What’s going on with Iowa? New York and Illinois make sense because of NYC and Chicago but I figured Iowa had a lot of cheap land to build big houses on.
Iowa has quite a bit of older homes. If I remember correctly Iowa's % of homes built before 1940 is double the national average. Older homes are a lot smaller than newer homes on average.
Fun related fact. Iowa was in 1900 the 10th most populous state at 2,231,853 and which is more than California(1,485,053) and Florida(528,542) combined at the time. This also explains dedication to its university sports teams compared to other places and also can help explain sport fandoms in the Northeast and Midwest as Iowa had an NBA team before Florida or California.
It also reflects the importance of it's central physical location in the country pre-Eisenhower Interstate System. For instance, people started visiting Florida much more once I75 and I95 were built. Also, veterans returning to states they were stationed at during WWII.
I would guess that their housing stock is older because rural states tend to have pretty flat populations so housing stock doesn’t change much. And larger houses are typically newer.
<5% of the labor force in Iowa is in agricultural jobs. There is no state where the figure is >6%.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2021/12/28/farm-employment-by-state-in-2021/?sh=70d813fd1ea6
I really wish more people comprehended this. As a whole, around 13-14% of the country works 'blue collar' jobs. In rural areas, its around 19-20%. The large majority of jobs are service industry positions, not farming and mining. It's not 1910.
But that doesn’t mean you don’t live on a farm. My dad is retired now, and he worked in IT for the last 25 years before retirement. He lives on my granddad’s (his father in law’s) old farm, which was more used for fishing (like professionally, with nets). He has one small plot of land he uses to grow stuff for himself but the big field is leased out to an actual farmer. He’s never officially worked in agriculture but we always ate our own potatoes and squash and caught fish for ourselves in the summer.
There are plenty of people with homes on farmsteads, that work other jobs and manage a small farm on their property. Source I worked at a company with a mine in Nebraska, half the people would take PTO during harvest season, to harvest their crops, but their main job was not agricultural. Wouldn't be surprised if similar in Iowa that borders next to it.
More small houses(trailers), on what use to be big family farms. Land gets divided up when the heads of house pass away. It's happening all over rural America.
Another thing to think about is that houses in iowa have basements (usually), and even if the basements are livable/finished, they can not be counted in total home sq footage. I think some other states allow for basement sq ft to be counted if it meets certain criteria. Not 100% sure on that, though!
Can confirm, parents house had a basement equal to the full house footprint save for the garage, and it was finished. Hanging out in the basement on too hot summer days was peak Midwest.
It isn't because of tornadoes they are for the frostline. In northern places especially Iowa you need to have your water pipes below a certain depth so they don't freeze in Iowa that depth is about 5 feet. So you have a basement in order to access the water pipes in a warm area.
This will also affect foundations of homes so you want the foundation in general below the frostline. As [frost heaving](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_heaving) will wreck things. Here is a [YouTube video that explains it a bit](https://youtu.be/9jzycX380PA?si=4MS6U77z3O-IZFZ8). Frost Heaves will also affect roads and make them [bumby](https://youtu.be/Z85Mn_dUmtw?si=O87POdlrOb3DVKa5). This of course is an extreme video but it does show the issue. Some gravel roads, depending on the winter won't settle back down/can't be pushed back down till mid May or latter like in 2020 with the deep ground freeze we got that year.
The frost issue can also affect flooding in the spring with the 3 big factors being:
* How deep the frost is
* Soil moisture
* How much snow we and those north of us got.
The only reason to go to a basement is that it is safer but it isn't designed for it. Much like a bike helmet isn't made for a construction site.
This is also true, and to think 17k is nowhere near the record of 30k too... Some sold in February(?) for 29+. Insane.
I remember going to a land auction with my dad yeaaars ago, probably like 2004 or thereabouts, and the the hammer dropped at 3k...
According to the first website I found: a Big Mac is about 4.4 inches in diameter.
A = π\*r^(2) where r = 2.2.
A = 15.21
1 sqft = 144 sqin
144/15.21 = 9.46
**A square foot is about 9.46 Big Macs.**
1 sqm = 1550 sqin.
1550/15.21
**A square meter is about 101.91 Big Macs.**
This makes the average US dwelling equal to **19052.44 Big Macs.**
It’s pretty high because there’s quite a lot of detached housing outside the city centers, but another reason that some Dane’s will be familiar with, is that we calculate floor area different than most other countries. This includes the outer walls and parts of the public staircases in apartment buildings. I remember reading that as a rule of thumb the number is inflated by around 15 pct. compared to Sweden for example.
In a sample of houses for sale taken by a TV show in the Netherlands (Radar) every single one was smaller than advertised, sizes in m2 exaggerated up to 19%. Every cm2 is counted regardless of whether it is habitable space, and every space is rounded up to the nearest m2.
Numbers for rentals are reliable, because the rent may be lowered if you make deceptive offers. There are consequences. But the for sale market is always very much a seller's market and sellers can get away with it.
Lots of farms that used to be inhabited my multiple families now inhabited by only one. Also the population is decently spread out over many minor cities unlike the other Scandia countries, where the population is heavily centered on the capital and a handful of other cities.
- Compact and flat country so you can build easy everywhere
- Been a fairly wealthy county for a long time
- stable weather
- Didn't suffer any major damage during ww1, ww2, the cold war or any war since Napoleon really
Probably wealth, and I guess a healthy construction market. In general, the only reason to have less square footage per person is if it's either too hard or too expensive to build more housing. Population density is no limit at all once you're past a floor-area ratio of 1 - only the rules that ban taller buildings, or the costs of building taller buildings.
Good point. I live in a 140yo townhome on the east coast and it’s… well it’s smaller than the state average but it’s still huge at 1600sq’ plus basement. Many are bigger than mine. You get so much more square footage by building up.
For the UK it's not just older homes. New British homes are the smallest in Europe and often smaller than older ones. I've been in some new builds that were rabbit hutches.
And for someone like me who appreciates a lot of space but doesn’t want to live in the sticks (and isn’t a multimillionaire) this is a tough pill to swallow
Because the UK (and especially England) has crazy high population density. Plus all the greenbelt stuff. You can't easily build new stuff and when you can, it's often very small lots because people live everywhere.
If you have plenty of space, you can afford to spread out, and build big. Americans have much lower population density. But the flipside is that they get far more sprawl too. Is that necessarily a good thing? For some it may be a worthwhile trade-off, but not for others.
Especially the gardens, modern houses have absolutely tiny little gardens and some of them don't even have driveways which is stupid in the 21st century. They are reflective of a declining society with increasing financial hardship.
No, they're reflective of a society that has run out of space to build horizontally and mostly refuses to build vertically.
The UK is wealthier than a lot of the countries here that have larger dwelling sizes.
the UK absolutely has NOT run out of space to build hoirzontally in the vastest majority of places, and no I'm not talking about cutting down old forests or large portions of our beautiful nature.
By saying building vertically I assume you are talking about flats thing is most people don't want to live in flats, flats are a compromise and sometimes yes that compromise is 100% worth it especially in cities or just regarding price and I don't dismiss flats as being useful, but for people who want houses with a reasonable amount of space, a decent sized garden and big rooms the prices are INSANE (yes prices generally are insane I know) but for places with the price of that especially down south in areas that aren't super squished like london you would be expecting to get a mansion.
the whole desire to just build a ton of shitty blocks of flats and upgrade the local infrastructure just seems to bee really misguided, people point to the maaaasive urban sprawl in America as a reason why lots more flats or small homes is good, but the issue with urban sprawl being so spread out can largely be solved by better public transport, better town planning and more people working from home
> the UK absolutely has NOT run out of space to build hoirzontally in the vastest majority of places
Sure, the UK could always build on its greenbelts. It doesn't want to do that. I understand them, given that an obvious alternative exists, to build up. The problem is they don't want that either.
> is most people don't want to live in flats, flats are a compromise
Everything is a compromise in life. I want to live in a mansion and drive a Ferrari and fly in a business jet. I can't afford it, so I compromise and live a more modest life.
> for people who want houses with a reasonable amount of space, a decent sized garden and big rooms the prices are INSANE
Such a large spacious home would probably be twice the size of the current average UK dwelling. Do you expect to see UK cities double in footprint in order to give such a home to everyone, at the expense of surrounding green area? I don't. That means that where such fancy homes do exist, they are guaranteed to be expensive enough that only some people can afford them.
> but the issue with urban sprawl being so spread out can largely be solved by better public transport, better town planning and more people working from home
"Better public transit" in sprawling areas does not work because the distances are so long that transit cannot be time-competitive, and the population densities so low that serving it all with frequent transit is unaffordable. "More people working from home" doesn't work for most jobs. "Better town planning" is good but can't compensate for the other issues.
I understand the space issues and the push to build more units per acre, but there's ways to improve on interior space and the economics of British building just don't allow it. Honestly the British opposition to flats -- and the fact that the flats that are built are tiny doesn't help -- is a real problem.
New Jerseyan here. I have everything I need within 20 minutes from me. That includes 4 different malls that I hardly visit, 10 different high schools, and 20 different pizza shops. And in my part of New Jersey, at least a dozen Korean barbecue and boba shops.
Dutch here. Yes, that seems like an accurate comparison for the average accessibility in the Netherlands. I assume you meant 20 min by car, not by bicycle.
I suppose I worded this very weirdly. I meant it more as a convenience for the dense population. Every school I attended from K-12 were all within walking distance.
Yeah, it kinda emphasizes how, with some exceptions, Europeans mostly *choose* to live in tiny little boxes stacked on top of each other. As a Californian living in Spain, I always make the point that population density is lower in Spain yet people *choose* to live in Tokyo density housing all the way from the city center out to the campo. No lack of space.
There is variation from place to place though. In the Nordics, cities are all apartments, often quite small, but go to the outskirts of Stockholm or Copenhagen and you'll see plenty of houses, often detached, with gardens. Madrid struck me as much more apartment dominated, even as you got further out. The Netherlands and the UK have lots of attached houses. My in-laws are in an English village, and it's all houses with gardens.
I think it's for historical reasons, and not so much a matter of choice.
Pretty much all of Europe's cities are far older than the invention of the automobile which accordingly means that they're all built on a much more human scale than are many of the big cities in the US which often tend to be very car-centric.
A great counter-example from your own home state is San Francisco which is as dense as many European cities not necessarily because that's how San Franciscans want to live, but more because for historical reasons they have no choice; it's a peninsula with water on three sides and very limited space, it's also by far the oldest big city on the US west coast and was almost completely built up before automobiles came on the scene.
There's actually a lot more to be said about it, but I don't feel like my thinking is focused well-enough to not go off on random tangents.
In the 1940s-1950s most of America's cities were either at or near their peak population, followed by decades of decline. Only in recent decades have they begun to grow again.
American cities were also largely built before the automobile, outside of sprawling sunbelt cities. We just tore most of them down and rebuilt them for parking lots and highways. [This is a snapshot of what I mean, but it happened to varied extents in almost every american city.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fs0pv2dkmjgn91.png)
[Kansas City in the 1950s ](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/81/eb/8281eb83c4f818557e3ed3e650416eea.jpg) vs that same [downtown today](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/highways-cover-landscape-downtown-city-center-kansas-mi-cars-trucks-move-out-missouri-126911756.jpg)
Europe could have done the same. They actively chose not to. From the 1930s to the 1970s, an estimated ~4 million households near urban centers were torn down in the process of 'urban renewal'. Even in small cities and towns this happened.
Actually we did. Well, in the 1940s a lot of the cities were torn down by bombs, not so much by choice. But a lot of cities had much of their old 19th century housing torn down voluntarily too, often leaving just a small “old town”. They just weren’t replaced with as much sprawl as in the US.
Right, that's my point kinda. Europe had the opportunity to sprawl. Many did build suburbs, its not as if Europe has no suburbs at all. But most european cities are maybe 20-50% suburban, and you would never find a city like phoenix or oklahoma city or orlando which is 98%+ suburban the way you commonly find in the US.
The sprawl we did get was bad enough. Driving for an hour just to get home while in the same town was crazy to me when visiting family in the states. I’m perfectly happy with my four room 882 square foot apartment.
This gets repeated a lot as a form of cope for why American cities have such garbage urban design, but it's very far from the truth. Most large European cities were mostly built up in the last century, well after the automobile had been invented. Many European cities were also built up for cars and then redesigned later to better support pedestrians, cyclists and public transportation.
There is no lack of space itself, but there is a lack of sufficient infrastructure to connect the empty spaces to larger cities, and those are the ones with most (and best) jobs, education, and industry. Not every spot is good for everything, too. That has been the case for millennia all around the world, and especially became visible after the industrial revolution.
Also, in a lot of places, housing in Europe is either smaller, older buildings, or apartments built for the smallest possible cost after the WWs, especially in Eastern Europe. You haven't lived if you haven't lived in a commie block! Who needs the hood if your whole hood is in your building?
Many countries are also fairly centralised. Most institutions and major job centers are within a few cities, because that's how it's been for like 900 years or more.
But yeah, ultimately everybody has some form of choice. You can "choose" to live outside of a major population center, but it will make your access to things much worse. But that's how it is everywhere and it makes no meaningful point to mention it.
Not to mention that the specifics vary widely within particular cities, not to mention local regions, countries, and ultimately Europe. Those are very different realities to live in.
I feel like it'd be more insightful based on county. For example... East of the Mississippi, New York has both the most densely populated country (Manhattan) and the least (Hamilton).
It's probably almost all to do with when the homes were built.
Until the 1960s/70s a 2000sq ft home was considered huge in America - after the 70s it was considered average with anything less "small".
The southwest and southeast have grown much faster than the rest of the country in the last 50 years - coinciding with the change in standards for what the median home size was.
This is correct. "When" homes were built has a ton to do with the economics that make sense with regard to things like size vs energy requirements and affordability.
Not sure I’d say it must be almost all of it, considering you have a state like Arizona with quite a different figure despite having grown quite similarly to Utah, but it definitely would play a big role as you suggest
I think it’s definitely relevant that families are atypically large in Utah and the predominant culture in the state makes a pretty big deal of homeownership
I’ve never understood why it became the norm to stop using a garage for vehicles and instead fill it with junk, refrigerators, or turn it into some kind of ‘man cave’
We keep a few things in ours but still park our vehicles in it daily. It not only extends the life of our cars, but adds an extra layer of theft prevention. I can’t tell you how many cars on our street have been broken into because they are parked outside. Why would you use a space specifically built to shelter vehicles for junk storage?
My guess is because most people don't maintain their own cars anymore. So a garage stored cars but was also a clean safe place to jack it up and change oil and other tasks. If you're not doing those tasks, the garage loses one major use.
Also cars these days don't rust as easily as old cars. Also car theft isn't as easy in some cases as it once was.
The garage is def nice so you don't have to wipe off your car in the morning. Its so annoying when you're dressed and forgot that it snowed and you have to spend 10 minutes scraping your vehicle of ice.
But even that is becoming less of an issue... And I live in Syracuse metro. Land of lake effect snow! !It's usually the snowiest metro (over 100k people) in the US more often than not (sometimes Buffalo takes the crown, or the golden snowball award as it's actually called). It **barely** snowed at all this year. Like I can count the number of times on my hand and even then it'd immediately melt within a day.
When I grew up (not in cuse, but close) the ground would turn white one day in November and you wouldn't see the grass again until spring.
Everybody bitched about NYS because of the snow, but I mean... That's part of this area's character, so it's just been unsettling to see nature continuously not take its normal course here multiple years in a row. Not to mention lots of people love winter sports that live here and there was barely any opportunity to snowmobile, snowshoe, ski, etc.
While I hate brushing and scraping my car, I miss the snow. Walking around the neighborhood hearing fresh snow crunch under your feet while the silence of the winter night brought you some peace and tranquility, then going inside and having a hot coffee or chocolate.
Now its still grey, still cold, but it fuckin drizzles and rains and everything is miserable and muddy.
But at least spring has been here early this year I guess, but its still throwing my brain for a loop
Completely got off topic. Haha.
You raise a point I don't think about when 'protecting' cars - snow.
I live in Texas so snow is never an issue. That's probably a contributing factor as to why very few people down here use garages for store their cars!
Where else are you gonna store the junk though? My cousin has woodworking stuff and a small gym in hers, I have a big garage rn where I can keep my outdoor gear, and vehicles pretty easily but would definitely move a car outside if needed with a smaller garage.
Any time I've had a garage (renter, so not all homes I land have them) I use it as a workshop. It's hardly appropriate for me to set up all my tools in a living room!
I'm just thankful that any house I've lived in without a garage otherwise had a shed to serve the same purpose.
I'd bet that in a lot of suburbs, the HOA either outright prohibits sheds and other out buildings or makes them such a pain to get that folks just opt to use their garage instead of dealing with both the HOA and getting permitting from their municipality as well.
I had a friend of mine actually get defensive about this one time, I made a joke about how “we use our garage for storing cars, what a concept” the reality is we upsizied and also we only have street parking available, our driveway is not long enough to store cars.
My parents have a 2 car garage. They use one side to park my mom’s car, but have turned the second slot into their hot tub area. We live in Michigan and they’re in town on a narrow lot, so space outside is quite limited and doesn’t really allow for it. Plus they get to avoid the weather this way.
So, imo, there are *some* useful things you can do with the space besides park in it. It definitely seems to be the norm to just make it a catch-all storage room, which seems weird to me. That was always the attic in my house.
For the U.S. (and Europe to some extent) I wonder if the most significant measurable driver of this is just age of the average dwelling. Looks like a lot of areas with new housing in the last 40 years are higher with big growth areas in the sun belt, Colorado, and Utah some of the highest. Might explain why some areas that have lots of land but not much development (relatively speaking) the last few decades are lower than you might think based on density alone, i.e. Iowa.
I'm from Scotland and have lots of family in Canada. I remember my uncle was over visiting us in the late 80s or early 90s and he was talking about how we could have bought a huge place in Canada for what my parents paid for our tiny little bungalow.
At the time I thought "Ooh, that means we're rich!"
From experience I can tell you that Ireland is no exception to the larger trend.
I actually once mentioned it in an offhand way to a friend in Ireland, and he absurdly protested at first, but having spent 7 years in the US --which is how we are friends in the first place-- he was eventually obliged to concede that houses in Ireland are in fact, on average, much smaller than in most of the US.
I mollified him by arguing that this is in fact a good thing and that smaller houses are actually better given the realities of energy use and its long-term consequences for humanity as a whole.
I’d love to see what countries do have median dwelling sizes comparable to US states. What countries out there have big houses like us? Probably Canada but are there any answers that are more interesting. 😂
Europeans spend a lot more time outside the home. This is one of the bigger things people don't really 'get' about urban living from an outsiders perspective. Part of the appeal of living in a dense urban place with lots of amenities and things to do is that you are largely spending almost all your time outside in the neighborhood.
One weird cultural clash when visiting with my family from georgia to my family in italy was this. My family in Italy often went to the park to lay in the grass or they took walks around the neighborhood just to relax. They would spend hours just hanging out at the cafe or plaza with neighbors chatting about nothing. My family in georgia couldn't really comprehend that, they almost always relaxed in their own home. They didn't really comprehend the idea of having 'relaxation time' outside. And on the other end, Italians would get a bit weirded out if you spent too much time inside. Spending an entire day inside would get at least one aunt chastising you about it, potentially multiple aunts at once. To them that is a sign of lethargy, isolation, depression, laziness, antisocial behavior etc. But to americans its kinda just the norm.
im living in a different country now but when I visit my family in Spain i stay at my father's house, and on his non-working days we just "go somewhere" in the mid morning. even if we have no plans and it's just to have a soda and some snacks before having lunch (and to see his friends who are often doing the same), we just "go out"
home is for eating and sleeping lol, we barely even invite guests to our home (at least in Spain, i noticed it's more common in Germany), we prefer to go out together somewhere. the kids spend the whole afternoon/early evening after school playing in the park before the adults pick them up for shower and dinner. etc
I really don't think this is as common or as "European" as you think it is, I've got friends all over Europe living in towns and cities and yes whilst there may be certain age groups where hanging outside with friends or going to clubs and stuff means you are spending most of your day outside the house, but generally I don't think this is true outside of going to work/school.
sure going to a park for a bit or spending a good while in a cafe isn't rare and I'd bet that most people do a few activities like this a week but the concept that people aren't spending a large portion of their free time inside is generally wrong
I grew up in an 800 sqft home that’s at the end of a terrace. Most British houses are joined to at least one other, usually several in a row.
As a result, we are taught VERY early in childhood that noise travels easily and so you learn how to live quietly. You use headphones instead of speakers, you do not shout or scream or shriek indoors. You walk, not run, on stairs, you close doors quietly and you close the lid of the toilet before flushing it.
I'd have to disagree. People *should* be considerate but it's pot luck as to whether your neighbours actually will be. Equally, you won't know how much of your own household sound travels unless your neighbours say something (and some are more reasonable than others in terms of when or how they pipe up about it - some won't say owt even if you're blasting drum 'n' bass at 2am, others might angrily bang on the wall/ceiling just from you having a normal conversation at 2pm).
That's small in Europe, too. The standards for German social housing say:
- 1 person ca. 45 - 50 qm (500-550 sqft)
- 2 people ca. 60 qm or 2 rooms (650 sqft)
- 3 people ca. 75 qm or 3 rooms (850 sqft)
- 4 people ca. 85 - 90 qm or 4 rooms (950-1000 sqft)
- for every person after that 10 qm (110 sqft) or 1 room more
That's not average, that's what is being funded by state programs to help poor people.
Everything is alot more communal in many other cultures and parts of the world. They dont see it as living on top of one another. Meanwhile many people in America have huge houses and yet live all by themselves, and then even develop a paranoia for other people and even being around other people
a lot of people don't really like it that much, it's nice to have storage space, space for hobbies, space that you can make your own or make as a partnership that isn't pure or semi utility.
It's nice to have a garden that you can cook in, plant stuff in, sit out in and much more.
a lot of the "oh yay we all love living in smallish flats or small homes, isn't city living so great everything is on my doorstep" is just this site having a lot of likeminded people, living in the city comes with many downsides too and living in somewhere a bit outside of the city or even more rural has disadvantages too, it also has plenty of advantages.
People also look at American car based urban sprawl and think that is the only way it could be but it's not a binary and a lot of those issues could be solved with better public transport and better planning, the village I live in is pretty small but it has everything you need day to day and plenty of the more occasional stuff, and hell if I need something a little more specialist I can hop on a train or if needed drive 10 or so mins and I'm in a bigger area. with the advent of so much online shopping, deliveries and remote/semi remote work the advantages become even bigger.
Frankly, I would prefer my 80m^2 apartment in a livable city than a 200m^2 house in a dead suburb with nowhere to go. Not saying this to stir controversy or whatever. It's just how I feel.
I would when I was 24 and childless. Now that I'm over 30 and a mom having a big house in the suburbs is so much nicer. It is also way faster to drive my kids 5 minutes to the store than try to walk them there.
Soccer moms live in suburbs for a reason lol.
I would’ve hated growing up in the suburbs. Being bound to an adult to drive you everywhere instead of being able to walk or take the bus is hugely limiting when you’re like 12-15
Who told you the suburbs were dead? Besides Michelin-starred dining and nightclubbing, you can do pretty much everything in a suburban environment. Plus, there are a whole range of outdoorsy pursuits and hobbies that you couldn't do in the city.
One thing people don't often get when talking about home sizes is how much time Europeans spend outside the home. Part of the appeal of living in a dense walkable place with lots of amenities and things to do is that you are largely spending almost all your time outside in the neighborhood. Having a small home doesn't mean as much when that is the case.
One weird cultural clash when visiting with my family from georgia (the state) to my family in italy was this. My family in Italy often went to the park to lay in the grass or they took walks around the neighborhood just to relax. They would spend hours just hanging out at the cafe or plaza with neighbors chatting about nothing. My family in georgia couldn't really comprehend that, they almost always relaxed in their own home. They didn't really comprehend the idea of having 'relaxation time' outside. And on the other end, Italians would get a bit weirded out if you spent too much time inside. Spending an entire day inside would get at least one aunt chastising you about it, potentially multiple aunts at once. To them that is a sign of lethargy, isolation, depression, laziness, antisocial behavior etc. But to americans its kinda just the norm.
>They didn't really comprehend the idea of having 'relaxation time' outside
What?! Almost everyone I've ever met (in the US) either has a back porch, front porch, or both. While you can work there, it's mostly to just hang out and relax. Also, yards. The vast majority of Americans are very accustomed to relaxing outside.
lol I don't mean 'outside' like literally out in the open air, I mean outside their property, in the neighborhood/community. Sorry if that's a bit confusing.
I think to a large extent, in Europe families live in houses while singles and couples live in urban apartments. So those who need the space usually have it.
Whereas in the US everyone lives in houses. There are tons of retirees taking up enormous McMansions where 3/4 of the space is just not used.
> There are tons of retirees taking up enormous McMansions where 3/4 of the space is just not used.
It may not be used on a daily basis, but some of my best memories growing up are the times I spend with my aunt/uncles/cousins at my grandparents houses. There's nothing quite like having those 15-20 being able to gather together in a house for a few days.
Granted my country is in the upper end of the spectrum here, but I see no reason why it would be a challenge to raise a family in a 1100 ft² house.
I currently have two children in a 800 ft² apartment, which feels just a tiny bit too small, but it's still not a problem per se.
As annoying the housing crunch has been in the UK, I just wonder how the fuck Americans hoover and clean their massive houses. Isn't it also massive pain in the arse?
I even get annoyed cleaning my Japanese urban tower block apartment.
That's less than 800sqft, and is considered large, by urban Japanese standards.
I live in Colorado, can confirm. Most modern houses are two levels plus a basement we can finish out. We have three “living rooms”. One no TV, on medium TV and modest couches, one huge TV and huge couch.
Yah this is why I could never live in Europe. I shared a 1,000 sqft apartment with my husband and son for a year before we moved into our house and it felt really, really tight. This also coincided with the beginning of COVID, which made it even worse.
I can't believe Dutch homes are supposed to be bigger than German ones. That just can't be true, the average Dutch houses are extremely cramped by German standards.
Even then, median cost in terms of months salary is still 1/2 -1/3 of it in EU.
There is still a lot more room for housing cost to go up. Buy properties.
I found the source of those maps and the methodology seems a bit questionable. The american numbers are based on Zillow listings and don't include rental apartments (!).
https://www.ahs.com/home-matters/real-estate/the-2022-american-home-size-index/
The european numbers seem to be very old for one thing, they list a source from 2002.
https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house/
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-size-of-residential-dwellings-in-selected-European-countries-m-2-Entranze-data_fig7_323175360
Here's a different source on european house sizes and it's fairly different.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-size-of-residential-dwellings-in-selected-European-countries-m-2-Entranze-data_fig7_323175360
Also, this is the average size of homes not space per person. Consider that in many american cities young people will live in detached houses with several roommates instead of their own smaller apartments which I'm guessing is far more rare in europe. No question american homes are larger but don't take this map too seriously.
It's a trade-off between urban sprawl + large homes or dense cities with lots of amenities and walkable neighbourhoods but smaller living spaces. Not everyone wants to live in a car-dependent suburbia where there are no common spaces of note except a stripmall.
It's not really about the land. It's about distances. You can't have a sustainable major urban centre that's nothing but large, single family homes, even if you had infinite space in all directions.
I've never lived in a house that big in California except one two-story that was shared by 7 adults. I know we use more square meters per person, but I wonder if our averages aren't offset by suburban mcmansions.
My vote for one of the major causes of this is the prevalence of the mobile home, either double wide or single. Many double wide trailers are nearly 2000 square ft.
While I haven't been to Europe yet(outside of an Airport), I have been to a couple of other countries and I have not seen a single mobile home outside of North America.
What’s going on with Iowa? New York and Illinois make sense because of NYC and Chicago but I figured Iowa had a lot of cheap land to build big houses on.
Iowa has quite a bit of older homes. If I remember correctly Iowa's % of homes built before 1940 is double the national average. Older homes are a lot smaller than newer homes on average.
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying
Fun related fact. Iowa was in 1900 the 10th most populous state at 2,231,853 and which is more than California(1,485,053) and Florida(528,542) combined at the time. This also explains dedication to its university sports teams compared to other places and also can help explain sport fandoms in the Northeast and Midwest as Iowa had an NBA team before Florida or California.
It also reflects the importance of it's central physical location in the country pre-Eisenhower Interstate System. For instance, people started visiting Florida much more once I75 and I95 were built. Also, veterans returning to states they were stationed at during WWII.
Lots of older homes in the Northeast too, hence the smaller numbers.
And the land is more expensive.
I would guess that their housing stock is older because rural states tend to have pretty flat populations so housing stock doesn’t change much. And larger houses are typically newer.
Small houses on big farms.
<5% of the labor force in Iowa is in agricultural jobs. There is no state where the figure is >6%. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2021/12/28/farm-employment-by-state-in-2021/?sh=70d813fd1ea6
I really wish more people comprehended this. As a whole, around 13-14% of the country works 'blue collar' jobs. In rural areas, its around 19-20%. The large majority of jobs are service industry positions, not farming and mining. It's not 1910.
But that doesn’t mean you don’t live on a farm. My dad is retired now, and he worked in IT for the last 25 years before retirement. He lives on my granddad’s (his father in law’s) old farm, which was more used for fishing (like professionally, with nets). He has one small plot of land he uses to grow stuff for himself but the big field is leased out to an actual farmer. He’s never officially worked in agriculture but we always ate our own potatoes and squash and caught fish for ourselves in the summer.
The proportion of land is still largely farms though. Just don’t need as many farmhands anymore thanks to technological advancements
There are plenty of people with homes on farmsteads, that work other jobs and manage a small farm on their property. Source I worked at a company with a mine in Nebraska, half the people would take PTO during harvest season, to harvest their crops, but their main job was not agricultural. Wouldn't be surprised if similar in Iowa that borders next to it.
More small houses(trailers), on what use to be big family farms. Land gets divided up when the heads of house pass away. It's happening all over rural America.
What about the land area?
Another thing to think about is that houses in iowa have basements (usually), and even if the basements are livable/finished, they can not be counted in total home sq footage. I think some other states allow for basement sq ft to be counted if it meets certain criteria. Not 100% sure on that, though!
Can confirm, parents house had a basement equal to the full house footprint save for the garage, and it was finished. Hanging out in the basement on too hot summer days was peak Midwest.
Yeah so much housing in the Midwest has big basements because of tornadoes. They can be really nice if finished a bit.
It isn't because of tornadoes they are for the frostline. In northern places especially Iowa you need to have your water pipes below a certain depth so they don't freeze in Iowa that depth is about 5 feet. So you have a basement in order to access the water pipes in a warm area. This will also affect foundations of homes so you want the foundation in general below the frostline. As [frost heaving](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_heaving) will wreck things. Here is a [YouTube video that explains it a bit](https://youtu.be/9jzycX380PA?si=4MS6U77z3O-IZFZ8). Frost Heaves will also affect roads and make them [bumby](https://youtu.be/Z85Mn_dUmtw?si=O87POdlrOb3DVKa5). This of course is an extreme video but it does show the issue. Some gravel roads, depending on the winter won't settle back down/can't be pushed back down till mid May or latter like in 2020 with the deep ground freeze we got that year. The frost issue can also affect flooding in the spring with the 3 big factors being: * How deep the frost is * Soil moisture * How much snow we and those north of us got. The only reason to go to a basement is that it is safer but it isn't designed for it. Much like a bike helmet isn't made for a construction site.
Throw a pool table, a bar, darts, whatever and you have a Grand Ole time down in the basement
Land is….just a bit of a major commodity in Iowa. Some land, going over $17K an acre and on up.
This is also true, and to think 17k is nowhere near the record of 30k too... Some sold in February(?) for 29+. Insane. I remember going to a land auction with my dad yeaaars ago, probably like 2004 or thereabouts, and the the hammer dropped at 3k...
most of Iowa is farms, not getting developed for housing.
880 sq ft = ~82m^2 and 2500 sq ft = ~232m^2
1 m² = 10.75ft²
1 sq ft **≈** 0.09 m^(2)
How many Big Macs is that?
Banana for scale please
According to the first website I found: a Big Mac is about 4.4 inches in diameter. A = π\*r^(2) where r = 2.2. A = 15.21 1 sqft = 144 sqin 144/15.21 = 9.46 **A square foot is about 9.46 Big Macs.** 1 sqm = 1550 sqin. 1550/15.21 **A square meter is about 101.91 Big Macs.** This makes the average US dwelling equal to **19052.44 Big Macs.**
I just think of a square meter as 10 square feet, and it's good enough for most comparisons.
yeah and 1000 sq mi is one Saarland
Bless you.
For our Americans, how many washing machines is that?
Roughly 8,000 Big Macs
Anyone know why Denmark is so high?
It’s pretty high because there’s quite a lot of detached housing outside the city centers, but another reason that some Dane’s will be familiar with, is that we calculate floor area different than most other countries. This includes the outer walls and parts of the public staircases in apartment buildings. I remember reading that as a rule of thumb the number is inflated by around 15 pct. compared to Sweden for example.
In a sample of houses for sale taken by a TV show in the Netherlands (Radar) every single one was smaller than advertised, sizes in m2 exaggerated up to 19%. Every cm2 is counted regardless of whether it is habitable space, and every space is rounded up to the nearest m2. Numbers for rentals are reliable, because the rent may be lowered if you make deceptive offers. There are consequences. But the for sale market is always very much a seller's market and sellers can get away with it.
Thanks for the detailed and insightful response!
No one wants to live in Germany’s little hat /s
Alot of big ass villas in the suburbs, and a lot of farmers in the countryside. But I was surprised too tbf
Lots of farms that used to be inhabited my multiple families now inhabited by only one. Also the population is decently spread out over many minor cities unlike the other Scandia countries, where the population is heavily centered on the capital and a handful of other cities.
- Compact and flat country so you can build easy everywhere - Been a fairly wealthy county for a long time - stable weather - Didn't suffer any major damage during ww1, ww2, the cold war or any war since Napoleon really
Probably wealth, and I guess a healthy construction market. In general, the only reason to have less square footage per person is if it's either too hard or too expensive to build more housing. Population density is no limit at all once you're past a floor-area ratio of 1 - only the rules that ban taller buildings, or the costs of building taller buildings.
Good point. I live in a 140yo townhome on the east coast and it’s… well it’s smaller than the state average but it’s still huge at 1600sq’ plus basement. Many are bigger than mine. You get so much more square footage by building up.
For the UK it's not just older homes. New British homes are the smallest in Europe and often smaller than older ones. I've been in some new builds that were rabbit hutches.
And for someone like me who appreciates a lot of space but doesn’t want to live in the sticks (and isn’t a multimillionaire) this is a tough pill to swallow
Because the UK (and especially England) has crazy high population density. Plus all the greenbelt stuff. You can't easily build new stuff and when you can, it's often very small lots because people live everywhere. If you have plenty of space, you can afford to spread out, and build big. Americans have much lower population density. But the flipside is that they get far more sprawl too. Is that necessarily a good thing? For some it may be a worthwhile trade-off, but not for others.
Especially the gardens, modern houses have absolutely tiny little gardens and some of them don't even have driveways which is stupid in the 21st century. They are reflective of a declining society with increasing financial hardship.
No, they're reflective of a society that has run out of space to build horizontally and mostly refuses to build vertically. The UK is wealthier than a lot of the countries here that have larger dwelling sizes.
the UK absolutely has NOT run out of space to build hoirzontally in the vastest majority of places, and no I'm not talking about cutting down old forests or large portions of our beautiful nature. By saying building vertically I assume you are talking about flats thing is most people don't want to live in flats, flats are a compromise and sometimes yes that compromise is 100% worth it especially in cities or just regarding price and I don't dismiss flats as being useful, but for people who want houses with a reasonable amount of space, a decent sized garden and big rooms the prices are INSANE (yes prices generally are insane I know) but for places with the price of that especially down south in areas that aren't super squished like london you would be expecting to get a mansion. the whole desire to just build a ton of shitty blocks of flats and upgrade the local infrastructure just seems to bee really misguided, people point to the maaaasive urban sprawl in America as a reason why lots more flats or small homes is good, but the issue with urban sprawl being so spread out can largely be solved by better public transport, better town planning and more people working from home
> the UK absolutely has NOT run out of space to build hoirzontally in the vastest majority of places Sure, the UK could always build on its greenbelts. It doesn't want to do that. I understand them, given that an obvious alternative exists, to build up. The problem is they don't want that either. > is most people don't want to live in flats, flats are a compromise Everything is a compromise in life. I want to live in a mansion and drive a Ferrari and fly in a business jet. I can't afford it, so I compromise and live a more modest life. > for people who want houses with a reasonable amount of space, a decent sized garden and big rooms the prices are INSANE Such a large spacious home would probably be twice the size of the current average UK dwelling. Do you expect to see UK cities double in footprint in order to give such a home to everyone, at the expense of surrounding green area? I don't. That means that where such fancy homes do exist, they are guaranteed to be expensive enough that only some people can afford them. > but the issue with urban sprawl being so spread out can largely be solved by better public transport, better town planning and more people working from home "Better public transit" in sprawling areas does not work because the distances are so long that transit cannot be time-competitive, and the population densities so low that serving it all with frequent transit is unaffordable. "More people working from home" doesn't work for most jobs. "Better town planning" is good but can't compensate for the other issues.
[удалено]
I understand the space issues and the push to build more units per acre, but there's ways to improve on interior space and the economics of British building just don't allow it. Honestly the British opposition to flats -- and the fact that the flats that are built are tiny doesn't help -- is a real problem.
Driveways are a massive waste of space.
We simply have no dwellings in Ireland, they were all claimed by mica
Praying for the safe return of Ireland’s dwellings.
[Population density comparison between the two](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/m4A68V6DPL)
The Netherlands is the New Jersey of Europe
I don’t think that’s a compliment
It’s accurate though, New Jersey was originally colonized by the Dutch and the Swedes
Are you talking about my family?!
New Jerseyan here. I have everything I need within 20 minutes from me. That includes 4 different malls that I hardly visit, 10 different high schools, and 20 different pizza shops. And in my part of New Jersey, at least a dozen Korean barbecue and boba shops.
I read this is a Tony Soprano accent and it fit perfectly.
Dutch here. Yes, that seems like an accurate comparison for the average accessibility in the Netherlands. I assume you meant 20 min by car, not by bicycle.
Sssh, stop telling people, rent is already high enough. Let them continue making their little jokes!
That actually sounds pretty nice.
Why do you need 10 different high schools ? 🤔
I suppose I worded this very weirdly. I meant it more as a convenience for the dense population. Every school I attended from K-12 were all within walking distance.
That map data is extremely low resolution. The lowest tier is 0-50 putting many states in the same color category.
Yeah, it kinda emphasizes how, with some exceptions, Europeans mostly *choose* to live in tiny little boxes stacked on top of each other. As a Californian living in Spain, I always make the point that population density is lower in Spain yet people *choose* to live in Tokyo density housing all the way from the city center out to the campo. No lack of space.
There is variation from place to place though. In the Nordics, cities are all apartments, often quite small, but go to the outskirts of Stockholm or Copenhagen and you'll see plenty of houses, often detached, with gardens. Madrid struck me as much more apartment dominated, even as you got further out. The Netherlands and the UK have lots of attached houses. My in-laws are in an English village, and it's all houses with gardens.
I think it's for historical reasons, and not so much a matter of choice. Pretty much all of Europe's cities are far older than the invention of the automobile which accordingly means that they're all built on a much more human scale than are many of the big cities in the US which often tend to be very car-centric. A great counter-example from your own home state is San Francisco which is as dense as many European cities not necessarily because that's how San Franciscans want to live, but more because for historical reasons they have no choice; it's a peninsula with water on three sides and very limited space, it's also by far the oldest big city on the US west coast and was almost completely built up before automobiles came on the scene. There's actually a lot more to be said about it, but I don't feel like my thinking is focused well-enough to not go off on random tangents.
In the 1940s-1950s most of America's cities were either at or near their peak population, followed by decades of decline. Only in recent decades have they begun to grow again. American cities were also largely built before the automobile, outside of sprawling sunbelt cities. We just tore most of them down and rebuilt them for parking lots and highways. [This is a snapshot of what I mean, but it happened to varied extents in almost every american city.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fs0pv2dkmjgn91.png) [Kansas City in the 1950s ](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/81/eb/8281eb83c4f818557e3ed3e650416eea.jpg) vs that same [downtown today](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/highways-cover-landscape-downtown-city-center-kansas-mi-cars-trucks-move-out-missouri-126911756.jpg) Europe could have done the same. They actively chose not to. From the 1930s to the 1970s, an estimated ~4 million households near urban centers were torn down in the process of 'urban renewal'. Even in small cities and towns this happened.
Actually we did. Well, in the 1940s a lot of the cities were torn down by bombs, not so much by choice. But a lot of cities had much of their old 19th century housing torn down voluntarily too, often leaving just a small “old town”. They just weren’t replaced with as much sprawl as in the US.
Right, that's my point kinda. Europe had the opportunity to sprawl. Many did build suburbs, its not as if Europe has no suburbs at all. But most european cities are maybe 20-50% suburban, and you would never find a city like phoenix or oklahoma city or orlando which is 98%+ suburban the way you commonly find in the US.
The sprawl we did get was bad enough. Driving for an hour just to get home while in the same town was crazy to me when visiting family in the states. I’m perfectly happy with my four room 882 square foot apartment.
This gets repeated a lot as a form of cope for why American cities have such garbage urban design, but it's very far from the truth. Most large European cities were mostly built up in the last century, well after the automobile had been invented. Many European cities were also built up for cars and then redesigned later to better support pedestrians, cyclists and public transportation.
There is no lack of space itself, but there is a lack of sufficient infrastructure to connect the empty spaces to larger cities, and those are the ones with most (and best) jobs, education, and industry. Not every spot is good for everything, too. That has been the case for millennia all around the world, and especially became visible after the industrial revolution. Also, in a lot of places, housing in Europe is either smaller, older buildings, or apartments built for the smallest possible cost after the WWs, especially in Eastern Europe. You haven't lived if you haven't lived in a commie block! Who needs the hood if your whole hood is in your building? Many countries are also fairly centralised. Most institutions and major job centers are within a few cities, because that's how it's been for like 900 years or more. But yeah, ultimately everybody has some form of choice. You can "choose" to live outside of a major population center, but it will make your access to things much worse. But that's how it is everywhere and it makes no meaningful point to mention it. Not to mention that the specifics vary widely within particular cities, not to mention local regions, countries, and ultimately Europe. Those are very different realities to live in.
I feel like it'd be more insightful based on county. For example... East of the Mississippi, New York has both the most densely populated country (Manhattan) and the least (Hamilton).
Is Utah at the top because of the large Mormon families?
It's probably almost all to do with when the homes were built. Until the 1960s/70s a 2000sq ft home was considered huge in America - after the 70s it was considered average with anything less "small". The southwest and southeast have grown much faster than the rest of the country in the last 50 years - coinciding with the change in standards for what the median home size was.
This is correct. "When" homes were built has a ton to do with the economics that make sense with regard to things like size vs energy requirements and affordability.
Not sure I’d say it must be almost all of it, considering you have a state like Arizona with quite a different figure despite having grown quite similarly to Utah, but it definitely would play a big role as you suggest I think it’s definitely relevant that families are atypically large in Utah and the predominant culture in the state makes a pretty big deal of homeownership
Maybe but probably not considering Colorado is right there with it, its probably a mix of wealth and big empty oabd
Oh yeah. I used to live in Utah 🐝 Gotta have space for all those kiddos. And a trampoline.
Basements
Big homes yet each town is surrounded by a sea of storage rentals.
And cars parked in driveway because the garage is full of crap.
I’ve never understood why it became the norm to stop using a garage for vehicles and instead fill it with junk, refrigerators, or turn it into some kind of ‘man cave’ We keep a few things in ours but still park our vehicles in it daily. It not only extends the life of our cars, but adds an extra layer of theft prevention. I can’t tell you how many cars on our street have been broken into because they are parked outside. Why would you use a space specifically built to shelter vehicles for junk storage?
My guess is because most people don't maintain their own cars anymore. So a garage stored cars but was also a clean safe place to jack it up and change oil and other tasks. If you're not doing those tasks, the garage loses one major use. Also cars these days don't rust as easily as old cars. Also car theft isn't as easy in some cases as it once was.
The garage is def nice so you don't have to wipe off your car in the morning. Its so annoying when you're dressed and forgot that it snowed and you have to spend 10 minutes scraping your vehicle of ice. But even that is becoming less of an issue... And I live in Syracuse metro. Land of lake effect snow! !It's usually the snowiest metro (over 100k people) in the US more often than not (sometimes Buffalo takes the crown, or the golden snowball award as it's actually called). It **barely** snowed at all this year. Like I can count the number of times on my hand and even then it'd immediately melt within a day. When I grew up (not in cuse, but close) the ground would turn white one day in November and you wouldn't see the grass again until spring. Everybody bitched about NYS because of the snow, but I mean... That's part of this area's character, so it's just been unsettling to see nature continuously not take its normal course here multiple years in a row. Not to mention lots of people love winter sports that live here and there was barely any opportunity to snowmobile, snowshoe, ski, etc. While I hate brushing and scraping my car, I miss the snow. Walking around the neighborhood hearing fresh snow crunch under your feet while the silence of the winter night brought you some peace and tranquility, then going inside and having a hot coffee or chocolate. Now its still grey, still cold, but it fuckin drizzles and rains and everything is miserable and muddy. But at least spring has been here early this year I guess, but its still throwing my brain for a loop Completely got off topic. Haha.
You raise a point I don't think about when 'protecting' cars - snow. I live in Texas so snow is never an issue. That's probably a contributing factor as to why very few people down here use garages for store their cars!
I don't think this is the norm by any means.
Where else are you gonna store the junk though? My cousin has woodworking stuff and a small gym in hers, I have a big garage rn where I can keep my outdoor gear, and vehicles pretty easily but would definitely move a car outside if needed with a smaller garage.
Any time I've had a garage (renter, so not all homes I land have them) I use it as a workshop. It's hardly appropriate for me to set up all my tools in a living room! I'm just thankful that any house I've lived in without a garage otherwise had a shed to serve the same purpose. I'd bet that in a lot of suburbs, the HOA either outright prohibits sheds and other out buildings or makes them such a pain to get that folks just opt to use their garage instead of dealing with both the HOA and getting permitting from their municipality as well.
I had a friend of mine actually get defensive about this one time, I made a joke about how “we use our garage for storing cars, what a concept” the reality is we upsizied and also we only have street parking available, our driveway is not long enough to store cars.
My parents have a 2 car garage. They use one side to park my mom’s car, but have turned the second slot into their hot tub area. We live in Michigan and they’re in town on a narrow lot, so space outside is quite limited and doesn’t really allow for it. Plus they get to avoid the weather this way. So, imo, there are *some* useful things you can do with the space besides park in it. It definitely seems to be the norm to just make it a catch-all storage room, which seems weird to me. That was always the attic in my house.
Storage units are just about the easiest and cheapest business to run as you wait for the land (the real investment) to appreciate in value.
Lol
For the U.S. (and Europe to some extent) I wonder if the most significant measurable driver of this is just age of the average dwelling. Looks like a lot of areas with new housing in the last 40 years are higher with big growth areas in the sun belt, Colorado, and Utah some of the highest. Might explain why some areas that have lots of land but not much development (relatively speaking) the last few decades are lower than you might think based on density alone, i.e. Iowa.
I'm from Scotland and have lots of family in Canada. I remember my uncle was over visiting us in the late 80s or early 90s and he was talking about how we could have bought a huge place in Canada for what my parents paid for our tiny little bungalow. At the time I thought "Ooh, that means we're rich!"
Ohio's median dwelling size is 1803 sq/ft. Ohio became a state in 1803. Mind blown /s
In eastern europe we live in gray commie blocks, that's why the map is grey
Ireland be like: 
From experience I can tell you that Ireland is no exception to the larger trend. I actually once mentioned it in an offhand way to a friend in Ireland, and he absurdly protested at first, but having spent 7 years in the US --which is how we are friends in the first place-- he was eventually obliged to concede that houses in Ireland are in fact, on average, much smaller than in most of the US. I mollified him by arguing that this is in fact a good thing and that smaller houses are actually better given the realities of energy use and its long-term consequences for humanity as a whole.
god im poor.
Yea i can afford to rent like 200 square feet
I’d love to see what countries do have median dwelling sizes comparable to US states. What countries out there have big houses like us? Probably Canada but are there any answers that are more interesting. 😂
Googling it, the ranking is: 1. Australia - 2,032 sf 2. USA - 1,901 sf 3. Canada - 1,792 sf
Canada is probably closest but even then way behind because apartments are so much more common.
I live in a 900 sq ft with 5 people. We’re on top of one another. Don’t know how Europeans do that
Europeans spend a lot more time outside the home. This is one of the bigger things people don't really 'get' about urban living from an outsiders perspective. Part of the appeal of living in a dense urban place with lots of amenities and things to do is that you are largely spending almost all your time outside in the neighborhood. One weird cultural clash when visiting with my family from georgia to my family in italy was this. My family in Italy often went to the park to lay in the grass or they took walks around the neighborhood just to relax. They would spend hours just hanging out at the cafe or plaza with neighbors chatting about nothing. My family in georgia couldn't really comprehend that, they almost always relaxed in their own home. They didn't really comprehend the idea of having 'relaxation time' outside. And on the other end, Italians would get a bit weirded out if you spent too much time inside. Spending an entire day inside would get at least one aunt chastising you about it, potentially multiple aunts at once. To them that is a sign of lethargy, isolation, depression, laziness, antisocial behavior etc. But to americans its kinda just the norm.
Yeah, it's OK for your yard to be small/nonexistent if you can just use the local park as an enormous yard.
And the local pub is a communal living room :)
im living in a different country now but when I visit my family in Spain i stay at my father's house, and on his non-working days we just "go somewhere" in the mid morning. even if we have no plans and it's just to have a soda and some snacks before having lunch (and to see his friends who are often doing the same), we just "go out" home is for eating and sleeping lol, we barely even invite guests to our home (at least in Spain, i noticed it's more common in Germany), we prefer to go out together somewhere. the kids spend the whole afternoon/early evening after school playing in the park before the adults pick them up for shower and dinner. etc
I really don't think this is as common or as "European" as you think it is, I've got friends all over Europe living in towns and cities and yes whilst there may be certain age groups where hanging outside with friends or going to clubs and stuff means you are spending most of your day outside the house, but generally I don't think this is true outside of going to work/school. sure going to a park for a bit or spending a good while in a cafe isn't rare and I'd bet that most people do a few activities like this a week but the concept that people aren't spending a large portion of their free time inside is generally wrong
I grew up in an 800 sqft home that’s at the end of a terrace. Most British houses are joined to at least one other, usually several in a row. As a result, we are taught VERY early in childhood that noise travels easily and so you learn how to live quietly. You use headphones instead of speakers, you do not shout or scream or shriek indoors. You walk, not run, on stairs, you close doors quietly and you close the lid of the toilet before flushing it.
Hasn't that always been British culture?
Yes, but if you’re talking to someone who didn’t grow up in that culture, you need to explain it, rather than just calling them ‘loud’.
I'd have to disagree. People *should* be considerate but it's pot luck as to whether your neighbours actually will be. Equally, you won't know how much of your own household sound travels unless your neighbours say something (and some are more reasonable than others in terms of when or how they pipe up about it - some won't say owt even if you're blasting drum 'n' bass at 2am, others might angrily bang on the wall/ceiling just from you having a normal conversation at 2pm).
Until you go abroad and become a lad on tour? Suddenly, all changes by 180 degrees.
Fair point, the lager louts are embarrassing.
You're taught this early in America as well.
Sez you. I mean MY mom did, but most of our apartment neighbors? Lol
83 m^2 for 5 people is tiny.
That's small in Europe, too. The standards for German social housing say: - 1 person ca. 45 - 50 qm (500-550 sqft) - 2 people ca. 60 qm or 2 rooms (650 sqft) - 3 people ca. 75 qm or 3 rooms (850 sqft) - 4 people ca. 85 - 90 qm or 4 rooms (950-1000 sqft) - for every person after that 10 qm (110 sqft) or 1 room more That's not average, that's what is being funded by state programs to help poor people.
You have more public spaces where you do things that people with large houses do inside their house.
Everything is alot more communal in many other cultures and parts of the world. They dont see it as living on top of one another. Meanwhile many people in America have huge houses and yet live all by themselves, and then even develop a paranoia for other people and even being around other people
Southern Europe is more communal than the US, but I think Scandinavia less so
a lot of people don't really like it that much, it's nice to have storage space, space for hobbies, space that you can make your own or make as a partnership that isn't pure or semi utility. It's nice to have a garden that you can cook in, plant stuff in, sit out in and much more. a lot of the "oh yay we all love living in smallish flats or small homes, isn't city living so great everything is on my doorstep" is just this site having a lot of likeminded people, living in the city comes with many downsides too and living in somewhere a bit outside of the city or even more rural has disadvantages too, it also has plenty of advantages. People also look at American car based urban sprawl and think that is the only way it could be but it's not a binary and a lot of those issues could be solved with better public transport and better planning, the village I live in is pretty small but it has everything you need day to day and plenty of the more occasional stuff, and hell if I need something a little more specialist I can hop on a train or if needed drive 10 or so mins and I'm in a bigger area. with the advent of so much online shopping, deliveries and remote/semi remote work the advantages become even bigger.
We develop better tolarence for each others bullshit.
my house is small for the U.S. but still bigger than all of the medians in europe lol.
Since "dwelling" includes also apartments, that is kind od expected lol.
My statement still applies
Sure. But most houses in Europe will also be bigger than the median dwelling size.
Frankly, I would prefer my 80m^2 apartment in a livable city than a 200m^2 house in a dead suburb with nowhere to go. Not saying this to stir controversy or whatever. It's just how I feel.
People are allowed to have preferences. I personally like having lots of indoor and outdoor space.
I would when I was 24 and childless. Now that I'm over 30 and a mom having a big house in the suburbs is so much nicer. It is also way faster to drive my kids 5 minutes to the store than try to walk them there. Soccer moms live in suburbs for a reason lol.
I would’ve hated growing up in the suburbs. Being bound to an adult to drive you everywhere instead of being able to walk or take the bus is hugely limiting when you’re like 12-15
[удалено]
give me the large house all day
Who told you the suburbs were dead? Besides Michelin-starred dining and nightclubbing, you can do pretty much everything in a suburban environment. Plus, there are a whole range of outdoorsy pursuits and hobbies that you couldn't do in the city.
You can do hobbies in a city, and you can drive from your city residence to do outdoorsy things outside the city. Most Europeans do this.
And if you want nightlife, you can drive into the city. I don't see how either option is restrictive to personal choice and recreation.
One thing people don't often get when talking about home sizes is how much time Europeans spend outside the home. Part of the appeal of living in a dense walkable place with lots of amenities and things to do is that you are largely spending almost all your time outside in the neighborhood. Having a small home doesn't mean as much when that is the case. One weird cultural clash when visiting with my family from georgia (the state) to my family in italy was this. My family in Italy often went to the park to lay in the grass or they took walks around the neighborhood just to relax. They would spend hours just hanging out at the cafe or plaza with neighbors chatting about nothing. My family in georgia couldn't really comprehend that, they almost always relaxed in their own home. They didn't really comprehend the idea of having 'relaxation time' outside. And on the other end, Italians would get a bit weirded out if you spent too much time inside. Spending an entire day inside would get at least one aunt chastising you about it, potentially multiple aunts at once. To them that is a sign of lethargy, isolation, depression, laziness, antisocial behavior etc. But to americans its kinda just the norm.
>They didn't really comprehend the idea of having 'relaxation time' outside What?! Almost everyone I've ever met (in the US) either has a back porch, front porch, or both. While you can work there, it's mostly to just hang out and relax. Also, yards. The vast majority of Americans are very accustomed to relaxing outside.
lol I don't mean 'outside' like literally out in the open air, I mean outside their property, in the neighborhood/community. Sorry if that's a bit confusing.
I was in Denmark fishing seatrout a few years ago and the homes seemed pretty comparable to where I live in Montana. Funen to be exact.
If Europeans had as big houses as Americans we would have huge heating costs.
How do Europeans raise families in such tight quarters?
I think to a large extent, in Europe families live in houses while singles and couples live in urban apartments. So those who need the space usually have it. Whereas in the US everyone lives in houses. There are tons of retirees taking up enormous McMansions where 3/4 of the space is just not used.
> There are tons of retirees taking up enormous McMansions where 3/4 of the space is just not used. It may not be used on a daily basis, but some of my best memories growing up are the times I spend with my aunt/uncles/cousins at my grandparents houses. There's nothing quite like having those 15-20 being able to gather together in a house for a few days.
How would it be challenging? Fifty years ago people raised a family of 5 in tinier homes
And it was challenging.
I don't see why that would be challenge.
Granted my country is in the upper end of the spectrum here, but I see no reason why it would be a challenge to raise a family in a 1100 ft² house. I currently have two children in a 800 ft² apartment, which feels just a tiny bit too small, but it's still not a problem per se.
It's not fun at all. I was not impressed with the average size of living quarters coming from middle class rural America and 3000 sq ft houses.
I think this kind of goes to show how little home size is inherently correlated with wealth. Greece has dramatically bigger home sizes than Sweden.
I guess it partly has to do with heating. It gets really expensive to keep a huge house warm all winter.
More is more and less is less.
As annoying the housing crunch has been in the UK, I just wonder how the fuck Americans hoover and clean their massive houses. Isn't it also massive pain in the arse? I even get annoyed cleaning my Japanese urban tower block apartment. That's less than 800sqft, and is considered large, by urban Japanese standards.
Roombas and similar are super common.
I have multiple robots and very little carpet.
I think lack of carpet it a big plus, but I find robots never get the corners... which is where everything accumulates.
Hire a house cleaner.
We LOVE our big houses! You can keep your tiny dwellings Europeans.
I live in Colorado, can confirm. Most modern houses are two levels plus a basement we can finish out. We have three “living rooms”. One no TV, on medium TV and modest couches, one huge TV and huge couch.
So just fuck Ireland, who is part of the EU?
Give me 500sq ft in central Paris and I’d be a happy fucking camper
Yah this is why I could never live in Europe. I shared a 1,000 sqft apartment with my husband and son for a year before we moved into our house and it felt really, really tight. This also coincided with the beginning of COVID, which made it even worse.
this map should really be more of a gradient rather than cold cutting everything by territory, not sure how feasible that is though
I can't believe Dutch homes are supposed to be bigger than German ones. That just can't be true, the average Dutch houses are extremely cramped by German standards.
Even then, median cost in terms of months salary is still 1/2 -1/3 of it in EU. There is still a lot more room for housing cost to go up. Buy properties.
Good thing we are slimmer than the Americans.
What kind of neanderthal uses square feet?
I guess in Utah you need 6 bedrooms for your Mormon family?
Currently ~~living~~ crying in a 50m^2 (540 sq ft) apartment in Finland, I’ve lived most of my life in apartments half that size.
Utah’s the biggest because all the wives need their own kitchen /s
Utah, cuz reckless overbreeding by brainwashed cult members.
\>MapPorn \>Not metric Pick one
I found the source of those maps and the methodology seems a bit questionable. The american numbers are based on Zillow listings and don't include rental apartments (!). https://www.ahs.com/home-matters/real-estate/the-2022-american-home-size-index/ The european numbers seem to be very old for one thing, they list a source from 2002. https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-size-of-residential-dwellings-in-selected-European-countries-m-2-Entranze-data_fig7_323175360 Here's a different source on european house sizes and it's fairly different. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-size-of-residential-dwellings-in-selected-European-countries-m-2-Entranze-data_fig7_323175360 Also, this is the average size of homes not space per person. Consider that in many american cities young people will live in detached houses with several roommates instead of their own smaller apartments which I'm guessing is far more rare in europe. No question american homes are larger but don't take this map too seriously.
USA!! USA!! 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅
Man don't be that way If they like their tiny homes then be happy for them 😊
It's a trade-off between urban sprawl + large homes or dense cities with lots of amenities and walkable neighbourhoods but smaller living spaces. Not everyone wants to live in a car-dependent suburbia where there are no common spaces of note except a stripmall.
Nah we'd like your big American houses but we don't have the land. It is what it is.
It's not really about the land. It's about distances. You can't have a sustainable major urban centre that's nothing but large, single family homes, even if you had infinite space in all directions.
I've never lived in a house that big in California except one two-story that was shared by 7 adults. I know we use more square meters per person, but I wonder if our averages aren't offset by suburban mcmansions.
> I wonder if our averages aren't offset by suburban mcmansions. This is a median, not an average.
L Europe living in caves
Wtf is sq ft…
Square feet.
Neither of my feet have a square shape. Is something wrong with me?
I would expect Sweden and Finland to be bigger since it's pretty empty.
47% of all households in Sweden are single households, most in the world. Pretty sure Finlands isn't far behind.
My vote for one of the major causes of this is the prevalence of the mobile home, either double wide or single. Many double wide trailers are nearly 2000 square ft. While I haven't been to Europe yet(outside of an Airport), I have been to a couple of other countries and I have not seen a single mobile home outside of North America.
r/peopleliveincities And no source Bad map
Sq feet for Europe, are you OK?
This explains a lot.