my brooklyn apt = 350-400sf, for my wif and I
the bedroom barely fits a queen size bed.
but its so cozy and cute.

I don't think there is any minimum- have you seen how people live? I've seen places where seven people crowd into a studio apartment. I know this isn't exactly ideal, but everybody has different preferences as well as different financial situations. Whatever size you design is going to work for somebody. The only prejudice I happen to have is that a room must be at least 12 feet in width to be considered furnishable, but this can be gotten around by built in furniture.

I have lived in two different Brooklyn apts with a 6' wide bedroom (each used to be the walkin closet that is above the entrance to a brownstone) It fits the 3' twin bed with 3' clearance. Wardrobe at the back. Desk at the front. Comfrtable fit.

So 6' is my minimum bachelor's dimension.

If you're talking provisions for a single person, I wouldn't go below 250sf...generally. If you do this, though, you need to think in terms of cubic feet. Many people can, & want to squeeze everything they can out of a space. But most do not. I personally want more space in the right places. I absolutely hate having to step over things, bump into stuff & have to 'dance' my way around a space or stuff. I want to go in straight lines to go different areas. If I'm going to have a small space, I'm gonna have my stuff organized to the max & out of the way. I want the 'space' of the space to not be intruded on. But, really, I'm not going to have a small bldg just because the economics of a location are a constraint. I want me, my wife, future family & guests to be comfortable & will use any method I can to make this so. My desired design will be efficient & generous, not compact.

Maybe I"m just dense, but why would the "economics of a location" be a constraint?

i am very interested in this idea...how much space do i really need?

there are quite a number of architects that have taken on extra small projects...(just see amazon and the number of recent books on the subject) but it has not been embraced by the public...esp in an area that real estate isn't a fortune. a small 250 sf free standing house would be odd in a farming community in the middle of nebraska...why is that?

i think really designing a small house is the easy part. (don't take me wrong...designing it could be one of the most complex projects with amazing moving units and pieces to get the most for your SF) the real hard part is persuading an american culture that can even stand it in a small car... forget house.

this was a great issue of dwell it was entitled small is the new big.

oops screwed up the link...

try again

cash flow is a definate constraint when purchasing space in some areas.

go to lubbock texas and you can get a big ass first floor apartment with two bedrooms, two bathrooms a large living room and a fireplace for 550.00 a month in a nice area with good neighbors.

first apartment here in atlanta was a one bedroom, run down, trickling water out of the shower, leaking ceiling and far from my job for 550.00. i felt like i could've been robbed at any moment as well. on the plus side, they didn't give a shit that i didn't pay a deposit for my cats.

didn't the patkaus design a small 200sf. freestanding house?

i think it would be more interesting & useful to just buy a camper/RV than to dwell on making smaller & smaller houses. I see this more & more as the owner/user having to cave in to what others want, mainly a developer, or architect. In other words, I'll buy the argument that small is important only if the owner /user really wants this to say keep his costs down, or to simplify his life. Going small isn't the only way to do it, but it is a major way to do so.

If you don't understand 'economics of location', then you haven't tried to buy a house. Small, at least from what I can tell, is more of a response to cost, or just plain 'economics.'

As for persuading Americans that we NEED a smaller & smaller house, I'm not sure that's the battle we architects need to be fighting. If houses get smaller & smaller, to say 1000sf, or even down to 500sf, doesn't it make more sense to shift that focus from Single Family to Multi-Family? I dunno, again, it just seems that this is a concept that architects get into our heads as a generally good concept, when in reality, it may mean very little..so to speak.

yeah it was quite nice. it was up at the university of houston for a couple years.

small house by patkau arch

BTW, I am in no way advocating that Americans generally need larger houses, either. Maybe the real concept to be discussing is 'right-sizing'. Or, as us old-timers like to call it, 'designing for the client.'

the armerican ideal is to have land. that is what HUD is founded on.
while this may be an archaic ideal...it is still very much the ideal of today's society.

designing for the client is great if they aren't designing for resale!!

seems with our newly, consumer-driven, nomadic lifestyle...the culture has shifted. there is no investment in a trailer or mobile home...(though there are people still buying...

this is why i claim its only success is paradigm shift...

Raj,
Which house by Patkau was 200sf/ I didn't see it.

La Petite Maison du Weekend

La Petite Maison du Weekend is a prototype self-sufficient minimal dwelling. It can be relocated to virtually any outdoor site, where it will provide the basics for everyday life: sleeping for two, kitchen, shower, and composting toilet. Made of a variety of materials and premanufactured components, it generates its own electricity, collects and distributes rainwater, and composts human waste using only the natural dynamics of the site.
The project was constructed in 1998 for the Fabrications Exhibition at the Wexner Center for the Arts, in Columbus, Ohio.

I also don't see the idea of owning land as archaic. But I do agree about designing projects whose main purpose is to sell. The architect is often using his talents in vain. It is the developer who gains the joy of the project.

La Petite Maison du Weekend is a nice little playhouse. I hope that's as far as stuff like this gets. But I can envision the day where, in placs like L.A., this ultra-small sf structure goes for $500K. Again, there would be more integrity if you just got a VW camper & converted the toilet & upgraded the emissions to be more of a 'green' object.

small may be economical but there is also the concious use of the space that we're inhabiting. is it absolutely necessary to own acres of land when you're not farming anything? especially when you're clearcutting trees and destroying homes of animals that may be going slowly extinct? it's somewhat extreme but i thought that it was in part the architects duty to find an innovative solution that includes forethought for the possible societal effects your design may have.

while not everyone has to be environmentally aware, it is definitely a topic that now has major publicity and really is the next step in design evolution.

and i do understand that you are working for a client who may have wants and needs differing from yours... but that's the point of innovation and creativity, finding that design that can convince them of the better way.

i guess i just want to know who needs 5 20'x20' rooms when you can only physically be in one room at a time?

This disussion about Square Footage is devolving into something other than size. I think the idea of control is at the root of this.

Since when is it relevant that we must not own something if we don't 'need' it? And who is to say what you, I, or others 'need', or even should want? If a client needs a certain amount of sf, then I will work with them to have something that meets their requirements. If a client wants a certain amount of sf, I will do the same. As for convincing a client of a better way, you're missing the point of your role as his/her archt. You're trying to impose you will on that client, & that's wrong, plus, you'll lose. Design is best done as a collaboration between you & client. Sure, be innovative, be creative. Those traits ought to be second-nature & shouldn't even have to be discussed.

You, as the architect, often have to let go of some things that you consider important because architects don't know everything(although we often think otherwise). But mainly, because the project is not owned by you. If you want an absolute & don't want to drop any of your ideas, then you need to design only for yourself. But do you need to do that?

MysteryMan: I understand now what you were saying, I think I must have misread that at first. I'm not advocating that everyone must have a smaller house, and I agree with you that people should have "right-size" houses. My interest is not in the economical advantages in compact housing, but in, as others have pointed out, the usability of the space.

18. A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package.

I got ya Jordan,
Perhaps I should chill for a moment......
OK, chilled. I think the concept is an extremely noble & important thing to consider - In any design.

My concern, or fear, is that the idea of 'small' catches on with the wrong circles, i.e.- developers/marketers. As a society, this element is convincing us to pay more for less every single day. Maybe that impensding 'housing bubble' is on its way, but I don't think even something like that is going to reverse the trend of hucksterism in our lives.

while i understand that wants and needs change with each person... i think it's important to show people the other possibilities. yes they are your client and you should be working with them, but i don't think it's so far fetched to suggest that there are other methods to obtain the same essence of what they were originally intending.

it's all a process and sometimes people don't realize they want something until they see it. all i'm saying is show them.

so right size is a realative space...not defined by need or even use..but desire. this is not new. their has always been a very pompous glory in oversize spaces.

so the question is WHY you want smaller spaces. there needs to be some discussion on that...because it could be for a number of reason. i am with psprincess that there is an environmental reason. smaller foot prints are ideal when discussing ecology. farming land is disappearing, being eaten by the carnivorous suburbs.

but there is another question...is there a sociological reason that a smaller house could be beneficial to our family structure...raising children etc. i poniticated on this in this blog entry...link

what about other reasons?

P.s.princess,
I think we are in total agreement, especially w/ your last sentence. Maybe this is a little deceptive (please forgive me), but my best projects have come when I use the client's initial 'wish-list' to develop an idea. Then the client takes ownership of my idea (which is really her idea!). At the end of the day, the client is wondering why she needed me in the first place - She thought of everything, ya know! Hopefully, though, she thinks I'm a genius for knowing just what she wants.......thus she buys into the whole thing & writes a big check. Geesh, I've totally discredited myself.

raj- I think there is also a social/community reason to it. Right now suburban america is hovering at a wierd, in-between density level that's not very functional. Reducing unit size can lead to a denser community which can result in tighter-knit neighborhoods and an easier time for people economically (as they're not paying for square feet they don't need anymore).

I definitely agree with people going for wants vs. needs sometimes, and sometimes going for something other than their preconcieved notions of what they 'need'. When my boyfriend and I were apartment hunting, we fell totally in love with a great apartment... that was around 200 s.f. smaller than we were looking for. We applied anyways. Due to credit issues (stupid credit agencies can't keep anything straight, but that's another topic), we didn't get it, but I still wish we had, even though we ended up with a bigger place.

well i'm glad we're in agreement... sometimes i'm a little too idealistic for my own good. of course those ideals being mine ;)

i like high ceilings but hate big houses... they feel so empty and lonesome when there aren't enough people to properly fill the rooms.

looking at how a family tends to operate nowadays... i wouldn't necessarily say that a smaller house creates a better community environment. in neighbourhoods i think fences absolutely ruin that because of the huge dividing wall that makes it difficult for people to interact randomly. also, a lot of families may have several tvs, computers, etc. each item scattered in a completely different room and each item providing individualized entertainment and thus creating no need to share or compromize.

i think we need to reinvent the park and we will likely less be communities divided.

this is already a huge tangent but this topic is something i've really been considering lately and how technology has changed family values.

I definately agree in the possiblity of more compact housing and smaller unit sizes creating possibly tighter knit neighborhoods. I think there's probably a certain point where too small a neighborhood and too dense of a population could create some social tension. But I'm just guessing there, I'm not a psychologist, or sociologist for that matter.

I think a big push for smaller housing really should be energy conservation.

Great point about parks. I'm gonna use thagt as a tangent: I think parks need to be used more deliberately & integrated more with commerce & residences. Beyond some of the New Urbanism stuff we see a lot of, but they are starts.

It's funny, in my area, you've got some good examples of public open space that works, 150 yr old town squares, for example. And, others where I guess the county found a way to thwart any future attempts to put mass-transit on old railroad right-of-ways... What'd they do? They made a 60mile+ bike/walking trail. Nothing wrong w/ that, right? WHat could be greener than a 60mile paved trail? It gets at least half a dozen cars off the road every day! Actually, it doesn't, the trail parking lots are always jammed w/ SUVs hauling bike-carriers from houses 2-10 miles away.

So much for mass-transit & effective re-use of a previously abandoned r.ow. There are many sinister, convulutions conspiring against the idea of communities. Architects need to raise these points & enlist true grass-roots support to help communities throve & make the right decisions for the long-term.

great scene in L.A. story
where steve martin drives across the street to his sister's house.

neighborhoods are built for the car. the distance to walk is so different in a pre car city. you can walk from your house to a park easily. now the cities are going with central park...the mega park where everyone must drive to...instead of smaller.

i think that is the heart of the whole arguement here. (nice job MM and psp...) smaller is not just controlling...but a return to human scale.

it is not about the human feeling small in a great machine like in most downtowns...but truly finding a scale that we can thrive. that works with the city...to the small scale of the house?!?

does it?

900 to 1000 s.f.

se'en fitty