New York City
Northern New Jersey
Search Better With
Shop for a Broker
Open House Planner
Saved Listings & Folders
Stats and Figures
Manhattan Condo Market Index
I'm curious what various people think about the livability of different amounts of sq ft per person. For ground rules, let's stick to plans on indefinitely living with that kind of space as opposed to something transitional (e.g., as a student, when you first come out of school, for the first couple of years when you have a child, etc.). Regardless of housing cost level, most people here can trade off space for other things (suburbs vs. lesser neighborhood vs. prime neighborhood vs. park view vs. spend money on things other than housing). But at what amount of sq ft per person do these things trigger vs. become non-issues?
200 sq ft: no way
400 sq ft: pretty tight, wouldn't want to live like this indefinitely
800 sq ft: pretty comfy
1600 sq ft: quite generous, about as much as I could really use
3200 sq ft: starting to feel wasteful
Inonada: how many people is this for in your personal example?
As a family of 5, it's not square footage per se, but how well it's laid out and # of bathrooms.
Min. # of full baths = 2.
200 sqft - nope, would move out of NYC.
400 sqft - see above.
800 sqft - see above.
1600 sqft - maybe, depending on layout.
3200 sqft - extravagant.
But I'm not very neat or tidy, and prefer goofing around on the Interwebs to cleaning and disposing.
I was talking per-person. As in 800 sq ft per person is comfy per my list of attitudes.
You're talking about total space for a family of 5?
This largely depends on how many people live in your household. For argument's sake, let's assume a single person:
200 sq ft: This is a storage space, not a living space.
400 sq ft: Fine for a pied-a-terre, weekend crash pad, or a temporary living situation.
800 sq ft: Decent space as long as you never have guests.
1600 sq ft: Appropriate for grown-up living and entertaining, particularly visiting guests.
3200 sq ft: Luxurious.
For a couple:
400 sq ft: Fine for a pied-a-terre, weekend crash pad, or a temporary living situation. VERY temporary.
800 sq ft: Tight. Don't ever invite guests to stay overnight.
1600 sq ft: Comfortable for grown-up living and entertaining, particularly visiting guests; could still use a bit more space.
3200 sq ft: Perfect.
200 sq ft: for a single person, fine; for a couple, *maybe* if the ceilings were 12 feet high and you could put all your stuff on the shelves
400 sq ft: fine for a couple; fine with a kid if it's got 2 rooms and isn't a studio
800 sq ft: could raise two kids here easily
1600 sq ft: four kids? I can't imagine paying the maintenance on a space this big
3200 sq ft: rent out three quarters of your space to another family and get rich off the rent
Wait, I just noticed that Inonada is talking about these square footages *per person*.
More than 400 square feet per person is criminally wasteful, unless every building in the neighborhood is 50 stories or more. How could stores and train stations and all the other essential elements of a neighborhood thrive if population density is too low? You'd have an empty suburban wasteland that only people with cars could live in -- no culture, no social relationships, none of the vibrancy that makes city living great. And it would be terrible for the environment.
Unless, as mentioned above, every building is a skyscraper (maybe with roof gardens). That would give everybody plenty of space and still be city-like.
You're my hero, Triple_Zero. A family of 4 in 800 sq ft is "comfy" to you, but I want that per-person for "comfy". Methinks you've spent a lot of time in Japan ;).
If I can maintain my minimalist ideals (rather difficult when you're not living alone, admittedly), I think 600-800 sqft per person is quite fine. 1,600 starts to seem extravagant to me as well - you're probably buying furniture just for the sake of filling space at that point. Or you entertain a LOT.
"You're my hero, Triple_Zero. A family of 4 in 800 sq ft is "comfy" to you, but I want that per-person for "comfy". Methinks you've spent a lot of time in Japan ;)."
Real estate agents over here routinely try to push couples into "big" 60-square-meter homes and the couples usually want to stay smaller!
But if there's one thing spending time in Japan has impressed upon me, it's the important of *cubic* footage over square footage. Short ceilings mean that floor space (particularly closet space) just gets eaten up; we feel a little cramped in our 400-sf, 7.5-foot-ceiling place whereas our high-ceiling 440-sf place that we lived in before felt huge. And don't even get me started on those God-awful 175-cm doorframes!
Also, duplexes feel bigger; I'd love a duplex. In the same squre footage, adults upstairs, kids downstairs or vice versa would work much better than everybody on the same floor.
Ino is out of touch with reality again. 800sq ft per person is 'pretty comfy'? so family of 4 pretty comfi in 3200 sq ft? what is comfy? 1200/ person.
500 sq ft comfy per person, could even be 400.
Are these real square feet or broker square feet?
400 sq ft comfy per person..
i had 216 sq ft (part of 3 bedroom) all to myself after college..
i realized how LITTLE STUFF i actually needed (I wore 10% of my actual clothes over and over since I preferred those 10% best fitted to the rest, which was essentially backup garb)..
lived "lightly" ever since, all that extra $$$ from not buying crap = travel, which i can leverage off with same mentality.
I wonder if there's a correlation on this board between positive attitudes about lesser sq. footage per person and ownership. I feel like I'm one of the longer-tenured owners on this board, but all of the five properties I've owned were smaller, per person, than Nada's 800 sq ft/pp. rule.
And, before you ask, I grew up in a ginormous suburban house.
DG Neary Realty
"And, before you ask, I grew up in a ginormous suburban house."
also correlated with location..
I'd take a smaller pad south of 72nd vs double the size further up.
This is such an interesting question! Sometimes I think I'm not cut out for city life, but the truth is, I've never felt happy in less than 1000 square feet. That sounds so indulgent, doesn't it? But I'm happy for those square feet to be in a less than ritzy neighborhood, and that figure works for me just as well for a couple as for one person. For three people, it would begin to get tight, though. My ideal, for a couple would be 1400-1600-maybe even 1800 as luxury. I can't break it down to a straight square feet-per-person figure, though, since that 1000 square feet is my bare minimum without reference to number of people. I agree that for a pied a terre, 400 square feet could be OK. Ceiling height definitely matters, but also--oddly--I'd say so does the number of windows. If I have nice big windows looking out at something interesting and letting in light, I can get by with less elbow room.
How about a 420 sq ft Sullivan Street apartment that seats 12 for dinner, room for overnight guests and entertaining. More happiness less stuff.
Id say the amt of sq feet necessary decreases for each subsequent person. Its not a linear progression.
500 sq feet for myself may be sufficient, but I dont think i'd need 1000 sq for as a couple or 1500 to add a kid to the equation.
500 sq feet - single person
900 sq feet - couple
1200 sq feet - couple with one kid
I've never thought to multiply square footage per person. For me alone, I'd want 600. With my partner, 800. If I were living with a roommate, 1000. If my partner and I had a small child, we could manage with 800; would probably want closer to 1,200 as the child got older, though. But a second kid might take us only to 1,400.
I'm not quite as extreme as Triple Zero, but I think 800 s.f. is good for a couple + occasional house guests for a long weekend. People assumed that our current apartment is twice the size of our last apartment when in reality, the difference was about 50 square feet. A double-height living room, walls of windows/skylights (v. dark prewar), and a good-sized square kitchen (v. galley) are the differences. Our last place had square footage in less used places -- e.g., an enormous foyer and bathroom.
I wish our current place were a bit bigger -- maybe 1,200 v. the 900 +/- square feet we now have. But I'll take 900 interior square feet + 400 outdoor square feet versus 1,200 square feet with no outdoor space. Echoing Triple Zero's comments, I love living in a duplex (now a triplex if you count the roof). The same space over two floors feels much bigger and more house-like to me, though I've met many others who feel the opposite.
ss, my last move was exactly the opposite side of the one you just proposed. We went north to get double the space.
front porch.. i hope you're happy (no sarcasm)..
i made the move for less space to be closer to midtown and its made all the difference.. i prefer being able to walkto work, 2nd favorite restaurant as well as 3 bars i frequent, not to mention gym (daily except sunday) and bank..
im not gonna lie i miss having storage in my apt (tho tbh, i rarely touched storage so i didn't even really need it), but 4 subway stops north to have more space, while it may not seem like much, FEELS a lot more mentally when you have to "get ready" to head downtown, or in my case midtown.. tomato, tomatoe, i can see it both ways though to be fair.
As 10023 said, layout is much more important for a family than gross square footage.
I think 400SF per capita is ample for most families without live-in help or frequent overnight guests. We're comfortable in 352. Like most New Yorkers, we'd love another bedroom and bathroom, which would put us right around 400.
As lad points out, I don't think this is linear. The function is probably more like Living Space = (People + 2) x (Comfiness)
On lad's scale, "Comfiness" is about 200 square feet, moving to 300 depending on various factors. That seems about right to me. 300 seems pleasant, 400 quite roomy, and anything above getting to be fairly extravagant.
Totally agree with the non-linear theory. Could stretch the theory to include bathrooms. Two baths is nice for two people, but do you really need three bathrooms for three people? Maybe if your name is Mitt....
Nada, good discussion, except for anyone below 18, the space is half.
3200 sq ft: starting to feel wasteful
>Nada, good discussion, except for anyone below 18, the space is half.
Oh, like outdoor space.
hberg, yes all anyone below 18 needs is 15*10 space plus a bath. Far more space they get in a dorm. For a family of 4, 2400 will be pretty comfy to generous.
So, how much is outdoor space worth.
Say, the place is 1600 square feet for inododo. Would thet 1600 square foot apartment be worth more than the 1400 square foot apartment having an added 200 square foot terrace?
I'm assuming this discussion is about NYC living, not Columbia County.
ss, I don't work in any one place consistently, and the express often makes up some of the time that I used to spend on the local being at Columbus Circle. So it's only 5 more minutes to the Village or Tribeca than before.
For me, that's easily balanced out by being able to have six to eight people at dinner.
The killer is when I have to get to the East Side. I'm showing on Sutton Place now, and I admit, it's a haul.
With an acknowledgement of economies of scale for a family of, say, 4, there seems to be a divide between people who think 400 sq ft per person is fine for 1-2 people and those who don't. I'm curious what people's thinking is behind that view. So for concreteness, let's talk about a 400 sq ft studio for 1 and an 800 sq ft 1BR for 2. While both are perfectly livable, here's why I wouldn't want to spend my entire adult life in such setups.
400 sq ft studio for 1. Everything is in one room, feels like dorm living and/or living in a hotel room. Tiny kitchen, no room to cook. No space to have people over (unless you spend $300K ala NYCDreamer's link). Fine in 20s, maybe 30s, but is this how I want to live in my 50s?
800 sq ft 1BR for 2. I get 2 rooms to hang out in, that's good, and a small but functional kitchen. But only 1 bathroom, practical reasons why having 2 bathrooms is real nice. Living room + dining room in a 17x11 space is functional but tight: no graciousness. Bedroom functional but tight. You can have a handful of friends over at best. Overnight guests in the living room? Again, OK in 20s and 30s, but is this what I want life to be into my 50s?
No offense meant by the above to those who feel differently, just how I feel. Perhaps I like being at home more than most, cooking, having guests, etc. If I needed to make a long-term choice between, say, 800 sq ft in Manhattan vs. 1200 sq ft in yuppified Brooklyn for a couple, I'd take the latter. The former would feel like I'm striving too hard to live in an area where I cannot afford a basic adult home. For a few years, sure, but an entire adult life?
This is a very interesting discussion. I guess I'm in the minority but I actually prefer relatively small spaces. Less to take care of, and acquiring too much stuff is basically impossible. Before I got married, and for the first couple of years afterward, I happily lived in smallish (~400 sf) studio apartments.
Fast forward to now: I'm married to a packrat who grew up in a huge family, so he has real space issues. We have a 1920s house in Washington DC (~1900 sf, 3 small bedrooms, one of which is my full-time office, tiny closets) and an 800 sf one bed/one bath pied-a-terre in NYC. I'm a freelancer and spend a lot of time working in NY. I feel we could both (we don't have kids) very easily live in the NY apartment (good layout, good closet space, nice kitchen) and I would prefer this as long as my husband would agree to deaccession all of his junk (quantum mechanics exams from college, utility bills from the 90s, etc).
I find the amount of stuff in our (relatively uncluttered, thanks to constant effort) house overwhelming, and I'm always trying to get rid of more of it. There is a lot more space than we need, in my opinion, and I feel this more strongly over time (to get to inonada's point about the long term). Our yard is small, but taking care of the garden, as much as I love gardens, is a drag in the humid and buggy summers here. I'd rather sit out in the park, spend less time cleaning and more time out enjoying the world outside my own living space. I do love to cook and have people over, but I managed to have quite large parties in a small studio apartment with a totally crap kitchen, so I don't think that would be a problem.
And I hate these sancti-dwellers who demonize those of us who prefer a little bit of breathing room as being "wasteful".
I looked at 400 square foot studios as a 38-year-old man, and adding to all of your above points, here are mine:
-- ONE closet. And tiny, at that. Seriously? I'm an adult professional with an adult professional's complete wardrobe of suits, dress shirts, slacks, dress shoes, ties, etc., as well as a full complement of "business casual" attire ... sweaters, vests, blazers, etc., as well as casual "play" clothes ... jeans, sweatshirts, t-shirts, polo shirts, tennis shoes, ets. Then there's the winter wear ... coats, scarves, gloves, hats, boots, etc. Just MY clothes alone (I couldn't even imagine a significant other's clothes!) would be spilling out. This does not make me a "pack rat"; this makes me a normal, functioning, multi-faceted professional who dresses appropriately. So now that this ONE closet is stuffed, where am I to stash my: ironing board/broom/wet mop/dust mop/vacuum cleaner/camera equipment/sewing machine/shoe shine supplies/etc. etc. etc.?
-- No linen closet. AND no room for a proper dresser to store all of my non-clothing supplies like bed sheets, blankets, extra pillows, towels, washcloths, etc.
-- Virtually non-existent kitchen. I cook. I bake. Sometimes I even like to sit down when I eat. With only perhaps ONE cabinet (and ONE drawer!), where am I to keep my pots, pans, skillets, baking sheets, cooling racks, and full complement of kitchen cooking and baking utensils, let alone my stand mixer, blender, and electric coffeepot? And don't tell me under the sink -- that's already reserved for buckets, scrub brushes, and cleaning supplies.
I was comfy in 890 sq ft. for just me.
need closets, I have a lot of clothing and shoes.
have bookcases, lots of books.
I'd rather have a bigger bathroom than kitchen because I don't cook.
and I like to walk down a hall from the bedroom to the living room and then forget what I got up to go there for.
"If I needed to make a long-term choice between, say, 800 sq ft in Manhattan vs. 1200 sq ft in yuppified Brooklyn for a couple, I'd take the latter. The former would feel like I'm striving too hard to live in an area where I cannot afford a basic adult home. For a few years, sure, but an entire adult life?"
'nada, you pretty much described my thinking to a tee. I had that very same choice and went with the latter (it helped that it was also cheaper, at least vs the areas in Manhattan I was considering). Although there are days where I feel we could use more room (extravagance envy, most likely), we have the space for guests to have their own room, reasonably sized dinner parties, and the ability to get work done at home if needed.
"Less space to take care of."
A red herring argument if I've ever heard one. I've lived in homes large and small and I can tell you that large homes are much easier to clean and maintain than tiny cramped homes where you waste twice as much time moving and re-arranging stuff just to clean, like a sliding block puzzle.
800 square feet can feel like two rooms, or it can feel like five. Our pre-war 750 square foot apartment felt like two rooms -- a 12' x 22' combined living/dining and a 15' x 12' bedroom. We also had a huge but unusable foyer, an enormous bathroom, and a galley kitchen.
On the other hand, our current place is around 800-900 square feet but has a living room, a dining room that can seat eight very comfortably, an 11' x 10' kitchen, a 6' x 10' open den (with skylight) that fits a L-shaped desk and a full-sized sofa bed with built-in bookshelves, a king-sized bedroom, and even a 5' x 6' laundry room with super-sized, vented W/D.
The < 100 square feet difference v. our pre-war feels like several hundred. It's all layout (and the open windows/skylights help).
Agreed, lad. It's all about HOW the space is laid out, and how you utilize it.
That above link to the Treehugger guy's tiny home (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/garden/the-founder-of-treehugger-and-his-apartment-of-the-future.html?_r=1) shows a brilliant use of space (I particularly love that "foyer" that he carved out himself, complete with a built-in bench and magazine holder, all in honey-toned wood from floor to ceiling (including the floor and ceiling) so you feel like you're walking into a jewel box.
HOWEVER, such ingenious design comes at a very steep price. Most people who are purchasing 400 square foot abodes don't have the budget to spend another half million on turning it into a jewel box.
In case @NYC Matt is referring to me, I certainly didn't intend to demonize anybody. I was just expressing my own preference, with I thought was the point of the thread.
Speaking only for myself, I've lived in bigger places and I've lived in smaller places, and I have found it more time- and labor-intensive to take care of a bigger place. When I've lived in smaller places, the disincentive to buying more stuff was very strong, so I had less stuff. Just my two cents. YMMV.
*WHICH* I thought was the point of the thread! Friday...
nycsometimes: That's how I ended up with so much stuff!
I purged, purged, purged (credit: kylewest)
and I still need the stuff I have left over.
what time is it in lake como?
Interesting perspective, nycsometimes. I have a sparse aesthetic and don't like buying/keeping "stuff" either. But my solution is to simply not buy/keep "stuff", always fascinated by people who force themselves into desired behaviors through externalities rather than just behaving the way they want to behave (this seems to be driven by your hisband, though). I'll add this to the list.
1) "I like having too much taxes taken out of my paycheck so I'll get a refund, otherwise I'll waste the money."
2) "I set all my clocks 5 minutes ahead so I won't be late."
3) "I like less space because then I won't be able to collect stuff."
For years I lived in a 480 sq.ft 1-bd with removed bedroom wall where I
maintained a home office complete with secretarial-station type desk and
a separate large butcher block work station table, with naybe 5-6 full
size file cabinets, and found it more than sufficient as a living space.
It was a corner unit with numerous windows and good light and tremendously
pleasant o live in
Well, inonada, I'll admit to keeping my clocks set a few minutes ahead! I hate lateness. But I try not to get a refund--no point in letting the gov't hold onto money that could be earning interest. And the stuff thing IS mostly driven by my husband.
But to some extent, I guess it affects me too. I don't like shopping and don't think I buy stuff for the sake of it. But if there's more space, it's simply easier to have stuff that, while it's convenient, one doesn't necessarily need. For example, I have a lot of kitchen storage space, I cook and bake a lot, so I have a semi-ridiculous amount of pots and pans, including doubles of a couple of things. I do use all of these things, including the doubles, but could get by with less if I had less storage space.
I find this issue really interesting. I just prefer and feel comfortable in small spaces. But I do think I'm in the minority on this.
On the topic of kitchens, I'd want 300 sq ft there alone just to get enough elbow room ;).
So a question to the "400 sq ft per person is enough" crowd. Suppose you had the choice between the following:
A) An 800 sq ft 1BR as a single person, matching the specs of your current place.
B) A 400 sq ft studio in a twice-as-expensive setup which you value.
The two could be Brooklyn vs. Manhattan, or non-descript UES apt vs. Central Park views, or whatever else floats your boat to the tune of holding twice as much value to you. I know 400 sq ft is sufficient, but would you really go with B over A?
I think there are a lot of variables here. For myself, location is the top priority (I like to walk and want to be within walking distance, broadly defined, of places I like/need to go). Layout is important. For me, I choose quiet over a view (I suspect I'm also in the minority here).
There's also, I think, an ineffable "vibe" that buildings have. That was a huge contributor to our decision to buy in our current building.
For the hypothetical above, if the "expensive" quotient is owing to a "better" (as I would define it) location, I'd probably choose that, all other things being equal.
This thread is so long and interesting it seems like a good time to remind any aggregators (Brick Underground etc.) that I don't wish to be quoted without attribution.
nada, think about the tradeoffs. At 400 sf, for "gracious" living, you have to fold up your bed every day to make it look like a couch/disappear, you have to grocery shop twice a week because you have little pantry space, you go out to restaurants a lot because they're additional living rooms, and you have to store your off-season clothes because you don't have closet space.
At 800 sf, you don't have to do those things, but you're probably commuting another hour a day to and from work; you may not live in a neighborhood where you can spontaneously get a friend to drop by for dinner or go to the movies; your parties may be smaller/less successful because it's such a haul for your friends to get to your place, and it's longer/more expensive to get home from theater/dates etc.
For me, when I was single, the loneliness and the commute weren't worth it.
inonada is starting to sound like NYCMatt
"So a question to the "400 sq ft per person is enough" crowd. Suppose you had the choice between the following:
A) An 800 sq ft 1BR as a single person, matching the specs of your current place.
B) A 400 sq ft studio in a twice-as-expensive setup which you value."
A. Now that I'm an adult, my days of living in glorified dorm room are far behind me.
Did you get your Adult certificate?
Matt got the Jimmy Buffett "Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes Certificate". ;)
Ali, the picture you paint in both cases is being on-the-outside-looking-in. In the 400 sq ft, you have an inadequately-sized home. In the 800 sq ft, your whole world revolves around the location of the 400 sq ft place. If I committed long-term to living in (say) Brooklyn, I'd just form my social circles and life there, wouldn't give a rat's ass about some so-called friend in Manhattan who would never visit. FWIW, I wished I had more non-Manhattan friends: I always go when invited, and it's a good reason to see the world outside the city. But I can see how others would see it differently, particularly if you've already formed your social circles and aren't that amenable to forming new ones.
BUT, you missed the follow-up question. Would you take 800 sq ft where you are now, or 400 sq ft in a "twice-better" place? I.e., your primary needs/wants having been met, would you then upgrade size or "quality"?
nycsometimes: "I'd probably choose that, all other things being equal."
Spoken like a true believer ;).
NYCMatt, how about if we upped the sizes? Previously, I had asked "upgrade from an acceptable-quality 400 sq ft to 800 sq ft at same quality vs. 400 sq ft at double quality", where "quality" means location/light/view/etc. How about upgrading from 800 sq ft or 1600 sq ft?
At 400, I'd personally upgrade size. At 1600, I'd upgrade quality. At 800, it'd depend.
This is ridiculously binary.
Only new Yorkers
I agree with nada. I've had friends who live literally less than a block away who won't come over, and those who live ninety minutes to five hours away, not counting luggage retrieval and transport time, who show up five or six times a year despite our home being less than optimally placed, allergies, a teen, etc. (one of our best friends who visits often, as part of his east coast obligatory tour, lives in middle america, is single and highly allergic to our pets and just a bit less allergic to our teen).
It's a great message that nada gives to those of us in the nyc "burbs". maybe we should be inviting more often, maybe we just assume that people aren't interested. But I'm newly burbed, so I'm willing to experiment.
btw, the configuration matters greatly. and something that nada nor anyone else has addressed, what do you do for vacations and how often? there is something very valuable, to many, in taking a couple months off a year to be silly and free. will your purchase allow that? or whatever other thing you like to do to decompress? do you like theater and really want to go often but you don't have a trust fund? do you like the silly, stupid and wonderful energy of the areas inhabited by the young but you're not sure you want to live in the thick of it (btw, you can do that easily, with some great neighborhoods, without sacrificing your quality of life and having puke on your front steps).
it's all a matter of priorities. what i find kind of disturbing is that so many feel that their priorities take second, third, or even fourth place to owning. that's just not right, nor healthy in a real estate sort of way.
oh, and as to the space, we've lived three of us in 1250ish square feet for ten years, less for the first five years or our daughter's life. without the second home it would have been tough. but the rental and the second home together, after the tax benefit, cost us about $4500-6000 a month, over time. that doesn't include expenses for the second home, nor the cost of not having that money to spend, but I got a 4000 square foot home and a 1250 sq apartment with a great layout for less than many spend on rent for a luxury two bedroom. and so many people will abuse someone for choosing to minimize on one level to get something else.
do what makes you happy. but spend some real time thinking about what makes you happy, and why.
about ready.. welcome back. I have read so much about you. At one point it was suggested that you were me, but so were canomi, streckasy too many I can count. just ask HB
brooks2, thank you for the welcome. no offense, but my comp ability kicks your ass, so to speak. but given that you revealed that you don't even have an insider account, you're not doing that badly. i'm assuming you're using acris for midtown because for some reason you're interested in that area (btw, i think it's going to fall the hardest (or almost, Yorkville may take that prize), for coops not condos, and come up by far the most percentage-wise over the next five years (particularly for famiy-sized apartments), but that's just this person's thoughts.
no, you're not me. really. nor is yikes, or anyone else, actually.
I never said Brooks that you were aboutready. Caonima yes. str33easier yes.
>no, you're not me. really. nor is yikes, or anyone else, actually.
What about 10011?
I've googled hfscomm1 and all you see are references to streeteasy, and then all of those postings don't exist, so you seem to be on a lost cause columbiacounty.
you are hfscomm1
Would that mean I'm famous or just special to you?
you're so petty, hb.
yes, 10011, i believe only once, was me.
i'm not cut out for multiple identities, although when i created 10011 i fully intended to come back once a month or so for fun as someone else. too tiresome.
oh, if only once and there was a good reason, then your immediately prior untrue statement is ok with me.
good for you columbiacounty, you can post the word/name/acronym/code/protocol hfscomm1
good for you
hb, good. i'm glad you can overcome your very rigid notions of propriety. have you studied psychology at all?
I have not studied psychology.
color me surprised. anyway, i think i need at least 1000 square feet for two, and about 1250 for three, probably a well-designed 1400 would work for 4 (two kids, not the same sex).
i know so many people who are making do with less, but i don't think i could go below a very well designed 1200 for four, 1050 for three, and 850 for two. obviously people can and do go below this, but given our circumstances i'd move to another city if these were the only options.
>color me surprised.
you said puce
Actually you did HB, you could probably do a search and find it if you really wanted to. But I really don't care. And I am as much camimia as you are j hones.
I couldn't do a search and find it because I never said it. ph41 did. I was under the impression you might be Wbottom, and I've since disavowed that. Never that you were aboutready.
right and before you thought i was wbottom you thought I was midtownviginer.. before that ar.... i always said I have no other aliases. you don't seem to think that is possible.
>right and before you thought i was wbottom you thought I was midtownviginer
>before that ar
good boy, here's a treat for you
good boy doggie!
here doggie, come get your treat