ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
What would you class as a small, average and large house?(137 Posts)
Interested on others perspectives.
Our house is 108 square meters in total and I feel its small. I grew up in houses four times the size, so maybe Im spoilt?
DH thinks our house is fine but he grew up in houses of the same size.
Sometimes I have felt a bit embarrassed when relatives or dd friends have said comments along the lines of "oh its nice- but really small".
Then others have around and said it seemed quite big.
I suppose I class our house as small, an average house about 130-160 and larger anything over 160 square meters.
What do you think?
If you interested in the subject perhaps have a look at the Royal Institute of British Architects on the subject of space in new homes :www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/HomeWise/CaseforSpace.pdf
I thought it made interesting but that might just be me as an architect.
It has figure for m2 of houses and comparisons with averages in other countries it also looks at the perception of space and the need for it.
Small: 2 bed terrace and smaller, our old one, which was a good size for its type, was 900sq ft
Medium: 3 bed semi/one of those 4 bed new builds where at least one of the rooms is tiny.
Large: 4+ double bedrooms, current house has 4 doubles and a single and the equivalent of 3 reception rooms and is just under 2500 sq ft. Everyone I know thinks it's huge- but maybe not OP's dad
I would think small is one or two bed, with a openplan living kitchen, and a bathroom.
Med 3-4 bed with two good double bedrooms, seperate living kitchen/diner or dining room.
Large 5 bed two reception rooms, dining kitchen diner. Lots of space, the sort of house I would like
Our house is 1100 sq feet, which I've just online-converted to 102 sq metres.
It has 4 bedrooms, which fooled me into thinking it was big. Ha.
It is way too small for our family of 5 to live comfortably - the bedrooms are tiny, there is a single reception room and a tiny kitchen. Nowhere for any decent storage, no second loo or bathroom and no utility, dining room or study.
I think medium is about 2000 sq feet (185 sq metres), with space for children to do their homework or play in their bedrooms, a separate dining room and a kitchen with room for a table, and big anything more than that (e.g including study, guest room, extra bathrooms).
My house is about 150 m^2 and I think it is large.
I grew up in a house that was probably about 180 m^2, and I knew that was big, too.
My teen years best friend lived with 5 other people in a house about 70 m^2.
108 m^2 would be on the large side of average in UK.
Our is a 1300sq ft 3 bed (I don't think they counted the halls in the floorplan which are big - I think sometimes square footage is a big confusion). It hasn't got extension/loft conversion so that's the 'natural' size - so it does have good rooms
I grew up in a much bigger house in the countryside and I'd love to have a larder/playroom/utility room/study - but I live in north London, and I can tell you for free that compared to nearly everyone I know, I'm living the dream in this place
Just checked , mine is 103 sqm
What a brilliantly written and presented pdf wonkylegs.
I live in France in the suburbs. I'm sure we generally have more space per house than in the UK and the perspective on house sizes would be different.
I'm in a rented house, new build, 1500 sq ft and I think it would be classed a small to medium house over here.
It's all about the layout..
I currently live in a "large 2 bed" - there is a lot of space relative to other houses that have 2 bedrooms.
Someone else could live in a "small 4 bed" - 4 bedrooms but not a lot of space.
It sounds like you grew up in a "massive 5 bed", not just saying that having 5 bedrooms is massive but that it was massive compared to other houses with 5 bedrooms.
I really hate the houses where the garage is part of the house, so you have a larger number of bedrooms upstairs but not much downstairs space.
Agree with VBisme that people don't speak about square metres (or feet) in the UK, we talk about how many bedrooms and how many "extra" rooms and how many bathrooms and whether it has been extended.
I have a cousin who has settled in the Paris suburbs, married a Frenchman etc, we regularly visit, and I too have noticed the houses and their rooms are distinctly larger than the equivalents in the UK.
I think our house is quite big. Not enormous, but certainly not small. And probably bigger than average. It's certainly the biggest house I've ever lived in.
It's 4 bedrooms (3 proper doubles and a box room), with one bathroom, a dining kitchen and two reception rooms. There's also an integral garage with a utility area at the back. I think it's around 130m2 in all. Maybe a bit bigger if you include the garage.
Based on that, I don't think 108m2 is small. I can't believe that your daughter's friends comment that it is small. How rude!
We lived in a 2 bed Victorian cottage 50m2. Small
Now Edwardian semi 3 double beds 3 reception rooms 150m2. The bug end of medium. My parents 60s 3 bed semi with box room small end if medium.
Agree that we don't really talk about size in terms of metres/feet; it's on lots of plans but its never a subject if conversation, estate agents don't mention it! I've just had to do some calcs/conversions to work ours out.
We have a big house, I think; around 3000ish square ft, 5 beds, 3 receps, diner kitchen, study, playroom. British houses, by and large, aren't on the same scale as many US ones because of the price of buildable land here compared to many places in the US ( not everywhere, clearly; friends have just moved to New York and their upper east side 2 bed apartment costs more than their 5 bed Fulham house)
So...it's all relative!
I just had a very quick skim read of your report.
Im shocked that 88sqm is the average for a 3 bedroom. I thought ours was below average.
Good report, thank you for the link. I find how we live fascinating.
I don't like the measurement by bedrooms. We have just purchased a 5 bed house, which makes it sound palatial but it isn't. The kitchen is typical 60s, an afterthought in size, and I'm going to have the wall between the kitchen and dining room removed just to get more of a feeling of space. There is one proper bathroom, and one toilet.. outside.
This isn't woe as me and my 5 bed house, but a 5 bed house built in the 60s is one size, a 5 bed Victorian would be different, and another 5 bedroom built recently would again be different (probably would be chock full of en suites and a kitchen diner as well as another reception/dining area.
I think talking about number of bedrooms or even rooms means very little as space can be sliced up very differently.
I'd see ours as large average rather than large.
4 double bedrooms. 2 bathrooms. 2 large receptions. Kitchen diner. Cellar utility and loo. Edwardian, so rooms pretty well proportioned. But feels a bit full with 5 of us. Garden not massive and not oodles of storage as have converted loft and cellar (did loft to get extra double bed, so was 3 double 1 single and is now 4 double and 2 bath).
Large for me would be BIL's 7 bed victorian heap of gorgeousness.
I think it's really strange that we don't sell houses in the UK based on living area. At least you can find out the size on the EPC. We are moving from a 3 bed with about 73m2 to a 3 bed with 90m2 plus large conservatory and I feel we are moving from a large small house to a small medium house. Would still love more space though.
A friend is looking to buy a flat in Edinburgh at the moment with 3 bedrooms.
Sounds pokey?? Er no - 163 sq m!!! That is not far off the size of our 4 bedroom house. Numbers of rooms are meaningless.
We found looking at sq m rates by far the most useful thing when comparing houses in a way that counting rooms does not.
It is all relative but I would say small is less than 100 sqm and large would be greater than 200 sqm. Above 300 sq m for a typical family must just mean that there is a lot of unecessary cleaning and maintenance costs imo.
Yes Tricot exactly!
I was looking at some floor-plans thinking "oh look they have a playroom and a study, maybe its worth viewing".
Then I realised by looking at the sqm, that although there were more squares drawn on the plan (which psychologically made it seem bigger) the house was actually just the size of ours so would have been pointless.
I don't think in terms of total square footage. I think in terms of small, medium and large rooms and then numbers of rooms.
Most new builds seem to me to have small rooms - even 4 bed+ houses. A medium sized room to me is 12' by 11'.
I don't have any idea about the sq ft of our house, but I do know our 2 bedroom victorian flat was way bigger than our 3 bed detached house. The sq footage must have been enormous as I had a hallway you could live in!
However, the house has a garden and I never knew what to do in a bedroom as big as the one I did have!
And what's the obsession with multiple en suites in new builds at the expense of space to move around the bloody bed? They seem to make a room that's just big enough to hold a standard double, stick in a small built in wardrobe to suggest that's covered even though it would only hold the clothes of one 7 year old, and put in an en suite where you could be standing in the shower and reach to wash your hands in the sink! Downstairs loo, great. Master ensuite and family bathroom, great. More than that is pointless if you're left with no space to shake the duvet. And that isn't a euphemism.
Join the discussion
Please login first.