This is something I’m curious about that is tied to housing shortages… As in, say a hypothetical government want to encourage real-estate develpers to build more housing to solve housing shortages. But said government still wants to make most of its citizens happy, instead of just cramming everyone in the smallest accommodations possible

As extreme examples:

  • A shoebox studio (<= 10 m^2) is probably too small for almost any family
  • On the contrary… a massive estate (>= 10,000 m^2) is probably too big for almost any family. At that point, upkeep of the house may need several full-time housekeepers, so you literally won’t have time to do it yourself

I’d imagine there might be some cultural differences regarding this as well…?

  • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Short answer. No.

    People vary too much, and have wildly different ideas about how much is ‘enough.’

    This line is from a novel, but there’s a lot of truth in it. “If I was on my own, I could live in a pup tent. When I have to live with one other person I need a 30 room mansion.”

    Other people would be happy in a small place if they had access to different things; parks, gyms; museums; libraries; schools.

    And, a world where all the hosues were similar size would look pretty boring.