To ask if a 90 square metre 3 bedroom home is small?

[CapaldiL]

DH and I have been looking at houses and have seen a plan of one which hasn't been built yet. It's 90 square metres in total inside and three floors. The ground floor is open plan kitchen and living, first floor two bedrooms and a bathroom and second floor master bedroom and en suite. It's cheap for the area and I'm wondering if that's a particularly small house?

We haven't been to view anything yet and I don't know the square footage of where we live now (rented).

Tbh the 3 floors would bother me more, that adds up to extra wasted space and makes the house less useable. My downstairs is about 85 here and I love it

It's roughly the size of my flat, 2 bedrooms. Mine is not big enough for a family. Over three floors the rooms wouldn't be very big. And like PP, I'd worry about storage.

Now I have stopped rofl over @freddiefox’ “tongove touba feel” autocorrect, I think it would be ok if it wasn’t a new build. I imagine the builders will scrimp on things like storage. My two floor two bed terrace is 72m2 and i think an extra floor with only 18m2 would feel really cramped! So I would not consider it, especially not for more than two people...

My 4 bed is 98sq meters over two floors. So downstairs is 49sq meters. If I wanted more room then I could do a loft conversion. I would be concerns about the lack of living space downstairs in a 3 storey 90sq meter 3 bed

Yes if it's under a thousand feet it's small. No way round it. For a three bedroom two bath house it's small. Don't they provide room sizes?

It is ridiculously small for a 3 story house. The rooms must be tiny.

I think that’s pretty small , I grew up in a 3 bed bungalow that size and though that didn’t feel small I imagine when you add in stair cases it might feel small

Our 3 bed 50s 3 bed is only 85.6sqm. Upstairs is fine, 2 bedrooms are big, master has built in wardrobes and loads of room for a dressing table, king size bed and bedside tables. 1 is a box room but fits a single bed. Bathroom is cramped but it works for us.

The living room and dining room are good size wise, we’ve got a massive dining table, clunky fireplace a small sofa and units too. The kitchen is narrow so we are looking to extend / knock through to give us a kitchen diner, but we do have a pantry which is a godsend. We’re a single couple but looking ttc soon and the house has room to grow into especially with an extension.

Over 3 floors three floors I can imagine rooms would be small but for the downstairs it’s all about the flow and shape of the rooms imo. A friend has a house 5 x the price of ours and it’s massive, but has a giant hallway which is wasted space ( imo) and then only room for a 6 (at a push) person dining table in the kitchen, so the space wouldn’t work for me, but works for them fine. If you’re interested certainly go view it to get an idea of the flow and workability.

yes, quite small. plus quite a bit taken out for stairs.

If it helps, the Welsh government quality requirements for a 3 bed 4 person home is 88msq and for 5 people is 94msq. That’s the minimum so you really wouldn’t want any smaller. Pretty sure you can apply that to anywhere not just Wales!

I would say it’s quite small.
If you want an idea on the size, call a local business centre and as to view an office space for 970ish sqft

I live in a 3 bed terrace. Lounge is 28 sq m and takes up about a third of the ground floor, so 2 floors approx 180 sq m
It isn’t a big house, so 3 floors at 90 sq m sounds v small

I have a 3 BD flat this size. It's fine for us (family of four) but agree that layout - and shortage matter.

I have a 3 BD flat this size. It's fine for us (family of four) but agree that layout - and storage matter.

It is small. Partly it depends on how they’ve measured the second floor. Have the included the whole floor area or only the centre part with enough headroom to stand? If it’s the whole floor area, that is a tiny house. Do you have the actual room sizes?

That is too small for a 3 bed.

Depends where in the country you are - we are in the southeast, our 3 bed has 98m2 and is relatively big. small ones are 80-90.

Pretty small. We have a 3 bed over 2 floors, its about 95 and it's as small as I would want to go. Adding in an extra set of stairs and landing for the 3rd floor would cut into the space and make it feel tiny imo.

Who is the developer?

There is a huge new estate about to be built by my house at the moment. The houses are 3-5 bedrooms, but all look tiny. They are similar designs to what you mention here, across three floors. Curious to know where you're looking. It's not called Dutton Fields is it?!

Our 1950s 4 bed terrace is 124 m2, it’s a good size for 5 of us. 90 doesn’t sound dire for a 3 bed I don’t think but I guess it depends what you’re used to!

It's completely average for a more modern house I would say. Our 1960's 4 bed house is 110sqm and we have 3 double bedroom, a box room, two lounge, small kitchen and a small playroom.

But I wouldn't buy it as 3 storey new build houses are top heavy, one downstairs space not as good as two enclosed ones I think

Which says average house size is around 70 and has just under 3 beds so nationally 90 is bigger than average.

Ours is about 86m2 over 2 floors, but all 3 bedrooms are upstairs and are all good sized doubles so I wouldn’t think generally 90m2 would be small. The layout you describe though is imagine you’ll compromise on space in the first floor bedrooms.

It would be ok over 2 floors but over three would make the living space very inflexible and small.

Missed the part about it being over 3 floors - bet it has three bathrooms as well and that will be eating into your space massively. If it had 3 bathrooms I wouldn’t bother personally!