Posit: no one really needs more than 500sf/person (metro, park, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think people have made th assumption that I've chosen an arbitrary allotment of size place and woukd put a prescription on how much housing people should have. That is not true. I believe people are free to make the same mistakes that I have.
The number OTOH is arbitrary because it comes out of personal experience. I personally found that 500 sf/person was enough to feel comfortable, but not wasteful. We had a 2220 sf house for two of us + pets...guess we thought we 'd have kids that never came. In any case, we ended up willing the space with stuff with expensive stuff we didn't need and didn't even really want. Was our life better in such a big place? It wasn't. We spent more money to buy it, more money and time to maintain it, more tax dollars every year to keep the state away, more money to heat and cool it than necessary. It was a lovely place, and made us a fortune on resale thanks to a great local economy. But selling it and down sizing was freedom.
Utility bills a third, property taxes half, weekends are ours now, more money in our pocket to do stuff with, less stuff in our home to weigh us down. Do I miss the big back yard? I thought I would, but it turns out I like the hike trail nearby a lot better. instead of mowing the lawn on the weekends, I cook out on our small patio and we have time to enjoy the space we do have. The family of four who bought our place is much better suited to 2200 sf than we ever were.
Readers Digest (around 2006) contained an article about the increasing sizes of living space. Some national building group calculated that people, on average, required 460 sq. ft. per person living space when all of today's amenities and appliances are taken into consideration.
I disagree that anything larger equates to ostentation. Ostentation is synonymous with pretension. Why would anything more than your supposed ideal limit, equate to pretension? Space is dirt cheap in some areas, so I don't see any harm in using it. Why should someone out in the suburbs of a western city have to live by Manhattan standards?
At the same time, people are able to--and often do--compact their living arrangements when extra square footage comes at such a premium, as in the aforementioned Manhattan example.
In addition, well designed space is much more livable than spaces that have been poorly conceived, so the design factors into the mix of whether a person can live in (x) square feet comfortably.
Finally, geographic factors may have a lot to do with how much space a person "has". A lot of western homes (such as out here in Arizona) add huge amounts of unreported, but useful space to the house in the form of outdoor living areas, where people spend large amounts of time. Just the ability to go outdoors into an open space, may factor in to whether a person can tolerate a certain period of time boxed in by four walls.
Last edited by 43north87west; 01-28-2013 at 05:48 PM..
It's usually income that determines living space in any given location. There are precious few wealthy people living in 500sqft per person.
If we were to look at it on face value alone, then there are a hell of environmentalist in third wold counties, that puts your 500sqft 'green' efforts to shame.
It's usually income that determines living space in any given location. There are precious few wealthy people living in 500sqft per person.
If we were to look at it on face value alone, then there are a hell of environmentalist in third wold counties, that puts your 500sqft 'green' efforts to shame.
Income also determines location. My small one bedroom condo here in Miami goes for more than my dad's three bedroom house in NC.
We lived in a 2 BR/1BA 1010 sq ft home here in L.A. for 9 years. It was fine until I started working from home, we had relatives/friends visit, etc. We had to move to a larger house to accomodate a home office.
500 sq. ft. per person seems arbitrary, especially when you consider different circumstances of individuals (i.e. do you work from home, etc.). And it is fairly ridiculous to call anything over 500 sq. ft "ostentatious".
Income also determines location. My small one bedroom condo here in Miami goes for more than my dad's three bedroom house in NC.
Yes, it's all relative, but the point remains. Nice, big houses are expensive and out of reach for most.
If you had 50 million in the bank would you move to a bigger place? Would your dad?
How many of the 500sqft pp crowd could afford a 10,000sqft mansion in their current location, but abstain for environmental reasons? Or maybe they keep ten 500sqft pp apartments at various locations around the world so they don't damage the environment .
"If you had 50 million in the bank would you move to a bigger place? Would your dad?"
I would get a bigger place tonight! My place now is 820sqft with two people, it is not bad as it has that open layout thing. I have lived in similar sized apartments for years, I do not think about it much until I go to someone's house or much larger apartment, I then come back home and my apartment does feel small and confining. I think the lack of storage space and AC/heater fan location is my issue, they could have designed the layout better.
I can afford a two bedroom now in my building, but the extra room is not worth the money to me. I could afford a two or three bedroom at the same cost or lower elsewhere in Miami, but it would not have the ocean view and other features, which I enjoy.
Cannot speak for my dad, he is retired, he is one of those types that just stays where he is at, he would probably buy a better boat.
I think people have a problem with "stuff". They fill their lives with so much "stuff" that they think they need, that they have to pay for more and more space for their "stuff". But once you get rid of the "stuff" you don't need, it's a lot easier to live in a small place.
Sure, if I were an old-time coal miner who worked 12+ hour shifts, came home, ate dinner, went to sleep, then back to the mine, I'd not need any "stuff". But that's a pretty miserable existence. I've got places to sit and read, I've got places to watch TV, I've got places to use the computer, I've got places to work on my helicopters, I've got places to eat, I've got places to exercise. And these are several DIFFERENT places, which means I can read while my wife is watching TV, or I can watch TV while she's using her computer, etc. I don't have to fold away my bed to have a place to eat, nor put away the computer to watch TV, etc.
Yeah, I've got "stuff". The stuff serves a purpose. I could live without it, but just fitting myself into the smallest apartment possible as an exercise in space efficiency doesn't really hold any interest for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
