We have six peeps, moving to 1500sqft/person. Can't wait to move. There will be so much room for activities!

It's also how you make use of space. We have 5 living in 2300sf. We converted the dining room to an office/homework area and moved the dining room into the living room (which we only use 6 times a year). We made two separate sitting areas in the family room (one for watching TV and the other for gathering/conversing. We did finish the basement to have "living" areas and that added an additional 900sf or so....

OP, if resale is a concern, please take a look at how home values have held up in the two areas over the past ten years. Generally, the Beltway has been the demarcation between areas that held their value or lost only 5-10% which has been regained and greatly increased, and areas which lost a lot of value and are still catching up.

Anonymous wrote:Depends. Older kids need less space because they don't have toys or gear. They do need a separate family room or basement IMHO.

My two cents: rather than square footage, focus on how you live, and how you use space. For me, I like having a proper pantry and mud room or extra storage closet. Honestly, you could get rid of my formal living and dining rooms and I wouldn't miss them. I'm much more attached to my kitchen cabinets and laundry room adjacent to the master bedroom.

This is good advice. We prefer smaller bedrooms and larger common spaces, particularly a kitchen big enough for family and friends to hang out while we make dinner. We're more than happy as a family of five+dog in a 1200 sf house w/ full finished basement, though I wish our kitchen were a little bigger.

Not all things that aren't your things are bizarre just because they are yours.

I grew up in a 2-bedroom apartment, a family of four. I now live in a 2,200 sqft house with just me, DH and DS. I love it. And we are planning to expand for when we have another child. I love not sharing a bathroom. I love having extra space. I love not stumbling over toys in the adult living space. I love having a big playroom where DS can go crazy when the weather is nasty. And I love having guests stay in a guest suite instead of living room couch. I have lots of books, lots of records, lots of shoes. I love having lots. I don't want to add a pressure to edit to my already pressure-filled life

I didn't say that it was bizarre just because it wasn't my thing. I didn't mean that it is bizarre to like having extra space, I did say it can be a nice thing to have. What I find bizarre are these declarations that one absolutely cannot live comfortably with less than 800-1000 square feet per person which is just not true. It's a preference that some people prefer have to have more space, but that is a preference that comes from a place of privilege--some people just can't afford that much house. It also makes just as much sense to me that one might not want as much space because they are busy and keeping it maintained is too much of a hassle, or because they want to keep their commute short to have more time with their kids. What I find bizarre on this board is declarations that families must have 3,000+ square feet for a family of 4+, that condos are not places for families once your kids hit school age or are no longer toddlers (and certainly impossible for high schoolers), and that your child is deprived if you don't have a yard which is just simply not true given how much of the world lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 5000 sf in McLean for 4 , I could do 5 but anything more would be right unless we shared bedrooms and bathrooms

God forbid you have to share a bathroom

Thankfully, we can afford not to. Phew!

We could afford not to if we lived where you did. As it is we live in DC, 5 minutes from work and all share the same bathroom. Its all about the tradeoffs. I wouldn't live in Mclean if you paid me.

FWIW, I used to be a downer on 5k sq ft. houses but now with three kids I can definitely see the upsides: 4 bedrooms, a mudroom, a huge playroom, a man cave for DH, etc. And I would LOVE to have a MIL suite.

We are a family of five and have about 2500 sq. ft. It's fine for right now but we're planning to put a small addition on to make it just over 3000 sq. ft. Would not go smaller than 2500.

We're a family of 4 in 1,000 sq. ft. Honestly, you can make anything work depending on your budget and your preferences. When we look for our next place, I'll be looking much more at layout than square footage.

If I lived in DC I would want at least 3000 SF, the same as in the suburbs. Just cause I am in the city doesn't mean I want a smaller space.

Anonymous wrote:We live in 2800 sq ft, and I find it small. But two kids will be out of the house soon, so it will be fine for DH and me. I looked at larger houses, but I thought all that space would depress me when the kids are in college.

DH and I lived in an 800 square foot house with one child, and it was fine.

Usually when people live in those huge 5K+ mcmansions, they actually "live" in the smaller rooms. Those enormous entries and huge great rooms just sit empty while everyone piles into the "office" or whatever they call the small room off the gigantic great room. Huge houses are not on a human scale.

My relatives raised 3 kids in a 1K square foot apartment in Manhattan. It always seemed huge to me, but that's because they kept the decor spare, and never acquired a lot of stuff like most Americans do. Plus the layout was really efficient. It was a prewar apartment with three bedrooms plus a maid's room. No giant family room, but they made do with the living room and a small entry hall for playspace. What you "need" is so relative to how you live.

I'm not sure you know how the space is configured in larger homes today. Part of the reason we have around 5,000 is precisely because there's no gigantic great room with a cathedral ceiling, and the foyer is very much on a human scale. There are a lot of rooms, and you can't be in two of them at the same time, but you can certainly take advantage of the space.

We live in 2800 sq ft, and I find it small. But two kids will be out of the house soon, so it will be fine for DH and me. I looked at larger houses, but I thought all that space would depress me when the kids are in college.

DH and I lived in an 800 square foot house with one child, and it was fine.

Usually when people live in those huge 5K+ mcmansions, they actually "live" in the smaller rooms. Those enormous entries and huge great rooms just sit empty while everyone piles into the "office" or whatever they call the small room off the gigantic great room. Huge houses are not on a human scale.

My relatives raised 3 kids in a 1K square foot apartment in Manhattan. It always seemed huge to me, but that's because they kept the decor spare, and never acquired a lot of stuff like most Americans do. Plus the layout was really efficient. It was a prewar apartment with three bedrooms plus a maid's room. No giant family room, but they made do with the living room and a small entry hall for playspace. What you "need" is so relative to how you live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have 2 people in 1,500 SF (plus finished basement) and we definitely don't need all that space. It's a little tight when my folks come to visit, but felt just fine when we had a renter for awhile. So maybe 500 SF/person, and if you have a usable finished basement, that could count in your totals?

personally, I like to be closer in and close to work. If you do too, think really long and hard before buying something way out there just to get SF.

This thread is about ideal space for a family of 5. Space requirements do not change whether you are in leesburg or in arlington.

Let's remove pricing from the equation.

I disagree inherently. I live very comfortably in downtown DC in 1000 square feet, but I would need much more space if I lived outside of the city or even of the core of the city. We rely on community spaces a lot. If we were outside of the city, we would have to drive to get places and thus we would end up at home much more than we are and therefore we would need more space. If I were outside of the city, I would need another car, our own space for bikes, a backyard, a place for a grill, and something to replace all of the "at home" time that we spend in the museums within a couple blocks. Also we would need space to hold all the crap that we would need to entertain ourselves so that we wouldn't die of boredom.

lol. yes, I'm sure you spend hours each week at these local museums. get over yourself. I'd die of boredom if I was with you.

I agree that PP sounded obnoxious, and I don't think I'd "die of boredom" living in the suburbs. But I live within walking distance of the Mall and we really do go to the museums a lot--sometimes weekly. Ditto the big parks, the zoo, etc. So I think there is something to the theory that you don't need such a big house if there is a lot to do nearby. At least, that's what I'm telling myself and the other 3 members of my family living together in a small row house.

quote fail.

if you have time on weekdays to do those things then more power to you. Our weekdays are pretty full with just living - homework, eating, sports practice, downtime, etc. So trips to the zoo or museums or similar events are normally when we find ourselves having an hour or two or more free on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday. In which case we simply drive 30 minutes from Vienna. Would we drive to the mall or museums more if we lived in the City? Probably, but then we would probably not take as many trips to Great Falls, Harpers Ferry, Baltimore, local parks, whatever. So I tend to think that issue is overblown.

10:40 - the whole point is that there is no generally accepted opinion on "what is the ideal space for a family of 5." For some, 1,500 is plenty. For others, 5,000 is apprarently not enough. Given that the OP's question specifically mentioned having to go outside the beltway to get more space, it IS in fact relevant to include discussion of location.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
300 sq ft per person...1500. that's more than enough.

you heifers need to move down south. your 4000 sq ft houses for your 4000 sq ft asses.

what do families of 5 do in Geneva, HK, Zurich, nice districts in paris.



We are not in those places.

I agree that Americans, particularly suburban Americans have bizarre notions of how much personal space one needs. I always grew up in 2,000+ square foot houses and it's nice, I guess, but far from necessary. Plenty of families make do just fine with much smaller spaces, particularly in Europe, New York, and San Francisco where space is at a premium. My mom was a military brat and moved around a lot and spent a lot of time in small rental apartments and is far from scarred from sharing close quarters with her parents and brother. And my husband grew up with a family of 5 in an 800 square foot trailer because my in-laws were not very well off when he was a child. My parents own a beautiful 3,000 square foot old home built around the turn of the century, and while the house is gorgeous, my mom spends a huge amount of her time keeping the house maintained and I just can't imagine that kind of hassle--keeping it cleaned, repairing/remodeling parts that are falling apart because they are so old. She loves doing work on the house, but it's definitely not my thing.

Not all things that aren't your things are bizarre just because they are yours.

I grew up in a 2-bedroom apartment, a family of four. I now live in a 2,200 sqft house with just me, DH and DS. I love it. And we are planning to expand for when we have another child. I love not sharing a bathroom. I love having extra space. I love not stumbling over toys in the adult living space. I love having a big playroom where DS can go crazy when the weather is nasty. And I love having guests stay in a guest suite instead of living room couch. I have lots of books, lots of records, lots of shoes. I love having lots. I don't want to add a pressure to edit to my already pressure-filled life.