apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Yes, BUT one should define what the space is used for. We have 250 sf per person (1000 sf for a family of 4 with 2 littl'uns). In order to make it into a beautiful, functional space, we would have to do extensive renovations and decluttering, and I think we'd need to organize off-site storage. That's because we use the space for sleeping, cooking, eating, a lot of recreation (adult and child), two home-based businesses with associated equipment and inventory, and all of our storage needs. Some people just use their homes as a place to sleep and watch TV, rarely cooking, socializing, or working there - obviously those people would have different space needs.

I live in a 250 SF apartment. Its great for just me, but when company stays over it is definitely a little tight.

as Ksenia says - it definitely depends on the use of space - my house is 1000 sq ft for 2 people and 2 animals - there is definitely more space than we need in some aspects but, because it's poorly laid out, it's more cluttery and crowded than our 750 sq ft apartment was. I have said to my husband that if we had a professional organizer, we could get rid of one room.

I share about 800 square feet with three other people (and a few murderous mice) in a new student-housing building. That's about 200 sq ft per person. The actual space itself is enough, but it's really poorly organized. Even though we're in separate bedrooms, the floorplan is just not set up for privacy of any kind and I can hear my roommate brushing her damn teeth twice a day. The kitchen is laughable, especially for four adults who do most of their cooking at home. We usually eat in the living room or our rooms, so the small dining area would have been much more useful as some sort of pantry. Oh well, viva New York!

I agree re: how the space will be used. My husband runs his computer business out of our townhouse and even though we have 1250 sf it sometimes feels crowded. Also, what part of the country are you living in? My ex and I shared a 250 sf studio in NYC but now that I live in Los Angeles I can't imagine cohabitating in a space that small. Nor do I have to since the housing stock is much more spacious out here.

I live and work in about 550 square feet -- which seems about right, though there is a tendency in NYC to expand one's space by taking refuge in the nearest coffee shop or Starbuck's. (Cloister's in my case.)I've banned houseguests, and find I have enough room to have a handful of people over for drinks and even two or three for dinner.

Having a door to occasionally close is more important in some ways than how much space is behind the door. As an example I once dated a guy who lived in an enormous but completely undivided loft and was also an insomniac.

Even though I told him I sleep like a log, he would pretty much end up lying there grinding his teeth all night, unable to read, watch TV, fix a snack, etc. A one-bedroom half the size would have been much easier.

Wow. I cannot answer that question!

I have not lived with another human or animal in many years. My last apartment was between 300 and 400 sq ft - poorly laid out. While I lived there easily I was always a bit stressed because it seemed so cluttered. If there was so much as a newspaper on the sofa it looked like an utter mess.
When a friend came to visit - her suitcase was always in the way!

Now my condo is 740 sq ft. Better layout and it seems like just enough space for me. If a spouse were to join me - we could probably make do (in the midwest/ mountain states we seem to need more elbow room!) but I'd have to downsize all I have in the closets (which I intend to do anyway) to make room for him.
But I don't know where we would put another computer!!!!

I turned a large closet into an 'office' (see link) , just to have the computer out of the living room or bedroom. It's an ergonomical nightmare so it's a good thing I don't work from home!

The amount of space you need is also related to design and culture. And when I say culture I mean both "urban" and "rural," but also American vs. European. I visited my relatives in Asia and they are much more comfortable in closer spaces, both in a room and where they stand when talking to you.

All I know is, I was very happy in a luxury hotel I stayed in once that was about 1100 square feet with two rooms. I know I could have lived there indefintely and been quite happy. No, I didn't NEED all that space just for me alone. But I do think it's nice for one person to have enough room to breathe. It makes cuddling up in one part, like the bedroom, that much cozier when you know the rest of the space is "over there".

the answer is "yes" and "no".

"yes", there probably is an average, but it probably varies wildly from culture to culture.

personally, based on my past experiences living in various situations, i need at least 500sf or i get very cranky with a very low "going postal" threshold.

my family [me, my partner and his elderly mother] live in 1500sf and we mostly don't kill one another. one more room would be ideal, but we can't afford it.

My own experience is that 800 sft for the first person and 400 for each additional is just about right.

The neighborhood kids (who have parents from Mexico) often seemed amazed that only two people and a dog live in our small Victorian. Meanwhile, some of their families have 7 plus people in the same amount of space. Grandma, an auntie, etc.

Great Article!

My apartment is a tiny 300 square footer and it totally drove me crazy. I'm moving to Santa Monica in April. Anyone know if any of these areas are any good? I'm from the north and haven't been to SM yet so I'm using this site. Santa Monica Apartment Listings

Scott

sorry, this is the link i was talking about. any tips would be much appreciated.

http://www.westsiderentals.com/southerncalifornia/apartments.cfm/Santa-Monica-Apartments/

In order to acheive World Peace everyone must have their own bathroom. This is my firm belief

I'm assuming this question refers to US households. i'd say one room per person--no matter how small the room is. Everyone needs a door that they can shut close and have their own personal space for thought. Although I've lived my childhood in Asia where the whole family coexisted in one semi-big studio--seems obsurd that I've lived this life, but and we were relatively happy. And I was a lot closer and connected to my family than I am today with everyone in their separate spaces. I guess conflicts gets resolved quicker when everyone is in your face?

Scott - I live in Santa Monica so maybe I can help you out.

One thing about LA that you must learn is that apartments go FAST. It is incredibly competetive so when you find a good one, you should have your checkbook ready immediately. If you go home to think about it, you'll be too late.

Santa Monica is much like other cities in that the neighborhoods vary block by block so you really need to see it and the surrounding area to know if it will work for you. Parking is also an issue.

Judging from the listings you linked to, it looks like you have a nice size budget so you should be able to find something nice in a good area.

Come on down for a visit and see these places and their neighborhoods in person.

Welcome to Santa Monica!

There is no answer to this question. I live in NYC.
Out of college I lived in a 550 sf railroad flat, tub in kitchen, by myself and shared the toilet with the couple in the next apt. who became good friends. An old family friend told me that when he was a kid he knew the families in the two apartments, they had 6 kids and 7 kids, and all grew up happy and successful.

With 2 kids, we lived for 14 years in 2 floor of a townhouse with about 1350 usable sf. It seemed fine to me. We have now taken over the ground floor and basement, which means we have 3900 net sf for us and a kid who will go to college in September. Lots of space. Whee!!! --Not really. There is not enough space for the bathroom of my dreams and for a photo studio for my hobby. And we've run out of storage space already. I now understand why people build MacMansions.

I think the truth is that space is a psychological construct --and what is more important is how people spend their lives, and with whom.

The size of the person is probably important also. I'm 5 ft tall and don't need as much space as other people might ... A full-size bed is fine whereas other people might want a queen or king. A loveseat is okay in place of a larger sofa, etc.

This is a question I ask myself constantly even though I have a fair amount of space to myself-just under 500sf. When I lived in NYC I just did my best to make do with what I had be it the 9x12 room I had in the West Village (It was a teo bedroom, but someone was also sleeping in the livingroom-so glad those days are over) so many years ago or the half of a 1000sf duplex I shared in Brooklyn for several years. Having private space was important to me. but also having space to work on my artwork was a big deal. When I had less space, my pieces were smaller and fewer.

This past summer I weighed the possibility of living part time in NYC again and I had decided that the best option would be a really small space if I could find it.

I have a 2k sq. ft. house. It's just me. That's a bit much for one person.

However, in Silicon Valley, I lived in 700 sq. ft. and 900 sq. ft. apts. In TX, I lived in 900 and 1100 sq. ft. apts. The ideal is about 1400 sq. ft. for one person in the US.

250 sq. ft./person is stingy/minimum for an American. Are non-efficiency NYC apartments even that small? In TX, 250 sq.ft. is the size of a a medium sized master bathroom.

I would also like to chime in about culture playing a big role. I live in Tokyo, and my apartment, if memory serves, is between 35 and 40 sq. meters. The kitchen is a bit on the small side, but the rest isn't bad. Most of my friends that are single and living alone have apartments with one less room.

Also, since I sit on the floor, and use futons that stow in the closet space during the day, there is little to no furniture taking up space.

The curious can see pics here.

I think 250 per person is about right. I've just measured our house and it is 520 sq ft (including the stairs). There are two of us here. But I also agree that that space has to have enough doors for each person to be able to close one and hide away.

But I also believe that design plays a really important part. Our house has 'grown' so much since I started following the Apartment Therapy road!

On a side note, I recently found our house on the 1901 UK census, and there was a widow with her three grown up children living here. That must have been cramped.

This is definitely an interesting topic of conversation.

I think the word need should be bolded.. its not desire, its need. And keeping that in mind, I think 250 is probably about right. Its making me chuckle a little to read that if someone was taller than 5 foot they might need more space. Someone may need a King size bed. King sized beds, in my opinion, are a luxury item.. no one should need a bed that freakin' large. America=Supersize everything. And a society that buys, buys, buys.. shopping is America's like #1 pasttime- well of course, we need more sq feet to store all our things right? This topic seems to me to almost be a cultural discussion, not so much a design or function question. Its quite interesting. I also laugh at the people on those HGTV real estate shows who say they 'need a bigger place, because they need a king size bed, and they have 2 small kids who need more room to grow' but then during their tour of their current home, point out various rooms that they do not use (formal living rooms, formal dining rooms).

All I know is that I wanna be able to live on the minimum amount of space and if I should live in a large space, I'll at least never use the word 'need' when I describe the space.

Absolutely not, no set number. The amount of space one needs is dependent upon many of the factors mentioned above...culture, personal size, roomate/spouse or not, kids or not, pets or not, most of all, are all factors. Plus, what is important to one at a moment in one's life, the priorities of living, and how one lives, change. Look at college students....my son lived in what he called a jail cell, a horrible room that was maybe 10x16, which included 2 beds, 2 desks, and 2 closets, with a roomate. People will adapt, justify, or change their situation as their needs change. It's a fluid thing, throughout one's life, oftentimes. Some people just don't like change, which is the driving force for them to accept their current space forevermore.

We have 1200 sq ft here for two but we could probably live in half that but we might kill each other...

Rooms are more important than space - I'd rather have more small rooms to separate activities and escape into than more space in an open-plan environment

Courtney, we have just bought a king size bed and it absolutely rocks... there are two of us, we're tall, and two little dogs also crash there.

It's a luxury for sure, but worth it.

As a single person though, I was content with a twin size bed. A king = two twins.

For us, square footage is all about what's outside. We have a smaller house but a large back garden and we spend a lot of time outdoors.

Need is actually probably much less than 250 square feet. It may induce stress, but you won't die by living in an even tinier space. It has to keep out the elements. You'd need space for somewhere to cook (although that could be shared), a bathroom (again, could be shared), and enough room to lay down.

Otherwise, it's a cultural and personal decision. In New York, people are used to small spaces. I can't personally imagine living in more than 1000 square feet unless my family was more than 6 people. We're in 700 now, with 3 people, and having a second child. That'll be less than 200 square feet per person. I also, though, like the idea of traveling and living in an RV or on a boat with a family. The square footage is much lower there, but the space is well utilized and you know that you'll use the park/marina facilities (when you're docked, anyway) for extra eating space, running around, etc.

I lived in Yokohama, Japan for nearly two years in a room that was no larger than 150 sq. feet. Probably 6 tatami (for those of you in the know). Initially it was torturous, but I got used to it. I grew to love folding up my futon every day and unfolding it every night. Now I live in downtown Brooklyn in a 250 sq. ft. studio--palatial.

I too have lived in Japan--in two 6-mat apartments--though the first was new and had a mini-balcony, and in a small house with no hot water. (The sento--public bath--was right down the street.) I now have about 1000 sq.f. I'd LIKE more, but I need less, though organization is key. Unlike Maxwell and some others (sorry, I DO love your site!) I can't rid myself of most of my books, and they number in the thousands, or most of the piles of paper, because of what I do for a living. I do weed regularly and am grateful for that. I wish that there was a separate room--dare I say an office--could fill up with my books and computer and paper, but shut off from the rest of my life when I wanted.

I think culture affects the space issue in ways that go far beyond people's expectations/comfort level. In cities with small apartments, lots of services often spring up to make those small spaces livable - like takeout that lets you avoid cooking, or gyms since you don't have a basement room for a NordicTrack. People also don't expect to entertain at home nearly as much or have houseguests.

Based on my visits to Tokyo, they have of course taken this concept to the Nth level. Love hotels help you deal with the lack of privacy in cramped quarters, while karaoke and videogame parlors open late into the night let you casually (and cheaply) hang out with friends outside the home; and there's a huge variety of places to eat or take away food in every area and at every price level, also open for long hours. (Plus there's tons of clean public bathrooms, but that's another discussion.)

By comparison, in many suburban areas businesses and even restaurants close quite early, there might not be any coffee shops like the one that MGR/SKGR use for breathing room, and if you repeatedly met friends at restaurants instead of having them over, they would probably suspect you were living with your parents or had something else to hide.

So it's natural that people would need more space to build into their homes the amenities that might be just down the block in an apartment-oriented metropolis. If you think of those homes as also including small slices of your local Korean deli, Equinox, Kinko's and corner bar, it seems a little less wasteful, doesn't it?

"....So it's natural that people would need more space to build into their homes the amenities that might be just down the block in an apartment-oriented metropolis. If you think of those homes as also including small slices of your local Korean deli, Equinox, Kinko's and corner bar, it seems a little less wasteful, doesn't it?"

---Bravo. All so true. Though when I had less space, but easier access to outdoor space, I was happier.

I guess it is all about need and design. The house we're currently in is 1900 sq. feet, which seemed really big to me but is the smallest floorplan in the subdivision. The bedrooms are tiny, but we have a modest dining room and a huge kitchen, which makes the house feel like a mansion. There are 3 bedrooms and two full baths. There are three adults and several pets living here and while I think my own ideal home would be about 850 square feet, I'm pretty happy in my home now, albeit its a guilty happiness.

"The ideal is about 1400 sq. ft. for one person in the US."

I find that interesting--I'm currently in a 700 square feet 1+ bedroom apartment with my partner and my dog. We're planning a move a different city with lower real estate costs, and most of the apartments I've seen in our price range have been significantly larger--1200+ square feet, 3 bedrooms, etc.--and I just don't know what we would do with all that space. The idea of having to buy more furniture just to fill a room I don't need is pretty awful. When you live in a bigger space, you need to buy more things you just don't need.

I think there is an optimal amount of square footage per human, probably based on an equation taking in several life situation variables, rather than a set number like 250 sq ft. It appears to me from reading this website and from looking at how people live in small spaces, that a happy life in a small space depends heavily on nearby outside support. Nearby stores, cafe's, supplementary storage, etc. appear to make life in a small space much more liveable and worth the spacial sacrifices. Though I'm sure there are exceptions, small space living appears to be rare in a suburban or rural setting, as the setting would lack convenient "outside support" and therefore require storage of items not immediately available in the neighborhood, hence a need for greater living space.

I live alone in about 1300 sq ft. I love the space, but unfortunately it is not well designed. So while I luxuriate in big rooms, I reengineer closets and build cabinetry for more efficient storage. In her several home design books, the author Sarah Suzanka advocates that people can live happy and stress-free lives in smaller space if that space is well designed and efficient. So I would say yes I could live in less space, if it were well designed, and even less space if the outside support existed.

This reminds me of Le Corbusier's Radiant City design, where he took into account minimal physical needs based off his Le Modular scaling and other physiological requirements. He designed apartments with 14 square meters (approx. 150 square feet)per individual. He accounted for everything including sunlight and air circulation requirements. Though he didn't account for the individual. For some, 150-250 sf of space per person is fine, for others it may be outlandishly suffocating.

People need cubic feet. I personally live in a three dimensional world.

Just saw an article in the NY Observer that said most commercial real estate folk estimate a need of 200 s.f. per person for office space. I would think the typical office is far more dense than the typical home, so anything less would seem quite low?

But, when calcuating office square footage, they bizarrely also count a percentage of common space, like hallways and lobbies. That doesn't happen for apartments.

Two of us live in 1700 sf Boston Condo, and typically, we (me, husband and two cats) only use about 700-800 sf of our space ( which would be about 400sf per person).

We periodically consider downsizing.

But... we have an extended family, all of which are 30 somethings and children living in shoe-boxes all over the state and in NYC. The only way we can all get together ( except perhaps during the summer months) is at our place.

Also, Although we do not use all of the space we " own" it certainly has been a boon to just about everybody we know who wants to visit Boston for medical care, school, or vacation. We have a pretty high occupancy rate on the weekends!