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…?
This seems decent reasoning, and it’d fit with a lot of the Victorian up to interwar, and frankly reconsruction era up until maybe the 60s 70s. Utilitarian housing built where i live for the working class. Of course people want more, but i think people can make do reasonably with this. Of course the victorians did slot in a couple of streets of mansions here or there for the upper middle sleazebags.