I totally agree with you Susan! I currently live in a house that has 1,000 sq. ft. that maintained a family of four. Sure it was cramped but now the kids have moved out and it is just fine for the two of us. Mind you, I would love to live in a bigger place in a better neighborhood, but my husband and I get to travel a lot and that is because we are not tied down to a larger than we really need high cost/maintenance house.

That quote is so funny, especially from someone living on an island! I live with an artist (7000 canvas and more art supplies than food supplies) and a 65 pound dog in less than 800 sq ft. Thank god it’s easy to clean!

Isn’t it just stating the obvious that different people have different needs and expectations of the house size?

“Modest” can be a function of price rather than size. For a reality check - search single family homes under $600K, over 2,500 sq ft and near Staten Island, NY. I just did and 110 properties came up!

…and therein lies the problem. I think John D. reflects the views of many Americans, sadly. We recently visited retired relatives who have a new 5500sf home in an up-scale suburb on the East Coast, and I couldn’t fathom what they were planning to do with the space. Layout makes all the difference–our compact little bungalow serves our needs very well, with space to spare for dog and kid. I sometimes contemplate bumping up to 1500sf in the form of a third bedroom if we had a second child, but beyond that, I really wouldn’t know what to do with more space! The notion of task-specific rooms (relatives have six or so hobby rooms–one for pool, one for sunning, one for sewing, etc.) seems pretty bizarre to this urban dweller–especially if I had to keep all that clean!

(Oh, and yes, the 5500sf new home cost $100K less than our 1200sf bungalow. But that’s not the point.) Expectations are one thing, but I still think there’s a bigger issue of responsible living and footprint. The article in today’s Chron on East Bay water rationing told a similar story–our “expectations” of being able to water large lawns, have swimming pools, etc. may be nice, but they’re not necessarily in synch with the big picture issue of water shortage. In other parts of the world, “water shortage” means nothing to drink today….we really have to reshape how we think about consumption and expectations in that regard.

Staten Island is in New York City, not exactly McMansion central. This guy is either nuts or pulling someone’s leg.

Wow. Since when is living in 2,500 square feet responsible? I’m shocked. My husband and I live in a 509-square-foot cottage (the inspiration and frequent subject of my Wordpress-based blog, Living Small) with two cats, and that often feels indulgent. In a world with a booming population, an inequitable global economy, rapidly vanishing natural resources, and imminent (and possibly disastrous) climate change, how can we justify giant homes?

Thanks for confronting this, Susan. We need more folks like you.

Never lived in a spot more than 1200 sq ft. Although I’ll be moving up to about 1750 sq ft pretty soon, but that will definitely be the “high-water” mark for our space for the foreseeable (kids in the house) future.

That guy must enjoy paying higher utilities and property taxes. Never mind buying all that furniture etc, for space you don’t need.

Funny you posted this. I wrote an article about small homes on Wise Bread about a week ago:

http://www.wisebread.com/how-big-of-a-house-do-you-really-need

It has a lot of interesting comments!

Well, I’m happy to know that I am not alone in my thoughts. Although we have almost 1800 sf now, one bedroom is completely unused except for guests and my office is larger than I need. I’m hoping to downsize within the next 2 years to about 1000 sf. I really hate to clean house (but I hate a dirty house more), so I look forward to less living space.

Good post SMHSI. Thanks for sharing.

@anon. “we really have to reshape how we think about consumption and expectations in that regard”. That’s a tough battle. If people living in huge homes are not discouraged by economic factors of higher utilities costs, insurance and maintenance, then simply appealing to their conscience has little chance of succeeding. Look at the similarity with cars. SUVs have been despised by environmentalists while being hugely popular and selling well for almost a decade. It’s only the (much) higher price of gas that changed that in the last two years.

Susan: I am so glad you raised this subject. I would have a long time ago, but I fear that coming from an Englishwoman it would have been seen as America-bashing — there is a desire for all things big here after all, whether it’s gas-guzzling cars or McMansions.

The house we have just bought is just under 2,500 sq ft. We think it is a perfectly good size, but I hear the previous owners moved out partly because they felt they needed more room for their family of four — which includes two toddlers. We have two burgeoning teenagers so how they thought we would cope, who knows?

For all the reasons cited in the comments — economics, environment and saving elbow grease — a “modest” size house seems the right way to go right now. (Even if I do sometimes lust after more spacious guest accommodation and a rec room to which the gangs of teenagers can retreat and leave me in peace…)

Smaller homes are so much less effort to maintain. We (family of 4) just moved from a 1900 sq ft house to a 1250 sq ft townhouse and getting rid of all our junk has been incredibly liberating, and I seem to spend a lot less time cleaning this place than our old one.