My fiance and I recently downsized to a 1000 sqft condo. Living small is surprisingly expensive, though. Its crowded in the condo, because all the stuff we have as hand-me-downs, like the TV and sofa, is meant for a much larger space. It costs a lot of money to get new stuff that fits in the space better.
Where do you live? In Belgium 90m2 apartments are considered small, even for a couple with no kids. 120 m2 is standard for newly build ones, I'm building a few between 125 and 170 although these are luxury apartments. My sister bought a 170m2 one smack dead in the center of a big city (Antwerp), as urban as it gets in Belgium. Where I live now in the Netherlands the standards are lower though, especially in Amsterdam.
My somewhat educated guess is that recent and current construction have been a bit smaller than Belgium. The law says new apartment buildings, for example, have to have an average apartment size of 75m2 but I would say that in the city here 100-120m2 is pretty standard for a family of four.
Mind, even 120m2 (~1300 sq.ft.) is quite small by U.S. "middle class" standards.
Well yeah, unless I'm misunderstanding, you were saying that 92m2 is not downsizing (at least not downsizing enough). So I said that 92m2 is at the bottom of 'normal' size apartments. I guess you can argue that 92m2 to be below average means that the average is too high, but it would seem that everyone else thinks that it's normal.
Yes. 90m2 is huge considering actual needs of two people. Half that is still comfortable. A third is livable.
It may be a big shift down from what someone had before, and may even seem normal-sized by current standards but that is only because of disproportionate expectations. It can only be seen as true "downsizing" when your scale is way too big to begin with. Consider how the Mini is a "small" car - while being about twice the size of the original mini.
You're bringing this as if there is an objective measure for the 'needs' of the living space of two people, and that what is considered 'normal' is way above that objective measure. You're not bringing any supportive evidence for this (in my eyes) grandiose claim, other than proof by vigorous hand waving and stating it in terms of great certainty.
The one objective measure one can bring to the table is the lower boundary - which is maybe around 2 m2 per person, as there are numerous houses (e.g. dwelling where illegal immigrants are housed in by human traffickers) (I'm just making a guess here, based on hearing for example about 50 people being packed in small houses in farming areas). I suppose you're not seriously arguing that this is what we should strive for, yet this is (objectively) how little room humans can 'survive' on. (if it were possible on less, these people would get less, considering human traffickers probably try to minimize their costs in order to maximize profits).
You quantify your statements by saying that 30m2 is 'livable' for two people. I don't see how you can make this assertion. What is 'livable' or 'comfortable' is entirely subjective. One may get /used/ to living in a smaller room; heck, one would get 'used' to being sodomized daily with a coke bottle too, I guess, as long as it's done for a long enough time. That still doesn't mean it's something to aim for. You're projecting an entirely subjective /opinion/ (houses should be small, people should not have much stuff which is implied by living in such a small house, ...) onto this discussion and present it as /fact/.
Anyway I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is an 'optimum' in the sense that the median of the population would feel comfortable enough living in an apartment of a certain size. I know of no way to measure this optimum, because so many of the variable are hard to quantify. Instead we could say that the reality shows preferences already: the amount of space people feel most comfortable in, in function of their spending capability, is the house they live in! This may not be perfect, but it sure would show that what 'people' in general find 'comfortable enough' is a lot higher than your 30 m2.
The point of "downsizing", related to "downshifting", is to remove the excess largess western cultures have grown accustomed to. To some anyway. It is also a voluntary choice so no need to worry about concentration apartment buildings where flats only have room for one TV set.
I live, with one other person and three cats, comfortably in 54m2 (581 sq.ft.). We used to live slightly less comfortably in 42m2. I know four or five couples who live in 30-37m2 currently (which I, you will note, said was "livable"). And others that have 90m2+.
90m2 may well be standard for two people where you are at least but it is wasteful in terms of resources if nothing else.
Maybe it's you who suffers from space blindness. :) People can get used to a wide range of personal space availability. A friend who lives north of Dallas, TX lives with his wife in a 1500 sq.ft. house which seems tiny to them and those they know. When I was visiting recently, he was struggling with how to fit all of their stuff in the house, as quite a lot had overflowed into the garage, making it unusable for, you know, parking in.
I am in India and real estate prices are obscene.I am doing reasonably well but am going to struggle to afford a 850 sq ft apartment. I was looking at a 1000 sq ft spot as something of a 'giant space'. :)
