Big house or little house?

[Mommee]

We will be leasing a home for the next two years. We have two choices in our desired neighborhood- a 2600 sq. foot 4-bedroom home, or a 1512-sq. foot 3-bedroom home. We have 3 kids full time (ages 9,8, and almost 4) and one teen that is there part-time. Currently we have about 2800 sq. feet and five bedrooms, so even "big" house is smaller than we're used to.

Little house is $500/month cheaper than big house. It's also in a better location in the neighborhood, and the kids would go to a better elementary school. The yard is better suited for playing--big house is on a hill with rock stairs to the back yard, and a fire pit/paver patio taking up half the flat part at the bottom of the hill. The bus stop at little house is across the street instead of around the corner. Because it's smaller, it would also be less housework for me.

Big house's advantage is that it's big, and that's about it. My daughters wouldn't need to share a bedroom, and we'd have a separate room for video games and computers. It's prettier on the outside, but in poor shape on the inside (things like scratched floors, worn carpet, dinged-up trim, etc..)

So, obviously I'm leaning toward the small house. But am I deluding myself in thinking we'll be fine? FWIW, we can afford big house, but would have less of a down payment saved for our next home. That $500/mo would go straight into that fund.

Which would you do?

 

[bicker]

I just recently heard a couple of discussions that both hit on the same issue, and drove at the same general advice: Do your best to live as far below your means as practical. This was presented not only from the standpoint of one's own personal financial security, but also with regard to social conscience - that living below one's means generally meant that you incurred a lesser impact on the environment and society's resources.

FWIW.

 

[Kim♥DISNEY]

Just a thought ... smaller house also means smaller utility bills. Good luck with your decision.

 

[kirstenb1]

I'd pick the bigger house, especially with kids. We moved many years ago from a house into a smaller townhouse, while we were waiting for our next house to be built. I chose the cheapest townhouse I could stand, and hated it!!!

A friend tried to warn me how much adjustment it would be, and I just sort of glossed over it. We also had to stick everything in storage. Some type of icky bug had gotten into the clothes and books in the unit, so we also had to trash everything and buy new stuff.

Lastly, we thought it would be a year, but it wound up being closer to 18 mths.

 

[RNMOM]

I would also go with the smaller house. We live in a 1700, 3 bedroom house without a basement that is fine.

You will appreciate your new house all the more when you find the one you want and you will get there faster due to the money you will save in the smaller house.

Sharing a bedroom and living in a smaller area just might make your family appreciate each other more and be closer for it.

 

[PatsGirl]

My vote is for the smaller home because of the location, school, and savings. Of course, my house is only 1200 square feet for four people and I want to go even smaller...I really hate to clean

 

[We_Love_Disney]

small. cheaper and when kids share rooms they learn to cooperate and get along, and someone is always willing to *******

 

[drag n' fly]

Small. Our family of five, plus three cats, a dog, greenwing macaw and cockatiel live in a 1610sq ft house with an unfinished basement and we survive just fine.

 

[Bethenny]

I might be more inclined to go with the house that's in the better school, depending on how much better it is. Will the school make any difference when you go to buy the next house (ie will you have to change schools again)?

 

[Mommee]

I might be more inclined to go with the house that's in the better school, depending on how much better it is. Will the school make any difference when you go to buy the next house (ie will you have to change schools again)?

I was just pointing that out to DH...if we go with the big house, the youngest will end up switching elementary schools down the road. For some reason, the dividing line for the elementary schools goes right down the middle of this neighborhood. If we go with the big house, she'll go to one school for preschool (because it's not offered at that home elementary school), one school for kindergarten, and then change again when we go to buy. If we go with the little house, she'll stay in the same school the whole time.

I like the tattle line And it would be smaller utility bills, which means more money saved

DH is a little concerned that moving AND downsizing at the same time would be more disruptive to the kids.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Lease the smaller house. It is only temporary and school thing tops my priority list and outweighs anything else.

 

[descovy]

small house...

what have you got to lose? You'll be renting. If it hurts something awful, you *can* move. But most likely any "pains" will be minor and you can adjust. And 1500 sq feet isn't tiny. My family of 5 lived in 1500 sq ft until we bought our new home (2700 sq ft) I don't know if I myself would buy a 1500 sq ft house for 5 people, but rent? No problem!

And you save money, and good schools, and room to play... seems like a no-brainer to me!

Good luck!

 

[mhsjax]

If you are renting and the school are better where the smaller house it and it won't be too long before you buy, then I say smaller.

 

[dis-happy]

Since your oldest will still only be 11 or 12 when you move again, I'd go for the smaller house. It gets harder when they are bigger in the teenage years---they get bigger, their friends are bigger, their stuff is bigger. But you should still be okay.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Good god, get the bigger house. To have too many people in a small area can be very difficult. We have six of us and two dogs in 1500 square feet and i am going nuts. A llittle breathing room is nice. For your sanity, get the bigger house.

 

[Colleen27]

I'd go with the smaller house with the lower payment, personally. You'll be fine - this trend of huge houses, separate bedrooms for everyone, dedicated spaces for electronic toys, etc is relatively new and completely unsustainable (both economically and environmentally). If you find the smaller house a little too tight, you'll know to take that larger down payment you've saved over the 2 years you live there and look for something more spacious, but you might just find that the smaller home suits you well.

Do your girls mind the idea of sharing a room? We lived in a 3 bedroom as a family of 5 for several years without any problems, but when we moved we wanted 4 bedrooms so the girls wouldn't have to share... So now we have 4 bedrooms and they share a bedroom by choice anyway!

 

[JLTraveling]

Go for the smaller house. We voluntarily downsized from a 2000 sf house to a 500 sf apartment (due to location, wanted to live in the French Quarter), and then to a 27 foot travel trailer (so we can see the country). Obviously you don't want to give up your stuff like we did, since you'll be upgrading again, but there's nothing wrong with boxing up some of the extras and storing them for awhile. Less money, nicer house, better schools, more room to play and the opportunity for the family to get a bit closer...what's the down side?

 

[mhsjax]

I disagree, it isn't unsustainable. I know plenty of people that have separate rooms for their electronics. Not everyone can afford it, but plenty of people can. Yes I know that it is relatively new, but guess what, so are computers cell phones, twitter, facebook, heck we used to just give people a shot and a bullet before we cut off their leg.

IO just don't get all of this type of talk, if you can reasonable afford it , then do so. I don't want this to sound like I don't care, but I won't give up extra space to save the environment. Sorry.

As the pp stated, everyone needs breathing room, I would strangle myself if my kids had to share a room. They are just like me, I need my personal space and it can't and won't be invaded and the same for them.. For a short time a smaller house may be the way to go, and if you choose a smaller house to buy for other reasons, fine. But I refuse to purchase smaller because people in the past didn't do it or to not leave a big ole carbon footprint. JMHO

 

[Mommee]

Good god, get the bigger house. To have too many people in a small area can be very difficult. We have six of us and two dogs in 1500 square feet and i am going nuts. A llittle breathing room is nice. For your sanity, get the bigger house.

This is what I'm afraid we might feel like. OTOH, we don't have pets, which frees up floor and couch space

Do your girls mind the idea of sharing a room? We lived in a 3 bedroom as a family of 5 for several years without any problems, but when we moved we wanted 4 bedrooms so the girls wouldn't have to share... So now we have 4 bedrooms and they share a bedroom by choice anyway!

My youngest would LOVE to be with her big sister-she makes it her everyday goal to find a way to get into her sister's room. The older sister said no-way, no-how until I told her she could hang a curtain, divide the closet, etc. so that she still has her own space. As long as she can keep things that are still "hers", she loves the idea of having her sister in there to keep her company.

 

[disykat]

If you were just a family of 5, I'd say the smaller house would be fine. However, the reality is that you're a family of 6! Is there any chance you can keep looking?