitian earthquake survivor, and they would say you can easily fit 10 people in 1500 square feet, and it's like a palace because it has indoor plumbing and air conditioning.

But this is the United States, and it's the 21st century. Kids have lots of toys. People entertain guests. Families visit. Adolescents take 45 minute showers. Some kids need more alone time than others. If I was stuck in that close proximity to my family the entire time I was growing up, I would have been an anxious nervous wreck.

Yes, people do downsize. Yes, there's even that weird tiny house movement. But if we're talking 21st century United States, the median of our society would say that 1500 square feet is probably tighter than you wanna be for a family of four.

My house is about 1,600 sq feet and I would gladly give up 500 sq feet for a better location. "[W]anting to be a half mile closer to something" is not a silly reason--it could change your life for the better in a major way.

I think in the ATL metro it's probably more common for people to regret having a huge house in the middle of nowhere than to regret having too small a house in a neighborhood with a lot of things to walk to and near your work and transit.

In this area there always is a place where you can afford a 2,500+ house, but a lot of those places are less desirable for other reasons. I think location matters a lot more than space.

I don't think following what the majority of 21st century Americans are doing is necessarily a good idea. I have to ask if there's anything that's so fundamentally different about our life that it requires almost twice as much space for fewer people in the last 30-40 years.

[red92s]

By the time I've got the BOB stroller and carseat inside, I've lost 1% of those 1,500 square feet. Kids have stuff, and that stuff is just physically bigger today than it was 20 or 40 years ago, even if you are making conscious efforts to not fill the place with brightly colored plastic injection molded plastic toys. Smaller, older homes typically lack closet space which is why I think they begin to feel cramped quickly. When there is "something" everywhere you look that can't be put away it can get overwhelming. 1,500 square feet with smaller living areas but with a pantry and decent closet space in every bedroom, hallway, and bath is one thing . . .1,500 square feet with bigger rooms but little concealed storage is another.

[jsvh]

No.

My mom grew up as that amount of space in a family of 9.