jump to navigation

Square Footage April 22, 2008

Posted by brianna in Verbosity.
add a comment

I am slowly getting more frustrated at the word ‘need’.

 

I.E. – ‘Don’t wait until you have a kid to realize you need about 2k sq. feet (that can include finished basement) for two adults and a baby.’

 

(I was researching house square footage trends. Not babies.)

 

WTF. TWO THOUSAND square feet for two and a half people, one of which is barely mobile? How the hell is that ‘need’?

 

I currently live in 1100 square feet. It’s very roomy for two people – we even have a spare room that will eventually be an office. The only impediment I can see with this floorplan for a three person family is having only one bathroom, but even that can be worked around. 

 

How on earth can three people efficiently use 2000 square feet? Are they aware they can only inhabit about three square feet at any one time, personally? Is baby really going to feel hampered by not having a formal living room in which to entertain his or her playdates while also having a more casual romper room for closer friends? I would think the kid would prefer a few more toys instead of two extra bedrooms, a den, and the bonus bill of heating and cooling it all.

 

This is a 2000 square foot house

 

Four bedrooms, three bathrooms, living, dining, foyer, kitchen, ‘nook’, covered porch, utility room, garage. Who the hell is going to keep all that clean? Not to mention, running across 1200 square feet after a kid is a lot less work than running across /2000/ square feet. In 1970, a family of four could live in a 1500 square foot house – what happened? Why do three people suddenly ‘need’ this vast expanse of energy-hogging, time-consuming house that will require more personal involvement to keep clean, habitable, and welcoming? 

 

I, personally, would like more time to enjoy my living room, rather than sinking all of that time into picking up an additional three bedrooms, two baths, and huge living room. I can’t even imagine the time it would take to sweep and vacuum it all.

 

I’m sure some of our current economic situation is to blame on this skewed perception of ‘need’. Why not use all that money you’re saving cutting out the superfluous 800 square feet,  and invest in hardwood floors, skylights, energy efficient windows and high end, durable appliances? You’d still end up with a smaller monthly payment, smaller energy bills, and would probably emerge with a higher resale value at the end of it all. 

 

Though I’m willing to bet, if more people invested in creative use of space and quality components rather than just gross square footage, they would be hard pressed to leave their innovative, creative, personalized home for a larger house.