> Two living rooms (well, “living” and “family”) and two (“formal” and, well, not) dining rooms are pretty common in 1960s homes at the size being discussed. W

> Two living rooms (well, “living” and “family”) and two (“formal” and, well, not) dining rooms are pretty common in 1960s homes at the size being discussed. When house buying in 2020/2021 I looked at over 100 homes. Very few, if any, of the 1960s houses wasted space on two dining rooms, and a fair number had basements converted to family rooms but it obviously wasn't an original part of the floor plan. The 1960s split level design is obscenely efficient in space usage. There are plenty of variations on it, but the well done ones, vaulted ceilings, visible interior wood trusses, are still nice to live in today. The only modern amenities they are missing are a walk in closet and a full master bath. Clocking in at ~2000sqft they can do more than a modern 3000+ sqft home does. > Tall, narrow houses have been a feature of urban single-family homes for a while, I don't think they are a new trend. Agreed, but the new breed is much narrower than before. I've been in Chicago row houses, and sure they are narrow, but the new ones they are building around Seattle are insane. It is basically one room then a flight of stairs. 3 bedrooms, one in basement, one on 2nd floor, 3rd on top floor. It borders on unlivable for a family, not to mention anyone over the age of 35. Honestly it'd be much better if they just made regular condos, instead of 4 across narrow homes of 4 stories, do 4 flats.