Unpopular opinion: paying for extra square footage you don't use is dumber than dealing with thin walls

I was looking up apartment statistics on RentCafe last week and found out the average studio in downtown Seattle is about 475 square feet but people pay like $1,800 for it. Meanwhile my one bedroom in a building from the 60s is 600 square feet for $1,200 and I still complain about hearing my neighbor's blender every morning. It got me thinking like maybe we're all focused on the wrong thing here. The debate is either you spend more for a newer building with better soundproofing but less space or you take an older unit with thick plaster walls but deal with outdated fixtures. I've been in my place for two years and my toilet handle broke twice but I can't hear my upstairs neighbor walk around. Which side do you guys lean toward? Feel like everyone just says get earplugs but that's not really fixing the issue right?

2 comments

2 Comments

susan4245d ago

Changed my mind reading this honestly. Used to be all about new construction with good soundproofing but the space trade off hit me hard. My friend pays crazy money for a micro studio with fancy windows and still complains about hearing hallway noise. Got an old place with thick walls and honestly the dated bathroom tile doesn't bother me anymore. Rather have room to breathe than whisper when my roommate watches TV. Extra square footage wins over silent walls every time in my book now.

sethb454d ago

You said "soundproofing" but old buildings aren't always quieter, my last place had zero insulation so I heard every toilet flush upstairs.