Large house- you must have lots of children?

[MarmiteCoriander]

AIBU that people assume that if you have a 3 bed house and a small study- that you must have multiple children?

Currently renovating a derelict house for DH, myself and dog to live in. Yes, its much larger than than the 2 bed flat we lived in, but doesn't have acres of land! We have TTC 12 yrs, 3 losses and rounds of IVF, but people assume we must have lots of kids to have 'such a big' house!

Would you assume someone living in a 3 bed with small study had multiple children?

I wouldn't assume anything but see that plenty of the old fashioned nosey Parker types (I'm imagining my grandma!) would. I can imagine that might be triggering for you and you would be well within your right to challenge that assumption should someone say something inappropriate!

No, not at all.

We like space so live in a 5 bed, just the 3 of us and ddog.

Honestly though, who cares🤷‍♀️

I would assume you had 1 child, to live in a 3 bed, or were planning on having 1 in the near future. Only if I didn't know your circumstances.
We moved into a 3 bed when we were just a couple but had a child within a couple of years. We bought the house with the intention of having children in it. We then had another child and moved into a 4 bed house.
Most people I know who have bought houses with 3 or more bedrooms as a couple go on to have children in the next few years. In fact, we have a childless friend who bought a 5 bed home and we are all wondering why they bought such a big house when they don't have any children yet and say they are many years away from having any, if at all!
I'm sorry for your losses.

Now you're just being obtuse

It's just a general assumption, I guess. If me and DP had the money we would absolutely get a 4 bed house - one room for us, one for DSS, and then an office each to WFH.

Fucking LOL.

Also from Oxford Languages:
‘Family: a local organizational unit of the Mafia or other large criminal group.’

I like that one😂

😂😂😂😂😂

Good luck with the renovation and sorry for your losses . It's honestly noone's business what size house you choose to spend your money on.

We have no plans to have children and are currently looking for a larger period property for the two of us plus our pets. For us it's a lifestyle choice as we're both homebodies and run a business which means we haven't taken a holiday in the 11 years we've been together and are unlikely to for the next 10 years until we retire. Low carbon footprint for travel, so there's one area that we're not 'killing the planet' for the future generations . In part the house will be an investment for our retirement, but I don't see the harm in that. If we spend every penny we make whilst we were working then relied solely on the Government for assistance come our retirement, would that be better for society?

Thing is, we're not a communist country so we don't operate on the "to each according to his needs" principle.
Do some of you similarly object when a single person has a big SUV while a parent crams three child seats into a small car? Or a short person stretches out in Business class while someone of 6 ft 7 is crammed into economy?

That's just how it goes. People buy what they like within what they can afford, and obviously having more space, a driveway, a garden etc is going to be more pleasant than being crammed into a smaller place.

I think I would assume it, but wouldn't be surprised if was told it's not the case, if that makes sense?

Yes and nobody has said they can’t or should be prevented from doing so. We’re discussing this from a personal taste/moral angle, not whether a law should be passed on who can buy bigger houses.

Nothing like a judgy person who feels their view is moral.

I don’t think amassing anything vastly disproportionate to your needs, when there are others in need, is moral 🤷🏼‍♀️ it doesn’t make them a ‘bad person’, it’s more just a bit greedy and selfish. That’s my view. Like I said, if we were discussing BTL landlords or the empty properties strewn across the country purchased as ‘investments’ nobody would take any issue with what I’m saying.

Maybe if you're Jeff Bezos, not because you've got an extra room where you keep your sewing machines/surfboards/shoe collection.

I’ve said quite clearly a spare bedroom and/or an office is NOT ‘vastly disproportionate’. Hence why I don’t think OP in a 3 bedroom house is in any way unreasonable. I mean couples in 4/5 bedroom houses - there’s just no need for it. I see it as amassing for the sake of it. That’s my opinion 🤷🏼‍♀️

So patronising! The average lifestyle in the west is based on amassing lots of things that are not proportionate to your needs, from good and drink to clothing and other consumer goods. Unless you live a particularly frugal lifestyle you aren’t really in a position to decide what level of consumption is and isn’t moral. You can disagree with it but trying to make out that you have some sort of moral high ground is absurd! I am fascinated that you also think all BTL landlords are awful as well, do you not think that people should have the opportunity to rent property in this country?

There is 70sm2 4 "bedroom" house near me. Is that "ammasing" space needlessly? Or is it the 3 bed 110m2?

Oh please. We all know housing is a pressing issue that is far beyond many people at the moment. There’s no comparison.

In the case of the OP it's also incredibly unlikely that a family who's struggling financially is going to want to tie themselves to the expense and uncertainty of restoring a derelict house.

Nothing like a judgy person who feels their view is moral. Quite, making assumptions about someone's lifestyle purely based on the size of house they live in is just stupid. If said person amassed a lot of wealth in their lifetime and had no family to pass it onto, would these people be also be complaining if their own kids were made benefactors in the will? Can't see them being snobby enough to turn down large sums of money because the deceased was 'immoral' enough to choose to live in a big house!

It isn't just about bedrooms though, it is about having a large downstairs space.

My boyfriend is looking for a new house and it will be mostly just him, but he works from home and wants a big kitchen. He also needs the extra bedrooms for when his kids stay and later when they have families.

That's weird.
I have a three double bed, 1 upstairs study house with my husband. No one has ever assumed I have children or will have children.

How to you evaluate ‘disproportionate to needs’? You’ve said a couple with three rooms is fine, but not four? Why? If the rooms are home offices for WFH is that fine? What about a gym, how necessary is that? What if you have two children and you give them a bedroom each and a playroom? Or should you just buy a two bed and have them share? Is having two children proportionate to ones needs, but three disproportionate? What about families who decide they need two cars. Who decides whether they truly need them or whether it’s disproportionate to their needs?

A childless couple take up far less resources than a couple with children. Why do you get to decide whether they are being greedy and selfish?

I see working from home as a good reason to need a home office. I see a need for a guest room, although it’s more of a nice-to-have. But who are these people who regularly have 6+ people to stay overnight to the degree that they ‘need’ 4 spare bedrooms? What are these hobbies that take up 2 entire rooms? (Probably too ‘outing’ to say I’m guessing lol). To me anything more than 2 bedrooms used for non-bedroom purposes is vastly disproportionate 🤷🏼‍♀️ you’ll try and pick that apart again but that’s just my personal cut off.

You seem weirdly hung up on bedrooms! As a pp said, they are just rooms, people can use them for whatever they want.