Which would you do?

[Juliacat]

This is probably a stupid question since in our situation we've already made the decision about what we're going to do. But I'm interested in what you would do. We have one child, a very small house, and we have very little debt and very few expenses, but also not very much money.

[pixilixi]

We are in pretty much the same situation as you... and we have ummmed and aaaaahhhed about whether to extend the house, get a bigger one or just keep our little place.

We haven't yet decided when or if we will have a second child, but we have decided that we won't extend or buy bigger even if we do. So I voted the cram option. HOWEVER, I should say we have a fairly big backyard. We have enough room to put in a small bungalow or cabin if we need to - to use as a playroom/social room probably.

So, we will probably do that in several years' time, especially if we do have a second. We reason that we will probably have saved enough money by then to pay for that without getting into much debt. A new house or extensions - yes, we will be in big debt again. I am loathe to put that pressure on to earn more money, especially as I'm trying to get dh to cut down on his work so we can do more family stuff!

In the meantime, ds (plus possible sibling) will be encouraged to be outside a lot! That's no hardship.

I don't know how I'd feel if we didn't have a backyard, or at least a really handy communal play space for ds.

[lilyka]

I would have the second child (as if any of mine were planned) and just get a different space when we had to.

[jjawm]

With the housing market as it is, I would cram into your existing house, and wait to get a bigger space later on.

[AngelBee]

I would add another blessing right in our tiny home

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by AngelBee

I would add another blessing right in our tiny home

We would, too!

We actually were living in a tiny duplex when we had our second child, and we only moved (when she was 6 months old) because it seemed the best time for us to buy a home -- not because of any sense of urgency about the space.

[BunnySlippers]

My house is about the same size as yours. I would go ahead and have a second child. Iam planning on it myself.

My layout might be different than yours, or maybe its the mindset, but it just doesn't seem cramped here.
If your house is clutted try and decluttering and visit the small house thread in...mindful home management I think. There are lots of people living in beautiful well laid out adn tiny places.

[ebethmom]

I voted to stay in your small place and add a baby. Better to stay within your means.

[Juliacat]

Wow, I am amazed at the poll results so far. I guess it's a good thing major life decisions aren't made by majority vote.

Our house has a living room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms, and a bathroom. All of the rooms are decent-sized except that the living room is REALLY REALLY small. I'm a decluttering maniac and a subscriber to the Small House thread, but it still feels somewhat cramped here with 3 people. Right now my mom is staying with us so there are 4 people and it's actually working out okay, but of course she's not actually living here.

[AbbieB]

Baby #2 was born in our tiny 750 square foot home so of course I vote for have the baby now.

Babies can not always be planned the way you would like them to be. If you wan to expand your family do not let your current house stop you.

I personally find our smaller house easier to manage with a baby and a 4 year old. Less space for messes and it is making decluttering easier to do.

[phathui5]

When that was the case with us, we did cram a second (and third) child into our tiny house. After we had our third, we were lucky to be able to buy a much bigger house.

[onlyzombiecat]

I would say have a baby now and move in a couple of years.

I don't think babies need so much space if you don't go crazy with baby accessories (crib, playpen, swing, bouncer, etc).

[lilyka]

also remember that in lots of places 650 sq. ft. would be considered large . . . .

[AllisonR]

Originally Posted by lilyka

also remember that in lots of places 650 sq. ft. would be considered large . . . .

I think that is the average size here.

Originally Posted by onlyzombiecat

I would say have a baby now and move in a couple of years.

I don't think babies need so much space if you don't go crazy with baby accessories (crib, playpen, swing, bouncer, etc).

I agree. Except babies grow up! They don't give a hoot for the first 6 months. But after that, like the rest of us, they want more space.

To answer your original question, I think it depends hugely on how much outside / other locations... you have in your life. I have a friend, her DH, nearly 3 yo and new baby on the way, in a place smaller than yours. But her Dd goes to a "forest kindergarden" and they get out every day.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Juliacat

Wow, I am amazed at the poll results so far. I guess it's a good thing major life decisions aren't made by majority vote.

???

You're amazed that most people would go ahead and have another baby, even though their house was small?

I agree that we shouldn't make our major life decisions based on what "most people" would do -- I just think that would be true even if the majority had said they'd stop with one child, or wait 'til finances were better.

It would be just as sad to not have another baby when you wanted one, just because "most people" wouldn't.

I'm not "most people" and "most people" aren't living my life. It's fun to hear what other people think, but not necessarily to do what they do.

[IndigoRayne]

Can you add on to the house?

[Ruthla]

I voted "cram a 2nd child into my tiny home" but that's going on the assumption that me and my partner WANTED a 2nd child- I wouldn't have another child for any reason other than wanting another baby (or accidentally getting pg) and I wouldn't move to a larger home that we couldn't afford just because of another baby. Nor would I put my family plans on hold just because of finances- who knows what the future will hold? Why hold out "until the right moment" when that moment may never come?

[Qestia]

we have a larger space, an 800 sq foot condo... but it still seems small. How I would love to have my own roof and yard!!! But we're cramming a second child in and hoping to buy a larger place in 2 years (though I can't imagine how--since we're doubling our childcare expenses). Babies really don't take up much space. And I wouldn't feel so crammed in here if DH hadn't brought home a giant train table for DS one day without asking first. In other words there's decluttering we can do.

[Juliacat]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

You're amazed that most people would go ahead and have another baby, even though their house was small?

Yes. The idea of four people living in this house gives me the willies. All of our friends with kids live in houses that are at least twice the size of this one.

Originally Posted by IndigoRayne

Can you add on to the house?

No. The lot is too narrow to add to the sides, and adding on to the back would destroy the view from the kitchen, which is my favorite thing about this house.

[Ruthla]

Most of my friends are living in houses 3X the size of our living space, for the same number of people (though generally 2 adults and 2 children, rather than 1 adult and 3 children.) So what? We have all the space we need- not all the space we WANT, but all we need.