This is something I’m curious about that is tied to housing shortages… As in, say a hypothetical government want to encourage real-estate develpers to build more housing to solve housing shortages. But said government still wants to make most of its citizens happy, instead of just cramming everyone in the smallest accommodations possible
As extreme examples:
- A shoebox studio (<= 10 m^2) is probably too small for almost any family
- On the contrary… a massive estate (>= 10,000 m^2) is probably too big for almost any family. At that point, upkeep of the house may need several full-time housekeepers, so you literally won’t have time to do it yourself
I’d imagine there might be some cultural differences regarding this as well…?
I dunno about 2500sft for a family of 4. Give everyone some space so they’re not on top of one another; its not space efficent but ive always found having multiple “loops” though the house so you dont alwsys have to go through a single choke makes the space feel nicer.
As a kid with four people including myself ive lived in:
600 sqft 5800 sqft 1300 sqft 2200 sqft
600 was too small unless the kids are small sister snd I shared a bunkbed in the living room, only one bathroom.
5800 was fun, could escape parents, but it was ny job to clean the bathrooms and it was an undertaking.
1300 was ok was walkable so didnt soend nuch time in the house.
2200 was great just would have been nice to have a second living room so we weren’t on top of each other as much. P