Houses - how big would you go?

Houses - how big would you go?

Author
Discussion

mart 63

1,948 posts

231 months

PositronicRay said:
Haven't you guys embraced the metric system yet?
278sqm doesn't sound as impressive as 3000sqft

Fusion777

1,464 posts

35 months

PositronicRay said:
Haven't you guys embraced the metric system yet?
Don't be silly. We need a few more centuries yet.

PhilboSE

3,565 posts

213 months

Jeremy-75qq8 said:
The difficulty in replying to this thread is the replies you will get. You are either bragging or called out as not telling the truth.

I like space. Space is lovely and yes we use it.
Agree with this. It’s a rare person who doesn’t buy more space when they have the means to do so.

People with the first hand experience of answering the OPs question at the upper end of the scale are going to be called out.

shirt

21,458 posts

188 months

i still think 1500sqft/person is a good marker for me, even though my 11yr old post is a little cringe.

still in dubai though and still a fan of having a feel of space - fewer, larger rooms. i lived with an ex in a 1500sqft 3 room apartment and that was fine but i always felt we had no real storage space or anywhere to escape to when i needed some quiet time. we moved from there to a townhouse which had 3 floors of 1000 sqft each, one of which was the garage. we split up and she moved out a few months in, so it ended up being the best house i've ever lived in.

boombang

503 posts

161 months

Bar cost to buy and own IMHO up to a point size makes less difference than layout and how the space is used. Bigger spaces generally lend themselves to more flexible use and you don't have to be so 'clever' with things like kitchen layouts and furniture sizes.

Never measured our house but it's 2-3x the footprint of most of my friends. It is however 3 rooms and corridor downstairs. One room you walk through to the kitchen so is of limited use, one is a kitchen, so we end up living in one room - not ideal.

One friend has a slightly larger footprint but more smaller rooms all accessed from a corridor, everything is useable - that said they do only use 2/3rds of the house, the rest sits empty.

Personally I'd go with more space even if I didn't use it today.

pti

1,552 posts

131 months

Current place (SSTC) is just under 100sqm.
(Potential) new place is just over 200sqm and feels absolutely enormous, though is very bottom heavy (as is our preference) being a dormer/chalet.

Any bigger and I feel like cleaning would be akin to painting the Forth Bridge.

Some of the numbers in this thread are eye-watering. I assume you have literal staff to maintain them?

caiss4

1,775 posts

184 months

Just had to check back to see whether I commented 11 years ago! If I had then it would probably be along the lines of:

House of 200 sq.m, 4 beds, 3 baths on a 1/2 acre plot with almost no neighbours, occupied by 2 adults and 3 kids. If I won the Euromillions would I go bigger - yeah for sure, get the 5th bedroom but more importantly garaging for at least 4 cars smile

Re-run today, same house but just two adults and works brilliantly (did some reconfiguring last year) and when the whole family is here it doesn't feel overcrowded. If I won the Euromillions today would I go bigger? No, don't need a 5th bedroom but I still would go for a more garaging biglaugh

PhilboSE

3,565 posts

213 months

pti said:
Some of the numbers in this thread are eye-watering. I assume you have literal staff to maintain them?
With bigger houses you tend to get more stuff that goes wrong. I could describe the heating and plumbing system to you for my particularly big house but suffice to say 2 industrial boilers, 8 pumps and 40 flow control units like valves. A typical 2 way valve motor might last 15 years…which means in any given year I have to locate and replace a couple.

In terms of general maintenance then that has more to do with age of property than size. A big modern house could require minimal maintenance but a period property needs a lot more. But you can bring a period property up to modern standards as far as you can and then it becomes a bit easier.

We don’t have any staff apart from a cleaner who goes in to our second home after each time it’s used. I do all the general maintenance on houses and gardens, but we don’t have huge amounts of land. Obviously I call in trades for anything I can’t handle.

PositronicRay

25,406 posts

170 months

pti said:
Current place (SSTC) is just under 100sqm.
(Potential) new place is just over 200sqm and feels absolutely enormous, though is very bottom heavy (as is our preference) being a dormer/chalet.

Any bigger and I feel like cleaning would be akin to painting the Forth Bridge.

Some of the numbers in this thread are eye-watering. I assume you have literal staff to maintain them?
Thank you. clap

hotchy

4,250 posts

113 months

My garage would probably be bigger than the house.

dxg

7,146 posts

247 months

I would trade off size for location every time. Problem is, all the nice houses where I'm looking are huge. Might wind up building something...

bennno

9,756 posts

256 months

Of equal relevance is how many floors, some years back we brought a large, modern, three story house of circa 2300 sqft. This arrangement results in double the sleeping accommodation in comparison to the living - which isn't a great balance, house always felt cramped with empty bedrooms we didnt use.

We went from there to a 1500 sqft bungalow that was palatial by comparison, much nicer proportioned square rooms and a better balance.

We've moved again and now have about 3000 sqft, two story, of which 750 sqft is garage (3-4 cars) this suits us fine. Personal pet hate is narrow rectangular rooms, anything with a width below 4, or ideally a minimum of 4.5 metres feels compromised.

An estate agent commented a few years back that anything two story of 2000sqft or above will feel reasonably spacious for a family of 4, on the basis its 3/4 decent large bedrooms and a single ensuite [as opposed to the current trend of 5 box shaped bedrooms with tiny ensuites to each].

TimmyMallett

2,474 posts

99 months

We went bigger because we could afford it and we thought we'd rather invest in a property we could enjoy rather than a rental that we would resent if we got crappy tenants. Downsides are heating, cleaning and maintenance.

Everything is more effort and cost. Before if I had a gutter get blocked (happened yesterday) I could just about get a ladder up but now it's way too high and in an inaccessible spot so I'll have to get someone out to sort it. I also spotted that the tie beam on the garage carport was painted over rot last year so that's another unexpected 3-4k I now have to find. And all the time I think of what I could have spent it on. I love it but equally I'm not unexcited about when I retire and downscale to a nice small warm easy to maintain place.

Unless you're upsizing to a new property or an older one that has been meticulously maintained, you need to really think about how much extra you need for maintenance and heating.

rlw

3,163 posts

224 months

We have 2000 square feet of Georgian splendour but a lot of it is hall. Another 500 to 1000 would make a lot of difference.

Personally, I could live very happily in twice as much again, keeping it absolutely minimalist furniture wise, but I would require a cleaner.

LimaDelta

5,684 posts

205 months

About 250m2, plus outbuildings and a bit of land. Family of four. Would happily go bigger but this one suits us just fine and we love the location and setting.

Puzzles

688 posts

98 months

Everyone is different, to me 1,500 per person is too much, I don’t want to have to deal with cleaners etc and 1,500 for two people is very comfortable imo.

I’d probably end up between 2000 and 3000sqft. Some how a 3000sqft bungalow seems a lot more effort that a 3000sqft townhouse.

Sheepshanks

28,838 posts

106 months

bennno said:
Of equal relevance is how many floors, some years back we brought a large, modern, three story house of circa 2300 sqft. This arrangement results in double the sleeping accommodation in comparison to the living - which isn't a great balance, house always felt cramped with empty bedrooms we didnt use.
Yes, you can be thrown by what seems like a decent number of sq ft in a three stroey house only to find the foot print is same as a house a third smalller.

simon_harris

375 posts

21 months

the things that amazes me most about this thread is how many people don't have staff!

We couldn't do without ours, what is the point in working all week if you then have to clean, iron, garden and do boring house maintenance work at the weekend or evenings.

I don't care what size house you have it is a much better quality of life just having that sort of stuff done for you.

toon10

5,830 posts

144 months

A massive lotto win would be wasted on me. All the house I'd ever want would be a nice barn conversion with 3 or 4 reception rooms and 4 bedrooms is fine. Anything else and you'd need staff to clean and maintain it. I don't fancy strangers in my house. You can get my dream home for about £650k in Northumberland where I am. A large garage space and maybe an external granny flat or cottage would be nice so we could have family and friends over and they could have their own living space while staying. All that can be had for no more than £800k.

So even if I won £150 million, I'd still probably have a sub £1m property. 10 bedrooms, a swimming pool and tennis courts isn't my dream. A smaller, cosy country pad would do just fine.

PositronicRay

25,406 posts

170 months

simon_harris said:
the things that amazes me most about this thread is how many people don't have staff!

We couldn't do without ours, what is the point in working all week if you then have to clean, iron, garden and do boring house maintenance work at the weekend or evenings.

I don't care what size house you have it is a much better quality of life just having that sort of stuff done for you.
Becoming an employer comes with its own responsibilities, legal, moral and financial.