A young man who lived in a 400-square-foot studio apartment in San Francisco with his wife and two young children comes away from the experience with valuable insights. He and his wife decided that they would forego two incomes and live in a studio apartment for a few years. Many of the lessons they learned are reminiscent of previous discussions here about life in small spaces. For example, tight private space induces people to rely more on public spaces, such as parks, cafes and libraries. (It probably can be proven that public space declines in some ways to the extent that private square footage increases.) Also, tight space forces one to think carefully about possessions and do away with excess. Greg Kroleski also perceptively analyzes the options for redesigning storage and living space.

He and his wife found that as a one-income family they had a harder time qualifying for available apartments.

My wife and I were 27 when our first son was born. Significantly younger than the median San Francisco birthing age of 33. We also made a decision to have my wife stay at home with the children.

Neither of those things are strange for a family in the United States during the last century. But both of those are strange for a San Franciscan in 2015.

I didn’t realize all of the effects that decision would have on our lives in San Francisco. There is probably enough there to fill a blog post, but when it comes to apartments, it meant that it was even harder for us to find a place to live.

Our competition for 2BR apartments in San Francisco was fierce to begin with. Sure, it is expensive, but it wasn’t even just a matter of not being able to afford places. We would apply to places and not get selected.

One of the key criteria landlords look at is total income, and since we had one income, we had a steep disadvantage over working roommates and DINKs.

— Comments —

A female reader writes:

Wow. Your Living in a Small Space piece really hit home for me.

You see there are 7 of us living in a 1,000 sq ft home, four small children and three adults, one of whom is my mother-in-law. I know all about small spaces and the challenges they present. We recently found out that we are expecting Number Five. I have been very hesitant to tell people about the pregnancy because of our lack of space. I am afraid of what they will think, bringing a baby into an already crammed house. I wish I didn’t care so much of what others think, that I could focus on only what Our Lord wants, but it’s hard to remove the voices from the back of my head. Greg Kroleski’s article has given me the little uplift I needed.

Thank you.

Laura writes:

You are wonderful. You really are. You deserve a parade down Main Street for all the sacrifices you are making. Hip Hip Hooray! Keep up the good work! I hope you get more space soon.

By the way, there is a neighborhood nearby, where on average, each person has about 1,200 square feet.

Anti-Globalist Expatriate, sender of the article, writes:

The really sad part is that this young man and his family are now the exception, rather than the rule, as he points out. His observations of the negative effects of rent-control and his subtle complaints about landlord bias are worth noting – they’re actually somewhat courageous, given his work environment, high-tech full of SJWs (which he chose, of course).

No mention of religion, of course. I suspect that they may be closeted  Christians, or at least come from such a background; his surname suggests it, too.

Matthew H. writes:

This is a fascinating thread because it goes to the issue of how much traditionalists should value material wealth and material things.  Personally, I think there are many misconceptions about this issue and I am glad that it is being discussed here.   A lot of traditionalist Catholics romanticize poverty and “simplicity.” The  truth is that if you are living in a small house in order to afford a large family, you’re making a sacrifice. It is a wonderful and noble sacrifice, one that celebrates God and His love for us, and also sets a shining example for others people to follow.   But it is a sacrifice just the same; it would be nicer to have a large family and a large home.

We have two children, and until the oldest was five years old, we lived in a 650 sq ft. one bedroom apartment.   We did this because housing prices in California are so high that it was impossible for us to buy a single-family home. We could’ve moved to a larger apartment, but it would have just seemed like a waste of money to spend more on rent, so we stayed in the one-bedroom.   Eventually we did move to a 1000 square foot, two-bedroom rental house.  We currently live in an 1100 square foot house.  Also, I didn’t have a lot of money while growing up.   I had to work full-time while in college, and used student loans to pay for graduate school.  So again, I know about living on a budget.

These experiences has taught me that material prosperity is a good thing, not a bad thing.   it’s nice to have central heat and air conditioning. It’s nice to have a dishwasher. I wish we had those things, but they aren’t in the budget right now.   We are paying for Catholic school instead.

Do I wish that I could afford to send my kids to Catholic school AND buy a dishwasher?  You’d better believe it!

By the same token, luxuries are nice too. Do I wish our family could afford to take nice vacations? Absolutely!  Luxury cars are nice. So are well-made clothes.   Several years ago, I bought a new TV. I bought the biggest, fanciest one I could afford and have never once regretted it.

 Of course it is possible to have an unhealthy love of material things.   Someone who sacrifices family time in order to buy a McMansion  has their priorities backwards. Family should come before the McMansion. But would I like to be able to buy a McMansion and still spend lots of time with my kids? Yes, I sure would.   McMansions are tacky and gauche. They are also brand-new, spacious and comfortable.

 Similarly, adversity builds character – to an extent. During my junior and senior years of college, I had to work 60 hours per week while taking a full load of classes. I guess it built character, but mostly it was miserable.   Any lessons that I learned about character could have been learned while working only 20 hours per week. The other 40 was just miserable. In the end, I’m glad that I was able to finish college. But I don’t want my kids to have to work as hard as I did.

There is also a lot of misconception about what is “normal”  with regard to housing.  Yes, lots of the post-WWII housing that was  built quickly and cheaply in the late 1950’s was pretty small, by modern standards.   But that doesn’t mean it has always been normal for a family to live in 750 to 1000 square feet. New York City brownstones built at the turn of the 20th century for middle-class, not rich, New Yorkers are around 4,000 square feet.  If you drive through the rural Midwest you’ll see thousands of farmhouses built in the mid-1800’s that have 3,000 square feet. Heck, my grandmother lived in a house built in the late 1700’s.  It was made with wooden nails and had a basement with a dirt floor.  That house had 2000 square feet.  Even the early NYC public housing projects, like Stuyvesant Town, have apartments that are very spacious by modern standards, with the same square footage as a modest suburban single-family home.  The truth is that people have always wanted to live in large houses. The cramped conditions of the 1950’s are not “normal” – they are exceptional.

So  let’s not romanticize poverty and simplicity too much.  In general, the material prosperity that we enjoy these days is a good thing. We should all be thankful for the opportunity to live in spacious modern homes, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to have an extra bedroom or two or drive a newer, nicer car.   I hope that prosperity becomes even more widespread.

Those who sacrifice prosperity for their families are doing a wonderful thing. I too would like to throw a parade for the reader who has 7 people in 1,000 square feet. I salute her, my prayers are with her, and it inspires me and warms my heart to hear about what she is doing.

Laura writes:

Living in a small house can be a very real adversity. But, as you say, like all adversity, it has some positive aspects, which we can bear in mind when the going gets tough.

Jane writes:

I love your website and wanted to comment on your article about the family living in a small space.

We are a family of three — myself, my husband and small child.  We live in a very expensive city in western Canada.  We too have wanted to save money on space to pursue other dreams — like my staying home and homeschooling our daughter. However, landlords will simply not rent a smaller place to us.  They say we surely must need more room.  We have excellent credit and references.  We have applied for various one bedroom apartments (which seem reasonable, since our child ends up in our bed half the time anyway and uses her bedroom seldom) but are universally turned down due only to family size.  In fact, most landlords want to rent one bedroom apartments to single individuals.  And these are places where we would be responsible for all utilities, not them.  When I read articles like this, I wonder how these families got people to rent to them in the first place.  Did they live there before they had children, and the landlord could not get them to leave?

I think a big part of this reluctance from landlords is the fact that we live in a very child unfriendly town.  Most of our neighbors are childless by choice, but they almost all have dogs. I feel the landlords would rather rent to dogs than children.  Unfortunately we cannot afford to buy a house in the inflated market we live in. This is the only circumstance where we would be able to choose how much space we truly need.  When we look at condominiums, many have strict rules about how many occupants can live in each unit.  Recently we were told we could not buy a condo with one bedroom and a den because of our family size.  We may have to relocate entirely, an idea I find more and more appealing.

Laura writes:

Kudos to you for your determination to stay home in an inhospitable economy.

Greg Kroleski did indeed have his apartment before he had children and he talks bout the same kind of discrimination.

Recently we were told we could not buy a condo with one bedroom and a den because of our family size. 

That’s mind-blowing. You can’t discriminate against a man in lipstick, but you can discriminate against a couple with a child. We make the Romans at the height of their decadence look like Puritans. We are the sickest advanced civilization that has ever existed in the history of the human race.

Please follow and like us: