Diet-on living space, possessions

Could you/have lived in small spaces where home was 500 sq. ft.?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1818919/

1. I can/am: I am living in slightly bigger space now (600+ sq. ft.), only because I consider it temporary. And 3/4's of my possessions are all still in another province..over 1,000 kms. away. So pretty bare where I am but need space because it's dearie's 2nd home to share too.

2. Before was in space, (still home), sharing 770 sq. ft. with dearie. I have half amount of space (and less possessions) compared to below.

3. Before #2, had my own home at 770 sq. ft. No one else kept/stored their stuff in my home.

So according to the article, the real estate crisis in the U.S., is causing some people to rethink their space needs and affordability.

Methinks when one becomes alot older, one's space needs and need to own alot of possessions/desires, shrinks. Am I right? It is true somewhat for me.


But I forgot, except bikes. Love and ownership of several bikes causes space needs. :p:rolleyes:

My house seems smaller than it is just because of the lack of storage space. I could probably make do with much smaller if I had a house new enough to have closets and with stairs large enough to get a dresser up them :) But...my house was definitely built in a time and place where the original owner likely had next to nothing. So I am very lucky.

(House is currently ~950 square feet...but was originally about 550 with one room up, one room down and no kitchen or bath)

Given the slow response here so far ...either it's a boring topic or most people here just aren't in small space and haven't been for a long time.

In an 832 sq foot house, 100 sq feet smaller than the last one - but with a much bigger garage :D which is where a lot of my "stuff" is. The house seems the right size without my: 8 bookcases (3 or 4 shelf) loaded with books, a furnished guest bedroom (twin bed, etc), AND my sewing room stuff (including books.. :rolleyes:). I figured I'd be moving again in less than a year, so I didn't unpack everything.

And today at lunch a gal in my office is heading to New Orleans for a meeting in January - to give her my tour guides to N.O., I would have to go digging through boxes. But if they were unpacked, they'd be by the door and ready to go by now.

I miss my books. And soon, I'm going to miss my sewing room. I could live without the furnished guest bedroom considering how seldom I have overnight guests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jessmarimba

My house seems smaller than it is just because of the lack of storage space. I could probably make do with much smaller if I had a house new enough to have closets and with stairs large enough to get a dresser up them :) But...my house was definitely built in a time and place where the original owner likely had next to nothing. So I am very lucky.

(House is currently ~950 square feet...but was originally about 550 with one room up, one room down and no kitchen or bath)

---

Sounds a lot like our house. I guess our house is "technically" 1500 sq. feet, but it has ONE closet (I mean one...not even a coat or linen closet). 4 bedroom, 1 bath, 1 closet. 2 of the bedrooms are smaller than a prison cell and under the eaves, so they are pretty much converted attic. Hardly room for a bed, much less dresser or wardrobe. So those tiny rooms are used as storage. We have a basement, but it's a 90 year old house and the basement is nasty, full of bugs, and where our well, furnace, and water heater are located. And it's not accessible from inside the house.

DS's room is, by far, the largest room in the house, but one can only stand upright in about 1/3 of the room. So if we talk actual useable floor space our house is probably closer to 1000 square feet, which isn't huge for a family of 3, especially with that lack of closet-space.

I would LOVE a similarly-sized home with ample storage and a better layout (our floorplan is such that there's wasted space with many small rooms instead of fewer, larger ones). I don't mind our somewhat small living space. It's cozy. I would like a larger living room, since that's where I do my weight workouts and where we keep our bikes on trainers in the Winter. Our living room is only about 10x15.

I would kill for a smaller space. They just don't exist...not with land. In fact, if we were to buy land and then build, we'd have to build a certain size house in order to get financing. It's insane.

Our home is 1700 sf (originally 1100 sf but the last owners added an addition). It's really a ton of space for us. It does have a lot of storage, a big garage, and an unfinished basement (that floods), so that really makes it feel much larger.

Our dream is to have the money (and permits!) to buy the exact plot of land that we'd like and then build a house on it that is designed to function exactly as we'd use it. 800 - 1000 sf tops. Dream on, I know! :rolleyes:

We are in 950 sq. ft and I wouldn't change it for a minute. We did take out a few walls, 2 bdr/1Ba, but it is excellent. Nice yard in the summer, but super cozy and affordable in winter. Small is the new black.

My apartment (2br) is...I actually don't remember the square footage, but it's pretty big. My bedroom and the living room are HUGE, but the kitchen is tiny.

There's plenty of storage--it's just poorly designed, so a lot of it isn't usable. The bedroom closets are built into the wall space and are sort of L-shaped, so you can't use half the hanging space and a great majority of the shelf space unless you have freakishly long arms. Same goes for the linen closet--it's just wasted space. The dining room seems smaller than it really is because I have all the miscellaneous kitchen things that I don't use every day in there. (No shelves in the cabinets, and no counter space.)

I'd like a little less space (less to clean!), with a slightly bigger kitchen and better-designed storage. Oh, and somewhere to put a bookcase. There's nowhere to put a bookcase in here without blocking the traffic pattern!

I have gone from a 3 bedroom, 2 bath and double garage terraced townhouse to----

one room! AHHHHHH

DH and I are living in one bedroom of his grandmas apartment. Of course there's a seperate bathroom and our bikes are stored in another room. All my stuff is in another country but boy do I miss having my own kitchen, longue, people over for dinner, not being trapped in this room for quite a bit of the day. Grandma is the kind of person who is territorial, she doesn't go back into her room to rest during the day but moves from the dining room to the living room sleeping, watching TV etc all day and it is really her space. It's almost two years living like this for DH's career. I wanna go home so bad.

However it isn't as bad as the apartment I saw on a BBC doco about being poor in Japan. Imagine a small room, no windows except in the door, kitchen and washing machine at the entrance, small bathroom and a hanging rail for clothes over the double bed. The couple that lived there were so cramped, but there was no way they could afford to move.

We live quite comfortably in an apartment (house? row of small houses attached by the side walls) of about 550 sq ft, two adults and our 13 yr. old, and if we didn't have kids or if I were single it would be no problem to live in a smaller space. But, and that's a big but! we have a small garden front and back, a veranda that opens directly from our living room, and a terrace that opens from the kitchen, that give extra living space in summer and storage space for our two kayaks. Plus an outdoor shed with room for bikes and skis, and a crawl attic for all the rest of our stuff.

I don't mind living compactly, but as long as we have such gear-craving hobbies we use all the storage space we can get.

I live and work in my 892 Sf house. I knocked out one wall andput in a new kitchen with more cabinet space than I can fill. It's a small kitchen, but plenty of storage. One bedroom is my office. I work there, live in the open kitchen-living area, an sleep in the other bedroom. I don't have alot of stuff. That makes all the difference.

DH and I live in a ~1200 square foot house, and it's just about perfect for our needs. We're fortunate to have a usable basement and a garage, so bike/ski/tool storage is manageable. We'd be in trouble otherwise :D

I wouldn't mind a slightly bigger kitchen and a second bathroom, but these are wants, not needs. (I dream of redoing the kitchen so that I can fit a dishwasher in, though!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLC1968

I would kill for a smaller space. They just don't exist...not with land. In fact, if we were to buy land and then build, we'd have to build a certain size house in order to get financing. It's insane.

Our home is 1700 sf (originally 1100 sf but the last owners added an addition). It's really a ton of space for us. It does have a lot of storage, a big garage, and an unfinished basement (that floods), so that really makes it feel much larger.
:rolleyes:

---

For 2 people, it costs money to power up big space in a home. The only good thing is that Portland doesn't get as cold as other parts of North America.

lph: That sounds like parts of Asia for 550 sq ft. for 3 people.

I grew up in Ontario in an apartment that was around 600 sq. ft. ..for up to 2 adults and 5 children (we were under the ages of 10 since I am the eldest). Then parents bought a 2-bedroom house (about 1,000 sq. ft. still lacked enough bedrooms. So we turned a den and family room into 2 bedrooms.), moved and then child 6 was born. Did we break the fire code, maybe? But back then it was the 1960's. In the apartment, Kids except for baby slept in the living room on the floor. I remember being scolded by my mother for telling one of their friends we kids, slept on the floor. I dunno why I was reprimanded since it was pretty obvious, space was lacking for us kids.

I should emphasize I am born in Ontario and lived my whole life in Canada. Never lived in any other country.

I don't know how my mother did it since she was a full-time housewife. :eek:

The only thing that perhaps I fall down when living in smaller space is that I'm not naturally neat. Whereas dearie is.

If we had more space, we'd have a bigger piano.

We have about 1500 sq feet- with 2 "grown" kids still sharing the space. We have way too much unneccessary stuff that we have a hard time getting rid of- and not enough storage space. We could use a smaller living space if we had less stuff and better storage. And we're working on de-bulking the stuff, but it takes time ....

DH and I lived in a two bedroom apartment, 750 sq ft, for about 6 years and I had become the master of finding places to store items. Kitchens SMALL. No real storage to speak of. Bedrooms SMALL, plus our first apartment actually had the AC/Furnace in the utility closet off the main living area. When the heat came on and you wanted to talk to someone in the next room, you had to yell, it was pretty bad.

Took a new job and moved to a 850 sq ft apartment with more storage and bigger bedrooms, but the bonus was two balconies, plus a nice view of the local park where I could see deer and the like from my window.

We bought our own house and moved to a 1300 sq ft three bedroom house. It has an ACTUAL dining room with built in storage hutches, functional kitchen, finished basement, small garage, additional outside storage, and a BIG closet (OK, it's more like a hole with a door) for Christmas decorations and the like.

Even with that I find myself keeping too much and I seriously need to go through the Christmas stuff and part ways with some of it. We don't use the basement really, it's extra storage and I'm really contemplating bringing the bikes (two his/two of mine) in from the garage and keeping them inside for the winter.

All this space and I still can't get him to keep the garbage cans in the garage out of sight. LOL

Oh, we just added a 170 sq ft deck for "outdoor" living space which totally rocks-- plus I built it myself (with loads of help from DH and family/friends with know-how) which makes it even that much better.

I think this space is just about "right", but do need to keep clutter and pack-rat-itus at bay.

Shannon

Right when most people downsize, we bought a bigger house :eek:. But, we have no basement or attic, these are actual living spaces in my house, specifically a family room and guest room, and a loft which we use as an office and exercise space. My last house was the only one I've had that had a basement and it was amazing how much stuff we got rid of when we moved. This house has plenty of storage (closets), but it makes it so it has to be organized.
I'm not ready to move to a smaller place, although we are sort of planning for it in 5-8 years. This house was a project, it's very unique, and I want to enjoy it. I figure when I am too old and tired to ride up the hill, we'll move.

Wanted to chime back in and say that I'm thankful that my kitchen is the biggest room in my house. Unfortunately, they put the cabinets on the two shortest walls :eek: and didn't really think the space through when they upgraded the kitchen sometime in the last 10 years, but that's storage space I can actually add when I have a bit more money. Architecturally, there really isn't a way to add closets so I'm working with what's here. Though I am thinking of adding built-ins in the eaves of my bedroom when I get over my fear of finding out what the squirrels did in there last summer!

My dream is a small cabin in the woods with a sleeping loft and one big open space downstairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jessmarimba

My dream is a small cabin in the woods with a sleeping loft and one big open space downstairs.

---

Ohhhhh.. we stayed in one of those type cabins in the Smokey Mountains a few years back. Most defiantly an excellent place to kick back while on vacation.

Shannon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jessmarimba

My dream is a small cabin in the woods with a sleeping loft and one big open space downstairs.

---

DH and I talked about building a barn instead of buying a house. A nice big, clean barn, with a giant, finished garage-type space and an apartment upstairs to live in.

I still think it would be the perfect living arrangement for us....

I dream over the Tumbleweed plans--I love how compact and well designed they are! That would be my perfect house if I were living alone.

As it is, our house started at 1,000 square feet for four of us (me, DH, two kids) and it felt crowded--tiny bedrooms upstairs meant the kids played downstairs, and there was no space for toys (either to play with or to store), so we put on a 200 s.f. family room addition several years ago, and now I'm happy with our space (especially since that includes a woodburning fireplace, the one thing I thought our house lacked when we bought it). I suspect as the kids get older and toys become less of an issue, it'll feel positively spacious. We designed the addition so it could easily be converted to a bedroom, so theoretically we could have an elderly relative move in with us if necessary, or we could make that the master bedroom as we get older and can't/don't want to manage the stairs.

If we could only give up our books and our hobbies, we'd be fine with less space.

Sarah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootingstar

For 2 people, it costs money to power up big space in a home. The only good thing is that Portland doesn't get as cold as other parts of North America.

---

Are you suggesting that 1700 sf is BIG? Because if so, then yes, you need to experience a bit more of rural/suburban America before drawing that conclusion. Compared to most of the people I know in real life, 1700 sf is quite small (for a house - not an apartment).

Apartments and townhomes are different - living small is much easier to do when you are willing to live in an urban environment. Unfortunately, that means letting someone else provide all your food, provide all your water and remove all your waste. When you consider all those factors, the cost of heating our 1700 sf has less of an impact on the environment than the cost to heat 500 sf and provide all the other services that we can secure for ourselves.

Does a smaller space really lead to less consumerism? Having a place to store things can make it easier to get by on less disposables, allow you to buy larger quantities, and preserve larger quantities of seasonal food.

But I suspect that folks with big houses are generally greater consumers than people living in small places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLC1968

Are you suggesting that 1700 sf is BIG? Because if so, then yes, you need to experience a bit more of rural/suburban America before drawing that conclusion. Compared to most of the people I know in real life, 1700 sf is quite small (for a house - not an apartment).

Apartments and townhomes are different - living small is much easier to do when you are willing to live in an urban environment. Unfortunately, that means letting someone else provide all your food, provide all your water and remove all your waste. When you consider all those factors, the cost of heating our 1700 sf has less of an impact on the environment than the cost to heat 500 sf and provide all the other services that we can secure for ourselves.

---

I think alot of environmentalists would argue with that. It's pretty well-established that urban living has been shown to be less harmful to the environment than spread-out living. You can grow your own food in urban areas in community gardens. The necessity of a car in rural and semi-rural areas is a huge environmental suck. You don't need that in an urban area because you can walk or ride a bike everywhere, and infrastructure is already in place. Now that more and more urban areas are allowing chickens, and many more people are growing some of their own food, and farmers markets are pretty much normal in urban areas (with produce from urban farms), I'd say that urban living can be alot lighter on the earth than rural living mainly because of the car and infrastructure issues.

One of my biggest peeves of "green building" are the houses built in the middle of nowhere that require personal transport in the form of an internal combustion engine (or electric car--coal fired plants required) to get anywhere and to obtain anything. If you never leave the farm, then that's different. But most people leave the farm every day, multiple times a day.

Just as an example, take someone who lives in a 900 SF house that is in an established urban neighborhood--no new roads or pipes required! This person could grow some of his or her own veggies, shop at local farmers markets that are accessible by foot or bike. Even better if there is an urban farm in the same city--they are becoming more and more common. And that person could telecommute or walk or bike to work. The benefits would be even greater if that person lived in an apartment and had a plot at a nearby community garden because that person would take up less space and use fewer resources than someone who lived in a house in a rural or suburban area, had to drive 20+ miles to work and back everyday (double that for a couple unless they carpool), and also had to drive everywhere to get other necessities.

1700SF for a house is a moderately sized house. I don't understand the need for 4000+ SF houses. However, I would not want to grow up in a 2-bedroom house with 6 kids and 2 parents like Shootingstar did!

For me design and layout is a lot more important than size, though I in fact enjoy having a small house. I like having less to clean, less to heat, fewer places to lose things and a definite limit to the amount of (indoor) possesions I can amass. I easily feel overwhelmed by having too many things, and while I can dream of having spacious rooms for drying clothes, working on my bikes etc I know I'd also use them to store "things" rather than make an active decision on whether to keep them or not. Being able to store food and buy in bulk is a good point, though.
One of things I love most about going camping is having to pare down necessary items to a minimum.

Design: I want most space, air and sun in the living spaces, and that is what we have now. Tiny bedroom for the two of us, small bathroom, largish bedroom for our teenager, perfect for our needs.

I've read that it's easier to live greenly in urban surroundings too, but I'm sure that depends on a lot of factors.

Hey GLC, 1700 sq. ft. would definitely be big for dearie and I in city.

Prior to me, he and his ex with 2 young children lived in a multi-level rowhouse at 900 sq. ft. But then he and ex also had a 100-acre beef farm outside the city for 10 years where he farmed on weekends and he built the house. House was 2 storey, probably under 900 sq. ft. He sold the farm.

Depends what one does with space. I probably could use a small 2nd rm. in Vancouver home at 9 ft. x 9 ft. size with window...to do painting. Doing some art requires space, hard flooring and window ventilation as well as natural lighting to gauge accuracy of paint colours.

but I never had this. I had to lay down plastic sheeting on our dining area floor to floor carpeting before laying out my oil or acrylic paints to start, plus portable easel. Took me half an hr. to set up and then put away stuff. IT doesn't allow me to leave out paints/set-up for several days/weeks, etc.n Same for sewing. I have to unpack and pack a tabletop sewing machine for alterations.

I have a portable ironing board....which I place on the carpeted floor and kneel down to iron. I don't want to buy a full standing ironing board, takes up too much storage rm. I don't iron that much anymore.

Is it a hassle? Well, how much more of a hassle is this compared to picking up many toys that young children throw down onto the floor every day for a few years? (No matter how good they are about picking up after themselves...no one is perfect.)

So that's just a wish to have 1 extra small rm., but probably won't happen unless we win the lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tulip

I think alot of environmentalists would argue with that. It's pretty well-established that urban living has been shown to be less harmful to the environment than spread-out living. You can grow your own food in urban areas in community gardens. The necessity of a car in rural and semi-rural areas is a huge environmental suck. You don't need that in an urban area because you can walk or ride a bike everywhere, and infrastructure is already in place. Now that more and more urban areas are allowing chickens, and many more people are growing some of their own food, and farmers markets are pretty much normal in urban areas (with produce from urban farms), I'd say that urban living can be alot lighter on the earth than rural living mainly because of the car and infrastructure issues.

One of my biggest peeves of "green building" are the houses built in the middle of nowhere that require personal transport in the form of an internal combustion engine (or electric car--coal fired plants required) to get anywhere and to obtain anything. If you never leave the farm, then that's different. But most people leave the farm every day, multiple times a day.

Just as an example, take someone who lives in a 900 SF house that is in an established urban neighborhood--no new roads or pipes required! This person could grow some of his or her own veggies, shop at local farmers markets that are accessible by foot or bike. Even better if there is an urban farm in the same city--they are becoming more and more common. And that person could telecommute or walk or bike to work. The benefits would be even greater if that person lived in an apartment and had a plot at a nearby community garden because that person would take up less space and use fewer resources than someone who lived in a house in a rural or suburban area, had to drive 20+ miles to work and back everyday (double that for a couple unless they carpool), and also had to drive everywhere to get other necessities.

1700SF for a house is a moderately sized house. I don't understand the need for 4000+ SF houses. However, I would not want to grow up in a 2-bedroom house with 6 kids and 2 parents like Shootingstar did!

---

Tulip - I totally understand your point and I agree that an urban setting can be less of an impact that a rural one. As we both know, that's not usually the case though, is it?

Anyway, my point was that many of us make the best choices we can with what is available to us in our respective living areas. Maybe I should not have have spoken up if 1700 sf is considered a big house. I guess I was wrong to even have participated in this thread.

Well, this discussion is the reason I didn't mention the size of my house in my post :). My last house was 2100 sq. feet, which I've heard is about the average in the US. It was an 8 rm. new colonial, with 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, a large family room and a very small formal living room and dining room. Since I actually use those rooms for entertaining, that part was bad. Our furniture didn't exactly fit.
It felt cramped with 2 growing teens, who were 10 and 13 when we moved there. Family room and bedrooms were good, but the house felt small to me, compared to my house in AZ that had the same square footage. I think it has to do with the lay out. So, we finished part of the basement, mainly so son #1 could play his guitar and son #2 could use the trainer and blast the Spinervals without me going nuts from the noise. Then, a few years later, we added on a very large screened in porch, which we really lived in for 3 months out of the year. We ate all of our meals out there, when it was nice. That really made a difference.
This house has just under 3,000 sq. ft., no one can give me a straight answer on the exact size. But, the house is built vertically, in a very different shape, on 4 levels. It is an older house than the last one by about 12 years. The bedrooms are smaller, and so are the bathrooms. But, the other rooms are bigger. I miss having the open type of kitchen/family room, but it's not so important, now that the kids are gone. However, this house does not feel bigger to me when I am inside. It looks dramatic and big from the outside, but I think it's because it's a contemporary, in a part of the country where they are unusual.
It's true, 2 people don't need a house this big. But, since we have remodeled the place from top to bottom, including replacing every system and window, roof, etc. to make it energy efficient, I feel we actually live more economically than we did in the last place. I also live closer to shopping and do many more errands by bike. It's closer to the city by 10 miles, which has made a huge difference in time/gas when I go to my classes and we have 2 commuter rail stations, as well as being closer to the end point of the regular train line.

I'm currently in a 700 sq. ft. apartment, having gone from a 2000 sq. ft. house with 4 people in it at one time. I love the small space, it's a perfect size for 1 person, though crowded when I have visitors. Easy to care for and clean and cheap enough to heat, plus close to work (commute by bike, grocery shop by bike). I have a large basement for bike work. Currently starting to think about buying a house and have seen a 624 sq. ft. cottage in a quiet setting and a 786 sq. ft. place that I like. Both have less closet space than my current apartment, so thinking carefully about layout and storage space in terms of what will work for me. The decision may also depend on whether my 22 year old son is likely to live with me very much. I don't think I could manage a 500 sq ft place unless I gave up some hobbies and biking/hiking/skiing equipment and the clothing/boots/shoes that go with them.

I've lived in under 500 sq ft with my bf and 2 cats. At the time, I used to have recurring dreams of finding hidden doors which opened onto huge rooms which I didn't know were there. That could be Freudian for something else ;) but I really think it was just me wanting more space. :D

I just wanted to come back and mention that I finally had the chance to watch the video in the article that shootingstar originally posted.

Our goal is the same as the goal of the guys in the video. We want to downsize and cut back on all but the essentials. BUT, at the same time, my home is also my escape and when the only rural small sf options are 30 year old trailers or uninsulated shacks with sagging roofs, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Like I originally said, while our house is 1700 sf, I WANT to live in a much smaller space. We have now 'downsized' 3 times (each time we've moved as a couple) and expect to continue to do so. I will mention that while not having lots of extra 'stuff' is good...not having any space in which to store food is bad - particularly if you live in the country. My pantry is probably half the size of that guys whole house! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLC1968

Tulip - I totally understand your point and I agree that an urban setting can be less of an impact that a rural one. As we both know, that's not usually the case though, is it?

Anyway, my point was that many of us make the best choices we can with what is available to us in our respective living areas. Maybe I should not have have spoken up if 1700 sf is considered a big house. I guess I was wrong to even have participated in this thread.

---

You know, we should recognize that people should face the reality that we only have physical capacity, time, energy and financial resources at different stages of our lives to live AND maintain a certain amount of living space and its configuration --1 level vs. multiple-level dwellings.

I'm not even thinking of environmental footprint when I think of myself. I ask myself: What can I realistically maintain on a regular basis in living accommodation within my capacity?

If one is single and is not mechanically inclined, then one had better have friends/neighbours /money to pay /have someone else do certain things for a self-standing house.

But I'm not the other spectrum where I would want to go into a housing co-op. Heck, it'll be enough just to share housework responsibilities.

Yea, GLC and some folks need some big pantries or root cellars. :)

Crankin:

Quote:

---

It's true, 2 people don't need a house this big. But, since we have remodeled the place from top to bottom, including replacing every system and window, roof, etc. to make it energy efficient, I feel we actually live more economically than we did in the last place. I also live closer to shopping and do many more errands by bike. It's closer to the city by 10 miles, which has made a huge difference in time/gas when I go to my classes and we have 2 commuter rail stations, as well as being closer to the end point of the regular train line.

---

Being closer to everything makes a big difference to me personally. If you can believe this, I signed an apartment lease without having seen it in person in advance. I had little choice with several major things, happening at the same time in life. :eek:

But luckily it turned out I'm a short stroll from a long walk-in indoor elevated walkway ..that is a big help when it's very cold in winter to get to work. I plan to bike in warmer seasons which will be nice to ...stretch out the distance deliberately just so I can get abit of a fitness ride.

In this city, the idea of living in smaller homes or many condos, is slolwy coming. Probably being in the prairies here, give this illusion of endless space and development opportunities..which is wrong thinking for urban planning for a whole city. Whereas in Vancouver, BC, the natural nearby mountain barriers and ocean, people are more willing to consider the idea of residential densification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootingstar

Could you/have lived in small spaces where home was 500 sq. ft.?

---

This is an interesting question. I must confess to being one of those people that always needed large (and empty) spaces. Maybe because it's what I got used to for a long time. Grew up in Europe, in a 3 story 6000+sft home, and until I was 30+ years old, the smallest house I lived in was at least 4000.
Then a few years back I had to move to a smaller place, which was actually 'half' of a house. The usable indoor space was quite small, 900sft or so - but there was a nice patio and a big shared backyard, and I was in school at the time, so a small space turned out to be a good idea.
My current house is still on the small side, about 1500 or so of indoor space. That plus the outdoor space - backyard, front yard, garage etc - it's enough work to keep up with. I guess I'm still 'downsized' sort of, at least compared to my earlier years, but living alone and with not much in terms of of housekeeping help, I'm not sure I would want to take care of a 4000+ right now.
Maybe I am getting older ;) and my job does not really leave me that much free time - so I'm happy as it is. :)