4 ms·

2500 square feet is considered a large house in most of the world. I have lived with a group of students, a nuclear family, and with multiple generations in hou

2500 square feet is considered a large house in most of the world. I have lived with a group of students, a nuclear family, and with multiple generations in houses smaller than that. It is definitely fine for all the use cases you list.

rayiner 6y ago
Most of the world lives in housing poverty compared to American norms.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- noelwelsh 6y ago
  What does "housing poverty" mean here? As far as I can tell it means "houses smaller than I am used to". In which case I have to ask what is the concern with houses less than 2500 sq ft? I can't find any evidence that housing size, above some minimum[1], is correlated with happiness. See e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45420795#:~:text=The%20US%2Dbased%20study%20draws,does%20not%20come%20without%20costs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45420795#:~:text=The%20U.... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2 or do you own search. This desire for extremely large houses just seems to be a combination of prior expectations that houses will be large and status seeking. Expectations can adjust over time and I don't put much value on status seeking. [1] The BBC article lists "4 rooms per occupant" as the threshold beyond which there is no increase in satisfaction.
  - likpok 6y ago
    4 rooms per occupant is huge. Consider a 3/3 with a kitchen, dining room and living room. For 4 people (two kids and two parents) you have 9 rooms, or a little over 2 per person. This family would need to double their house size before maxing out.
    - noelwelsh 6y ago
      Yes, I misinterpreted the article. I assumed it was 4 rooms that each occupant could access, including shared rooms such as living rooms. A better summary is: * moving to a larger house leads to a small increase in "housing satisfaction" in most cases; * houses larger than 4 rooms per occupant bring no increase in satisfaction with increasing size.
- pkulak 6y ago
  My family is considered "underhoused" by the US government, because we have fewer bedrooms than occupants. I certainly don't feel it myself. We have three bedrooms for the four of us, and even chose to use the third as a media room until the kids get sick of the bunk beds.
  - ericd 6y ago
    We've lived in both sorts of situations in the recent past. Extra rooms give you flexibility and the opportunity for privacy, which is really nice with young children who aren't sleeping well yet, and might disturb their siblings if they were bunked. There are trade-offs involved in both situations, which one is better for you just depends on what you value. I generally think that there's too much of a slant toward large houses in the new housing stock in the US, though - they're more expensive to buy and maintain, and generally not the best choice for young people.
- jungletime 6y ago
  Most of the US still lives in really crappy old homes built in the last century, with asbestos insulation, tar shingles, fiber board, and wood rot. Doesn't really compare with building standards in Europe, even Eastern Europe. China also has modernized and built some awesome cities. Middle East, and Asian cities are also pretty modern. I'm not really sure who you are comparing to? India? Africa?
  - dmitriy_ko 6y ago
    Average US home is twice as big as European. Only Australian homes are bigger: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/average-home-size-by-country/article27181802/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/average-h...
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Thats not neccesarily contradicting his point, the house coild be large but poorly built. In fact that could make sence
  - kube-system 6y ago
    US homes are relatively new compared to many of the homes in Europe, so I'm not sure why you're calling them 'old'. Also, Europe's prevalent masonry construction might "feel" solid, but that doesn't equal a high level of "building standards". A whole lot of western safety/environmental/plumbing/electrical/accessibility standards have changed in the past 20-70 years. Much in the way chrome-adorned '60s US cars "felt" solid, and older people scoffed at the inornate "plastic cars" of the '90s, this perception of quality didn't translate to actual engineering superiority. Some of the over-sized chintzy boxes that are built in the US are actually built to pretty dang good standards, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Building_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Building_Code
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    1) asbestos wasn't really used widely for insulation in the normal sense of that word. 2) in the right climate, tar shingles are actually extremely effective as a roofing solution. 3) the US does not have large supplies of bricks, and many areas do not have easy access to stone suitable for building (which is also extremely expensive in terms of labor). Hence wooden frame construction. 4) fiber board, when properly isolated from the weather, is an extremely durable and strong material. it is unfortunate that it tends to require environmentally unfriendly resins to manufacture. 5) there is a LOT of poor construction in the USA, but picking on particular techniques isn't the way to describe the problems. 6) there are many cheap houses in the USA that have much better energy efficiency than classic old houses across Europe, specifically because they use wood frame construction and moderate levels of insulation and air sealing.
ericd 6y ago
Keep in mind that Americans on average have been raised in different environs, and likely different habits from the people you lived with. If you've always lived in close proximity, you've developed ways to cope, which people who've lived in copious space haven't. As an example, people who grew up in the country often find cities to be claustrophobic, impersonal, and uncomfortable. So you can't really say "it works for people in X culture, so it'll be fine for people in Y culture."
- noelwelsh 6y ago
  I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Culture is not a fixed thing. The majority of present day US citizens do not believe slavery is acceptable, but in the past a majority were prepared to tolerate slavery. Yes, changes to housing will bring about changes of attitudes to housing, but so what? That has already happened---US houses have grown by 40% since the 1980s per the BBC article. Why could this not happen again?
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Culture isn't fixed, but it can be slow and resistant to change. To use your example, ending slavery took a civil war that almost ended the US. And we're still dealing with the aftermath (economic equity, police brutality, etc).
  - ericd 6y ago
    My point is that it doesn't seem like you've bothered to put yourself in the shoes of the people that this will affect. You're effectively saying "it's what I do, so it'll be fine for them". The change in housing size that you're talking about encompasses a 40 year period, your slavery example, much longer. Culture can change, but it doesn't happen suddenly, by fiat, it happens on generational timescales.
    - noelwelsh 6y ago
      Do you think every house in Portland is going to be bulldozed and rebuilt inline with the new regulations? More likely it will take decades before the changing regulations are reflected in the housing stock.
lkbm 6y ago
Depends on the group of students or size of a multi-generational household. I live in a 14-person house, and previously a 19-person one. Students frequently enjoy larger communities, especially since it's often a lot more affordable to have a large house split 10-20 ways than a medium house split five. ("Medium" is a stretch, since five bedrooms is a large house in the US.) These aren't the most common arrangements, but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited.

rayiner 6y ago

Most of the world lives in housing poverty compared to American norms.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
noelwelsh 6y ago
What does "housing poverty" mean here? As far as I can tell it means "houses smaller than I am used to". In which case I have to ask what is the concern with houses less than 2500 sq ft? I can't find any evidence that housing size, above some minimum[1], is correlated with happiness. See e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45420795#:~:text=The%20US%2Dbased%20study%20draws,does%20not%20come%20without%20costs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45420795#:~:text=The%20U.... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2 or do you own search. This desire for extremely large houses just seems to be a combination of prior expectations that houses will be large and status seeking. Expectations can adjust over time and I don't put much value on status seeking. [1] The BBC article lists "4 rooms per occupant" as the threshold beyond which there is no increase in satisfaction.
- likpok 6y ago
  4 rooms per occupant is huge. Consider a 3/3 with a kitchen, dining room and living room. For 4 people (two kids and two parents) you have 9 rooms, or a little over 2 per person. This family would need to double their house size before maxing out.
  - noelwelsh 6y ago
    Yes, I misinterpreted the article. I assumed it was 4 rooms that each occupant could access, including shared rooms such as living rooms. A better summary is: * moving to a larger house leads to a small increase in "housing satisfaction" in most cases; * houses larger than 4 rooms per occupant bring no increase in satisfaction with increasing size.
pkulak 6y ago
My family is considered "underhoused" by the US government, because we have fewer bedrooms than occupants. I certainly don't feel it myself. We have three bedrooms for the four of us, and even chose to use the third as a media room until the kids get sick of the bunk beds.
- ericd 6y ago
  We've lived in both sorts of situations in the recent past. Extra rooms give you flexibility and the opportunity for privacy, which is really nice with young children who aren't sleeping well yet, and might disturb their siblings if they were bunked. There are trade-offs involved in both situations, which one is better for you just depends on what you value. I generally think that there's too much of a slant toward large houses in the new housing stock in the US, though - they're more expensive to buy and maintain, and generally not the best choice for young people.
jungletime 6y ago
Most of the US still lives in really crappy old homes built in the last century, with asbestos insulation, tar shingles, fiber board, and wood rot. Doesn't really compare with building standards in Europe, even Eastern Europe. China also has modernized and built some awesome cities. Middle East, and Asian cities are also pretty modern. I'm not really sure who you are comparing to? India? Africa?
- dmitriy_ko 6y ago
  Average US home is twice as big as European. Only Australian homes are bigger: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/average-home-size-by-country/article27181802/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/average-h...
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Thats not neccesarily contradicting his point, the house coild be large but poorly built. In fact that could make sence
- kube-system 6y ago
  US homes are relatively new compared to many of the homes in Europe, so I'm not sure why you're calling them 'old'. Also, Europe's prevalent masonry construction might "feel" solid, but that doesn't equal a high level of "building standards". A whole lot of western safety/environmental/plumbing/electrical/accessibility standards have changed in the past 20-70 years. Much in the way chrome-adorned '60s US cars "felt" solid, and older people scoffed at the inornate "plastic cars" of the '90s, this perception of quality didn't translate to actual engineering superiority. Some of the over-sized chintzy boxes that are built in the US are actually built to pretty dang good standards, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Building_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Building_Code
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  1) asbestos wasn't really used widely for insulation in the normal sense of that word. 2) in the right climate, tar shingles are actually extremely effective as a roofing solution. 3) the US does not have large supplies of bricks, and many areas do not have easy access to stone suitable for building (which is also extremely expensive in terms of labor). Hence wooden frame construction. 4) fiber board, when properly isolated from the weather, is an extremely durable and strong material. it is unfortunate that it tends to require environmentally unfriendly resins to manufacture. 5) there is a LOT of poor construction in the USA, but picking on particular techniques isn't the way to describe the problems. 6) there are many cheap houses in the USA that have much better energy efficiency than classic old houses across Europe, specifically because they use wood frame construction and moderate levels of insulation and air sealing.

ericd 6y ago

Keep in mind that Americans on average have been raised in different environs, and likely different habits from the people you lived with. If you've always lived in close proximity, you've developed ways to cope, which people who've lived in copious space haven't. As an example, people who grew up in the country often find cities to be claustrophobic, impersonal, and uncomfortable. So you can't really say "it works for people in X culture, so it'll be fine for people in Y culture."

noelwelsh 6y ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Culture is not a fixed thing. The majority of present day US citizens do not believe slavery is acceptable, but in the past a majority were prepared to tolerate slavery. Yes, changes to housing will bring about changes of attitudes to housing, but so what? That has already happened---US houses have grown by 40% since the 1980s per the BBC article. Why could this not happen again?
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Culture isn't fixed, but it can be slow and resistant to change. To use your example, ending slavery took a civil war that almost ended the US. And we're still dealing with the aftermath (economic equity, police brutality, etc).
- ericd 6y ago
  My point is that it doesn't seem like you've bothered to put yourself in the shoes of the people that this will affect. You're effectively saying "it's what I do, so it'll be fine for them". The change in housing size that you're talking about encompasses a 40 year period, your slavery example, much longer. Culture can change, but it doesn't happen suddenly, by fiat, it happens on generational timescales.
  - noelwelsh 6y ago
    Do you think every house in Portland is going to be bulldozed and rebuilt inline with the new regulations? More likely it will take decades before the changing regulations are reflected in the housing stock.

lkbm 6y ago

Depends on the group of students or size of a multi-generational household. I live in a 14-person house, and previously a 19-person one. Students frequently enjoy larger communities, especially since it's often a lot more affordable to have a large house split 10-20 ways than a medium house split five. ("Medium" is a stretch, since five bedrooms is a large house in the US.) These aren't the most common arrangements, but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited.