To think 2m by 2m is not a bedroom

[dancefornow]

Advertised as a 3 bed house. What could you really use a 2x2 room for?

Plenty of kids in the UK had a box room for their bedroom growing up and still do now. It's small yes but still a bedroom.

I agree.

There are houses in my road where the smallest bedroom is 2.7m x 1.75m. They are tiny! There is just enough room to get a skinny wardrobe at the end of the bed along the long wall, and a narrow chest of drawers alongside the bed so it doubles as a bedside table.

It's not possible to have a high bed, because the roof is hipped so the ceiling is only 2m high along the outside wall. They're fine for a small child, but there's nowhere for an older child to do homework.

All the houses were built to the same footprint, but some (including mine) are 2-beds with the bathroom upstairs in the smallest room, while the 3-beds have a tiny downstairs bathroom and a kitchen in the space that's a dining room in the 2-bed houses (now mostly knocked through to make a kitchen/diner).

I grew up in a 1960s build council flat. Back then, social housing was built to minimum space standards ("Parker Morris standards"). The smallest bedroom was 2.7m x 1.7m, so not much bigger in floor area than 2x2. But it had a decent sized, full height, built in cupboard that held tons of stuff, and there was room to build a desk by fixing a deep shelf to the wall with a chest of drawers beneath.

I agree. There are too many people commenting on how a 2 by 2 small bedroom is absolutely fine, quoting the dimensions of their own small bedroom as "evidence" it can work - and their bedroom is double or almost double the size!

That is literally round the corner from my childhood house. I cannot believe the prices there now! We were in Danecroft Road.

So double the size of the one op mentions? How is that relevant?

Yes my bedroom is bigger than my DDs 2m x 2m. My point was it is still considered small for a double bedroom (as many people told me before we moved here) but I have plenty of storage in it and it feels very comfortable.

Why not have both like they do in Europe? If I see a flat that is 71sqm and has 4 bedrooms, I know that the bedrooms are tiny.

Usually it goes like
"3+kitchen, 65m2"
Which means living rooms and 2 other rooms(bedrooms).

Having "3 bedroom" when some barely fit a bed is not particularly great indicator of use too tbh.

that's horrible!

Our fourth bedroom is a bit bigger but still small, 2.8 by 2.7. It's fine for a child's bedroom for us but we have a large playroom so bedrooms are used only for sleeping mostly and aren't filled with toys or really played on much. It also has a v large built-in cupboard/wardrobe for storage not included in those dimensions which helps a lot. It has space for a single bed, chest of drawers, child's desk and that's probably about it.

Yup.
Example
3bed terrace, 1 bath,1 toilet 1940s approx. About 110m2 including loft
3bed terrace, 2 bath, 1 toilet 2022. About 70sqm no loft (that's bedroom now).
It's obvious the latter will have smaller bedrooms or some room plus barely any storage. Something has to give.

That's larger than DD's room was for 4 years.

The 4 bed new builds in my town have two 2m x 2.25m rooms. The next biggest is 2m x 3m and then there's a 3m x 3.5m one. Would much rather have 3 good size rooms (or ditch the en suite).

I have a room 1.75m by 2.2. It is too small gif a single bed (well you could fit one but only have a 75cm strip alongside it) but for insurance purposes, and therefore estate agent details, it's classified as a bedroom. I use it as an office. I can fit an L shaped desk big enough fit big iMac and a printer with filing cabinet underneath and shelves above.

We have a tiny box room. I always say our house is 2.5 beds

That's twice as long as the room OP mentioned, so not really relevant...

2x2 is tiny and only really usable with a cabin bed and storage underneath. A standard single bed is 190x90cm so it fits length ways across one wall but takes up half the width giving you a metre for any furniture, let's say 50cm deep. That's 50cm space for standing and opening drawers/cupboards.

Our 3rd bedroom is roughly 2.2cm by maybe 3m and whilst it's not huge it's a decent size for a child. It fits a loft bed with a sofa underneath and on the other wall a desk and a chest of drawers. Built in wardrobe which isn't included in the measurements I've just put. Sofa pulls out into a bed and fills the floor space we have when it's put away.

The space of new builds is ridiculous, hugely expensive and not enough room to swing a cat (in the ones I've seen anyway)

I've seen a room this size with bed wardrobe and drawers in. Must have been a two foot six bed. It's the sort of room where a few inches makes a big difference.

I agree. Even a small amount bigger makes such a difference at this size.

I’ve gone down a bit of a rabbit hole in rightmove looking up semis with the traditional box room and I can’t find any quite as small as 2x2. The majority of comments about how their DC are in similar sized rooms sound slightly bigger.

If the OP is looking at a new property and thinks the room is too small then that’s a valid opinion to hold and she should keep looking.

IMO the traditional box room that we all knew growing up, either from ourselves or friends, were probably fine. No they’re not massive but a child, even a teenager, should be fine in 6sqM. No one I knew ever found it a problem. DC1’s room is small but absolutely fine and I have no guilt about it. It it sounds like developers are really pushing the definition of bedroom to an extreme now though.

People generally had an awful lot less ‘stuff’ in the eras when small semis/terraces were built. Far fewer clothes, and the vast majority of children certainly had far fewer toys. I’m not saying that ever made small rooms OK, but I dare say there was an advantage to smaller rooms when coal fires were often the only form of heating and coal formed a major part of household expenses. (A bit like now, with soaring energy costs.)

In a part of SW London where a dd was once looking to buy, we saw tiny terraced ‘artisan cottages’, as the estate agents like to call them - built in the very early 1900s, certainly attractive to look at, but barely 55 sq m in total - for a 2 bed house! But they always seemed to sell - for the same or more as a similar-era 2 bed PB maisonette of over 70 sq m.

My first flat had a 2x2 that was actually a large bit of corridor boxed off (discovered when freeholder accidentally sent old plan diagram). My son was in it for first 2 years of his life and it was teeny. His cot + one chest of drawers.

This is quite outing but our flat was featured on Location Location Location and the cameraman couldn't fit in the 2x2 it to film it.

However was livable, especially if alternative places for toys etc! And would have been a perfect office.

People generally had an awful lot less ‘stuff’ in the eras when small semis/terraces were built.

The box rooms were built to be a storage though. They were apparently not originally intended as bedrooms. Which explains lack of storage spaces.

Ours was 6'x7' to the inch, which is 3.87sqm. 1960 terrace.

However the price reflected the compromise of that tiny boxroom. I think with new builds, staged with special furniture, there's a risk you don't appreciate quite how small they are and end up overpaying.

Yep, that's British houses for you. Our smallest bedroom is 3m x 2m. We use it for a study, but we have previously squeezed a single airbed in there along with the desk (had to put the chair in a different room though!).

Due to the position of the door, the "useable" space of the room probably is 2x2 and it's fine. Perfect as an office but would be fine as a single bedroom for a child.

If they need extra space a cabin bed or study bed would be fine. Kids really don't need a huge amount of room and they don't care about space as much as we do as adults.

My niece's bedroom is the same size and it's perfectly useable for a child. You just have to use the space wisely.