Living in a 6'6" by 6'5" bedroom...

HPsauce63

geoffky wrote: »

You do realize that if you put pigs into such a small space it is illegal but it is ok for people to live in the space..Go figure..I would challenge anyone who tried to tell me that size was a bedroom

Yeah, but the human can leave the room at any time, and it's only for sleeping in really.

I bet most people would love an extra bedroom, even if it was tiny.

Rosemary7391

I rented a room like that for a year. Just about got a bed, wardrobe and tiny little chest of drawers in there. If you want a desk, you'd probably be best off putting it over the bed - maybe a fold down one, so it doesn't interfere with the bed? Put the monitor/computer itself on a shelf above, and use a wireless keyboard/mouse, and sit on the bed to use it all. Or a hammock chair? I'm probably getting a bit silly now!

PasturesNew

My bedroom was that size. I had a bed, wardrobe, drawers and side drawers. Couldn't do anything in there except open the door, step in, get into the bed.

If I were looking to achieve what you're after I'd be looking at those bunbeds that have a desk area and small wardrobe underneath and a bed on top.

There are many variations/materials/layouts of this type of thing: http://www.time4sleep.co.uk/bedroom-furniture/bedroom-furniture-ranges/barcelona-pine/barcelona-bedsitter-bunk

mrcow

phill99 wrote: »

Don't be sensationalist. I can guarantee you that there are hundreds of thousands of semi detached houses built in both the interwar period and in the 1950's, 1960'S and 1970's with rooms of this size. Many kids have grown up in a bedroom like this and many more will.

We just seem to have an obsession now, brought on by TV lifestyle programmes that all bedrooms have to be doubles.

It's hardly a bedroom, you can barely fit a bed in it. A normal 6'3" by 3' bed. It's a cupboard.

I wouldn't buy a house with a view of using a room of that size as a bedroom. There's plenty of houses on the market. If you're spending that much money, shop around. You don't have to settle for something so small.

PasturesNew

mrcow wrote: »

There's plenty of houses on the market. If you're spending that much money, shop around. You don't have to settle for something so small.

And, likely as not, the majority of them will have similar sized rooms. People are constrained by how much money they've got, they can't just choose a bigger house because they want/need one.

Leigh1987

Thanks for the replies. It's interesting to see opinions so divided, some people thinking it's completely undoable and some thinking it's manageable.

There's plenty of houses on the market. If you're spending that much money, shop around. You don't have to settle for something so small.

In an ideal world I would certainly look at a bigger, better property but I'm limited by the fact these properties are at the upper end of my budget already. I basically have to choose between an older, bigger house which might be expensive to heat and require some work, and a newer, smaller house which should be in good condition, energy efficient and decorated well but with a tiny third bedroom.

Perhaps I will have to forget the idea of having a desk in there and just go for a single bed and wardrobe but we'll see.

phill99

mrcow wrote: »

It's hardly a bedroom, you can barely fit a bed in it. A normal 6'3" by 3' bed. It's a cupboard.
.

I can guarantee you that it is a bedroom. It would be sold as a bedroom. For council tax purposes it would be classed as a bedroom. For valuation purposes it is a bedroom. For reinstatement purposes it is a bedroom. You can get a bed in it, lay down and sleep, along with a range of other furniture.

It's a bedroom.

Mojisola

PasturesNew wrote: »

And, likely as not, the majority of them will have similar sized rooms. People are constrained by how much money they've got, they can't just choose a bigger house because they want/need one.

This isn't always the case. I'm selling a 1970s house which has big rooms upstairs and down.

New-builds in the area which are about 2/3rd the size of ours and cost £30k+ more are selling before they're built.

PasturesNew

Mojisola wrote: »

This isn't always the case. I'm selling a 1970s house which has big rooms upstairs and down.

New-builds in the area which are about 2/3rd the size of ours and cost £30k+ more are selling before they're built.

Maybe the 3 bed houses in the new build estate are being bought by people without kids, who have more money

One bedroom, guest room, study/junk room.

withabix

We have one of these in a 1980s 3 bed detached.

It has an Ikea PAX 60cm single wardrobe, a MALM 80cm 3-drawer chest of drawers and a 3' single bed (end on), all along one wall.

The bed has no headboard or toeboard and fits exactly wall-to-wall.

In our case, I built the bed frame using pre-formed Ikea Sultan Laxeby sprung bed slats and some 4"x4" planed timber as legs on one side and fixed it to the wall on the other side, topped with a decent Ikea mattress. This made a great bed with storage space underneath it.

At one time, there was also a Billy bookcase in there too!

The window has a roman blind, to avoid taking up space with curtains sticking out into the room.

All of the furniture is birch and the paint Dulux 'hessian' to keep everything light.

The door opens inwards, but would need a bi-fold door if a computer chair was needed.

My youngest daughter (now 15) loves the room, because it is 'just right'.

We took out the radiator as it has the airing cupboard in the wall above the stairs and is still warm enough (too warm sometimes!).