5 ms·

The house I grew up in in the US was considered on the small side at 2600 sqft (240 sqm). Partly the size of your family matters, but mostly I think it’s just c

The house I grew up in in the US was considered on the small side at 2600 sqft (240 sqm). Partly the size of your family matters, but mostly I think it’s just cultural expectations.

raverbashing 7y ago
(Speaking from experience) Those American house sizes look good on paper until you have to do maintenance/cleaning etc. Unless you have a specific need for more space (maybe a workshop, etc) I would avoid the bigger sized houses.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Big houses get less dirty. If you’re not religious about cleaning up a small place it gets hard to manage. (It’s like swapping to HD. You have to move stuff so you can move other stuff to get stuff into place.)
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    This is true. Once you have the minimal set of things you need for your lifestyle, having more space for those things makes it easier to keep everything clean. This breaks down if you acquire new things to fill unused space though.
CalRobert 7y ago
Energy for heating and cooling is really cheap in the US too. Garages are far more common too (not sure if you're including that)
tallanvor 7y ago
That's the average house size in the US now, not on the small side. 45 years ago the average house was around 1600 sqft. For apartments, the average size is 941 sqft, which is down about 5% over the last 10 years.
Ma8ee 7y ago
Yes. Land is cheap (in most places) and you are used to long commutes by car.
crispyambulance 7y ago
> ...on the small side at 2600 sqft... That's actually large by many standards across the world but also for older urban dwellings in US cities. I suspect those 2600+ ft^2 numbers are average sizes for new construction? For whatever reason, new construction of single family homes consists almost entirely of structural wood framing and plywood, then tyvek and non-structural brick facade. That kind of construction makes building larger volumes feasible. I don't know when the change-over in the USA from structural brick to wood occured, but I suspect it was in the 50-60's. In old urban neighborhoods in the North East, 2500+ ft^2 is definitely considered "big". Unfortunately, I doubt that modern wood frame homes will last 100+ years without serious interventions. Brick also deteriorates, but more slowly and it's possible to work on it piecemeal.
- frank2 7y ago
  there never was a change-over from structural brick in the US: at least 90% of houses have been wood since the Europeans colonized it.
  - selectodude 7y ago
    I'd say there was more a change-over to structural brick in urban areas after several massive urban conflagrations in the late 1800s.
jbverschoor 7y ago
What about NYC or any other densly populated area?

The house I grew up in in the US was considered on the small side at 2600 sqft (240 sqm). Partly the size of your family matters, but mostly I think it’s just cultural expectations.

raverbashing 7y ago

(Speaking from experience) Those American house sizes look good on paper until you have to do maintenance/cleaning etc. Unless you have a specific need for more space (maybe a workshop, etc) I would avoid the bigger sized houses.

rayiner 7y ago
Big houses get less dirty. If you’re not religious about cleaning up a small place it gets hard to manage. (It’s like swapping to HD. You have to move stuff so you can move other stuff to get stuff into place.)
- nitrogen 7y ago
  This is true. Once you have the minimal set of things you need for your lifestyle, having more space for those things makes it easier to keep everything clean. This breaks down if you acquire new things to fill unused space though.

CalRobert 7y ago

Energy for heating and cooling is really cheap in the US too. Garages are far more common too (not sure if you're including that)

tallanvor 7y ago

That's the average house size in the US now, not on the small side. 45 years ago the average house was around 1600 sqft. For apartments, the average size is 941 sqft, which is down about 5% over the last 10 years.

Ma8ee 7y ago

Yes. Land is cheap (in most places) and you are used to long commutes by car.

crispyambulance 7y ago

> ...on the small side at 2600 sqft... That's actually large by many standards across the world but also for older urban dwellings in US cities. I suspect those 2600+ ft^2 numbers are average sizes for new construction? For whatever reason, new construction of single family homes consists almost entirely of structural wood framing and plywood, then tyvek and non-structural brick facade. That kind of construction makes building larger volumes feasible. I don't know when the change-over in the USA from structural brick to wood occured, but I suspect it was in the 50-60's. In old urban neighborhoods in the North East, 2500+ ft^2 is definitely considered "big". Unfortunately, I doubt that modern wood frame homes will last 100+ years without serious interventions. Brick also deteriorates, but more slowly and it's possible to work on it piecemeal.

frank2 7y ago
there never was a change-over from structural brick in the US: at least 90% of houses have been wood since the Europeans colonized it.
- selectodude 7y ago
  I'd say there was more a change-over to structural brick in urban areas after several massive urban conflagrations in the late 1800s.

jbverschoor 7y ago

What about NYC or any other densly populated area?