Big house or little house?

[mtemm]

leasing I would go with the smaller house, personally. save the money for the downpayment for your home in 2 years. even if its tight, knowing that the light at the end of the tunnel will help.

 

[DawnM]

Based on those choices, I would choose the smaller house. Nicer inside, BETTER SCHOOL, and money savings.

 

[pandaroo]

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?

Dues to the ages and number of kid I vote for the 4 bedroom. The teen needs their own room when he/she comes over. That leaves two rooms for the other three kids.

 

[Mommee]

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?

Dues to the ages and number of kid I vote for the 4 bedroom. The teen needs their own room when he/she comes over. That leaves two rooms for the other three kids.

I honestly never gave a thought to the boys having to share (the teen and the 9-yr. old). They shared up until recently and really don't have an issue with sharing for 2 years. They're busy making plans to keep all the video games in their room if we go with the smaller house

 

[Hannathy]

I vote bigger house. Remember in 2 yrs all the kids will be getting bigger and older. Privacy issues will be a lot more important to an 11 yr old than a 9 yr old.
If they were all toddlers or preschoolers I might say go for it .
One VERY important thing I didn't see mentioned but with 6 people living there including a teen and a preteen girl is HOW MANY BATHROOMS!!!

I would go for the house with the most bathrooms or the 2 yrs could seem like 20. Also what about other living space? which has the bigger kitchen to feed 6 people? Family room and living room or only 1 that's a lot of kids to and diff. ages to all agree on what to watch.

MY vote is bigger house.

 

[bethy]

No question about it - go with the smaller house. Esp since it's only temporary.

 

[powellrj]

We live in a small house and I wouldn't wish it on anyone! Ours is an older small house with small rooms and small closets and limited outlets and 1 bathroom. It can be stressful at times. Right now its much better because there are just the 3 of us, but when all 5 of us lived here, it got hairy!

We stayed in a larger home this year for vacation and I really didn't appreciate how stressfull it is to live in a small house until we stayed in the larger home. It was so nice to have 3 bathrooms and not having to do laundry in the kitchen!

It could be a long 2 years. I know we rented a home when I was little while we were waiting for ours to be ready, it was only 3 months, but my mom still calls it the longest 3 months in her life and it was almost 50 years ago!

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

When we lived on the East Coast we had a smallish house (about 1800 square feet) and one child. When we moved to Iowa we said "wow, look at how much we can get for the money" and bought a 4,200 square foot house (for several hundred thousand less than we sold our house out east for).

Not a day has gone by that we haven't regretted that decision and wished we'd bought a smaller home. It is impossible to keep clean, unbelievably expensive to heat and cool, and even though we've added another child since moving here, we just have way too much space. While our mortgage is less than when we lived out east, we also think about how much less it could have been if we'd bought a smaller house.

So, I say go for the smaller house and enjoy the closeness and the savings!

 

[HeatherH]

I honestly never gave a thought to the boys having to share (the teen and the 9-yr. old). They shared up until recently and really don't have an issue with sharing for 2 years. They're busy making plans to keep all the video games in their room if we go with the smaller house

I think this is KEY...and the fact that your girls are fine sharing a room too.

AND the schools being better is a HUGE issue. HUGE.

I would definitely go for the smaller house for two years. $500 month equals $6000 a year and that is a decent chunk of change for your eventual down payment for your new house.

Yes, there may be times when you will feel cramped and wonder "what did we do" but honestly, I think all the positives FAR outweigh any negatives here.

 

[LJRJR]

I would go for the smaller house also. There are 5 of us in my 100 year old house (1900 sq feet), and we fit just fine. I make it a point to keep the things we bring into the house to a minimum, so it doesnt get too filled with junk. It is very cosy, and even if I had a really big house to spread out in, I think the kids would still always be right next to me, as they are now.

 

[smb6]

I vote for the smaller house. You have several reasons to downsize; cheaper, schools, yard..... I downsized from a 7 bedroom house to a 3 bedroom house when I got divorced- it was SO much easier to clean and the kids got use to sharing rooms, that even when I got back on my feet, I only got a 4 bedroom that is about 1600 sq feet.

 

[Aristomommy]

If the schools are far superior, I would go with the smaller house. I value a good education over extra square feet. Actually we did that before to get into our school district and then saved up for a bigger house. People in the city live practically in closets and do it just fine.

 

[Fintastic]

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!

That.

 

[southern_redhead]

Just weighing in as we had a similar situation a few years ago. Me, a husband and three kids plus his older son on a limited basis. When we first moved back to our hometown we decided to rent because we didn't think this would be permanent (8 years later......anyway) My mother "found" us this house that a friend just "happened" to be getting ready to rent. Small. Tiny. 2 "real" bedrooms but a third large room that seemed more like a den but they told us was a bedroom. It didn't matter because we had to use it for one. 1.5 baths. I. Almost. Lost. My. Mind!!! The kids argued, we argued, we argued WITH the kids. We finally found a house to buy. Four "real" bedrooms, three full baths. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I do not do "togetherness" in terms of space. I was an only child, only grandchild. Having kids tumbling, fighting, running, squealing, etc... inside is nerve-wracking enough (and FWIW I don't allow it even now) but squeeze it all into a tiny box. OMG, not good.
Two years can be an eternity.

I'm not dissing anyone in a small house or anyone who loves having their kids/significant others with them physically at most times but it wasn't for me. I need a quiet room when I am stressed and I require "personal space" at all times. My 6 yo son even got to where he'd ask me this summer "is this your PERSONAL space?" LOL That is a concept foreign to my kids, like my husband they can pile up like ferrets (he is the youngest of 3 and shared a room with both siblings growing up.) I'm not saying don't do it BUT I would probably try to find something else. And when you say better neighborhood do you mean newer, more upscale, or...like, you can go in your yard at night without carrying protection?

 

[palmtreegirl]

Small.

 

[chloelovesdisney]

Education is more important than having their own room. I vote for small house, better school. You'll also save the money for your new house that much faster.

 

[mickeysaver]

If it's just temporary, then go small, by the time you are ready to get a house of your own, then you may feel more need for space than you do now. Smaller spaces just mean that you can't buy lots of "stuff" and you must keep it clean and organized. If you let those things go, then chaos will be upon you much more quickly than it happens to you currently. For the money savings and the nicer amenities, I would definitely go with the smaller house to save more money for the house that I really wanted.

 

[ekgee]

I would go for the smaller house. I wish I could turn back time and buy a smaller house. I thought I wanted this huge 4000 sq foot house I'm in now but now I have all the utility bills and upkeep that go with it along with a big fat mortgage. I can't wait to downsize when we can afford to get out of it.
Sorry - I think I got off topic. School, savings, and great backyard for your kids to play - another vote for the smaller house from me. (And when you do buy, don't make the same mistake I did - keep the size and mortgage reasonable.)

 

[jaci-h]

I would say smaller house. It's a smarter decision financially and you KNOW its only temporary. You just have to promise yourself that 500 will go into your downpayment house fund!

And regarding the kids sharing rooms-- its good for them. My family has 6 kids in it and growing up I shared with a sibling or roommate all the way up until my 2nd year of college! (and now I share with my husband! ). It taught me to cooperate and SHARE space, toys, books, & time. I think it made me a more pleasant person

When I was 15-17 I shared with a 3 year old brother. because my sister (2 years younger) and I were both teenagers and complete opposites, which led to daily screaming matches. Sometimes there really IS a person you can't share with. But trying it out will tell. We shared rooms fine as children, teenagehood was just an awful time in both of our lives

 

[shortbun]

I say if it's only for two years, try the smaller one. BUT...what are you going to do with all your stuff? Storage costs a fortune.