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…?

  • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    My house is 90m², though the upstairs has a low ceiling and mostly just functions as a bedroom, so it’s more like 60m² in practice. While I wouldn’t want to raise a family here, I still find it perfectly sufficient for two people. It also comes with the additional benefits of having fewer rooms to heat, clean, and renovate. I also like that my yard feels a lot bigger due to the smaller footprint of the house itself.

    That being said, I would prefer it to be slightly bigger. Maybe one extra room and a bigger-than-1.5m x 1.5m bathroom.