What is the ideal square footage for a home? (Austin: renting, big house)

[houstonfan]

'Ideal' all depends on the family and what they like to do. Do you want a theatre room, do you need a grand piano, do you need a gym or craft room? Aside from special needs, I do agree a lot of texas homes waste space or have bad floorplans. I like 2500-3000 for family of 4-6, easier to maintain and cozy closeknit feeling. I don't like bdrms less than 11x11 though, and I like decent closet space in each room. I grew up in a 1500sqft home and felt that was comfortable, however, even as a kid, I wish I had bigger closets for all my stuff.

[jerbear30]

I think it's less about needs than about desires. My family and I can find what we want for ourselves now in a 1500 square foot condo. We would like a yard, however, and a few more windows. When we move again, we won't go smaller unless the location is perfect. We might go up to 1750 but not much beyond that. Big homes cost more money, they have a lot of empty space and unless they are in River Oaks, they are usually kind of boxy-looking. I'd love the commute from Pearland to my job, the Glenda Dawson school zone is great for education but I can't find a single house in that area that doesn't make me think of the intro to Weeds.

[MNCold]

Originally Posted by trekbiker

Personally, I like 1600-2500 for a family of 4. I grew up in a 1600 sq ft home, and currently own a 2300 sq ft. Can't imagine living in anything bigger than that.

-----------

I used to live in a 1100 sqt family. Never thought of anything. The house is always filled with love and laugher and that's all I care. We (4 people) now have 2000+ sqt and I some times felt lost in it .

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by curbur

26 here; I guess I'm in the minority when I say I'd prefer a larger house, but then again I'd rather have a small house in Montrose than a large house in Sugarland.

But, would you rather have a 1300 sq ft house in Montrose or a 3000 sq ft house in Montrose if the price and quality were the same?

Originally Posted by curbur

That may be true for the homes, but I actually find comparatively that most lot sizes in suburban Houston is much smaller than similar homes in suburbs in other parts of the country. It feels like the 4,000-5,000 sq ft homes in the suburbs in North NJ or in the hills in Cali are always sitting on more land than a similar counterpart out here in an MPC in Houston suburb. It's like they don't even bother building homes of that size so close together usually.

There are usually two big factors in play.

I've never been to NJ, but I go to Pittsburgh fairly often. I notice that geography plays a role in lot size. Hills and slopes may dictate larger lot sizes.

Another factor is age of the neighborhood. Not that many years ago, parents wanted large yards for their kids. Today, with video games, computers and sports leagues that have basically become full-time jobs, parents don't seem to be concerned about the yards other than if they want a pool. At that point, a big yard means lots of maintenance. I would guess the neighborhoods you are talking about are older than 20 or 30 years.

Originally Posted by crone

These monsters with the huge islands are going to make some cooks walk 10 miles while making dinner.

Today, that extra walking is probably a good thing.

I laugh my tail off when I go to the gym (went - past tense), and I'd see people driving around looking for a parking spot close to the door. Apparently, they don't want to walk an extra 150 feet before working out.

Originally Posted by descovy

and a dining room, even though we have an eat in kitchen space.

Which is why, if I built my own home, I wouldn't even have a dining room. As I've mentioned before, our dining room is the cats' formal lounge area that eats air conditioning and expensive unused furniture.

Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp

Where do people spend most of their time?

My kids split their indoor free time between their rooms and the play/game room.

I spend much of my indoor free time in the movie room.

Everyone has a bedroom, and we have a spare for when my mother-in-law visits from Austin.

We use the kitchen and breakfast area daily.

My wife likes watching tv in the living room, and we have company in there about twice a month.

The bar room might be a bit for showing off, but I really like having a place for the wine and liquor and to hang out with the guys if there is a dinner party.

The dining room is wasted space. Modern dinner parties are much less formal. We've used it a few times in the last 8 years for actual dinner parties, but we find people have more fun hanging out in the kitchen\breakfast room area and living room while eating.

The only real wasted room in our house is the dining room.

Our home is about 3600 sq ft.

Originally Posted by jerbear30

I think it's less about needs than about desires.

Technically, a family of four only NEEDS about 300 sq ft. Larger families make less space work all around the world.

I don't care about what I need, I care about what I want. I want a comfortable, spacious and functional home.

Originally Posted by jerbear30

Big homes cost more money, they have a lot of empty space and unless they are in River Oaks, they are usually kind of boxy-looking.

They CAN have a lot of empty space. Mine doesn't.

I see plenty of box-looking homes in River Oaks and plenty of homes that aren't box-looking in the burbs.

[Cbink]

I agree that it's more about desire than need. We're a family of 4 (3 yr old and 6 wk old) and live in 3,600 sqft. It's about right for us, though to be honest a little more wouldn't go amiss either since we do have large gatherings fairly regularly.

EDIT: I couldn't live without a dining room. Whilst I'd be the first to admit it doesn't get used all the time it does get used at least a couple of times a month for family dinners and it's absolutely essential for Thanksgiving/Christmas for us too since we always have a lot of family over.

[marksmu]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

I have a co-worker and he and his wife have a 4000 sq ft home. He says they only go upstairs to vacuum, lol. I think that more space is better than less any day. My only turn off would be the electricity bill.



You all totally needed a larger home! I have an infant and a nine year old. The current house is 2500 sq ft and when we move, I want 3500 or more. Call me greedy but I just like space. I hate clutter also, so it's not like I have a lot of stuff. I think I just like the openness.

If you get a good custom build AC with good insulation and AC units bills are not an issue...I am a family of 5 (3 kids under 4), plus 2 large dogs - 6200 sqft....We use every single room in the house frequently except the formal dining, which is only used for parties and holidays. The ability to spread out keeps us sane...The ability to have a screaming baby not wake up a light sleeping 2 year old is incredible.

Our house is a LEED home, with spray foam insulation and high efficiency AC units...We have never had an electric bill crack $300 yet, and we keep the house at 75 all day, and at 71 at night.

I am one of the younger generation (under 35), who wants MORE space...I love the house, we custom built it from scratch, but I skimped on the garage with a 3 car, and its just not enough for 2 cars tools, bikes, & lawn equipment...I should have done a 4 car garage. Oh well. Storage shed it is.

[trekbiker]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The dining room is wasted space. Modern dinner parties are much less formal. We've used it a few times in the last 8 years for actual dinner parties, but we find people have more fun hanging out in the kitchen\breakfast room area and living room while eating.

Agreed on this point. We planned our dining room to be a formal dining room at first, but when we went through sticker shock on dining room furniture, we decided that we will probably never use it and turned it into a game room instead. The kids love it.

And when we have dinner parties, we serve hors d'ouvres or buffet with a bbq grill outside, and everyone hangs out in the kitchen mostly. Why kitchen? I don't know, and probably will never know, so you'd be asking the wrong person

Even though my house is smaller than the average number posted on this thread, it is pretty open... open kitchen, den, game room. The only "closed" spaces are the bedrooms and bathrooms. The floor plan was a big reason why we chose this house. So a 2000 sf house with a good floor plan can definitely be better than a 3000+ with a bad floor plan, and I also like that having a smaller house deters us from buying too many things.

[CSD610]

Originally Posted by key2thecity

When we were looking for a home a couple of years ago, we were able to find homes of various sizes in our price range. The home we chose was about 1000 sq ft larger in our "neighborhood with amenities" versus purchasing in that price range in a nearby full scale MPCs. I've been taking a look at the model homes in our area and it seems like people are getting robbed of square footage in new homes this year.

I kind of wish we had went with a home in an MPC. However, I don't think I could live in a home less than 2500 sq. ft. I feel like I would feel cramped in something less than 2000 sq. ft., but I see new-ish one-story homes with 1600 - 1800 sq. ft. all over HAR.

So, how much square footage is ideal for a home? (Let's base it on four occupants.) If your budget were limited, would you sacrifice square footage to be in an MPC? Why?

For us it is different than for you, I would not want a home that is 2500 square foot.
We have lived in everything from a tent to a 4000 square foot home and I am very happy with about 800 square feet with an enclosed front porch I can use as a four season room.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by trekbiker

Even though my house is smaller than the average number posted on this thread, it is pretty open... open kitchen, den, game room. The only "closed" spaces are the bedrooms and bathrooms. The floor plan was a big reason why we chose this house. So a 2000 sf house with a good floor plan can definitely be better than a 3000+ with a bad floor plan, and I also like that having a smaller house deters us from buying too many things.

A good floor plan can make a house in so many ways. I once looked at a 4,000 sq ft home with a floor plan so bad, it was hardly functional. The price was dirt cheap, but the costs of gutting it and redoing it would have been so high, it would have easily offset the low purchase price. I'd bet it was a home the owners "designed" themselves.

If I were ever to downsize, I'd want a home with really tall ceilings. Tall ceilings can really make a huge difference as well in the right homes.

[marksmu]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

A good floor plan can make a house in so many ways. I once looked at a 4,000 sq ft home with a floor plan so bad, it was hardly functional. The price was dirt cheap, but the costs of gutting it and redoing it would have been so high, it would have easily offset the low purchase price. I'd bet it was a home the owners "designed" themselves.

If I were ever to downsize, I'd want a home with really tall ceilings. Tall ceilings can really make a huge difference as well in the right homes.

Tall ceiling, with proportional windows. Ive got 12' ceilings in my master, and I did not realize what a difference an 8' window makes in such a tall space. Really opens the room makes it feel like the room extends to the outside.

That is the difference between a good and bad architect - a good architect, will use the right sized windows to the ceilings to make the house feel bigger....and not just the cheapest most mass produced windows.