Average square footage???

I’m looking for documentation that indicates what size homes (sq2 footage) would be considered small, average or large here in Ontario.

I usually go by this…any home under 2000sq2 is considered small, 2000 - 2500 = average and anything over 2500 is large. I have always gone by this, but I can’t seem to find anything “official” to confirm it.


I can’t find anything official by me either…so I say…if it’s to big for my wallet to handle, then it’s too big…and if I fit snuggly in the phone booth, then it’s too small. Everything I guess would fall in between.

Hope this help !!! LOL:D :smiley: :smiley:


I wouldn’t consider 2000 sq ft to be small. There are alot of homes in the 800 to 1200 sq ft range. 2000 sq ft is average.

This is on the larger side…


Did a 560 sf house - feel it qualifies as small

Did a 27,000 sf house - feels it qualifies as large

I made up my own ;
Average size 1500 sq. ft. or less with one double car garage, and one furnace. Additional .10 per sq. ft. above 1500.

Also charge an additional 60.00 if home was built before 1950, and 30.00 extra for 2nd furnace if applicable.

I don’t understand the reasoning behind up charging for older homes. I would think that older homes are less complicated than newer housing with its sophisticated heating and electrical systems.

I’ll second that emotion, motion, theory, fact, fact. Anytime of the week.
When life was simple. Where did it go?

Marcel :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :wink:

Size is in the eye of the beholder.
Do you think a 1500 sq. foot house is considered large for someone such as the folks in Little People, Big World? :wink:

The reason for charging more for older homes is that they always take me about an hour longer to do because of the many, many more things to check for…foundations-which are usually brick and block on earth with no foundations or minimal at best, usually 2 or 3 layers of shingles, the presence of rot in almost every aspect of the building, usually several un-permitted additions to check out, complete with home-owner done electrical, plumbing, heating add-ons, insulation issues or lack there-of, checking to see if the old knob and tube wiring is still active because most of the time they were too lazy to remove it, plumbing issues out of the ying-yang…cast drainage, galvinized water lines which have had 3 or 4 different owners all doing their own bit of handy work, structual and main beam deficiencies…I could go on and on. Of course it all takes a lot of extra time to write up all these deficiencies, and to examiname them more closely than most newer homes. They are just paying for the extra time it takes me over and above homes built after about 1950. At least that is what I’ve found from my own experience.

Sorry Darrel, I have to agree with the other guys. I find in many cases that older homes ( in good condition as any home in bad condition will take longer to inspect) do not take a sufficiently longer time to inspect that I might have to alter my fee range. Of course I use 3-D and a PDA so maybe that makes it a little easier for me to compile my report.

I usually tell the client that if we can get done in our regular inspection time of about 3 1/2 hours, I’ll wave the character home charge of 60.00 and they all appreciate that…they all understand that I will do my best to keep it to the 3 1/2 hours and that we will not doddle just to make the extra cash. I waive most of these fees even if it pushes the 4 hour mark.

It also helps improve the inspector/client relationship (trust) and is a nice way of covering your butt for some of the really poor oldies. For the few that do take considerably longer that I do charge the extra for…the client is very understanding about the extra charge because most of the time they are with us or come toward the end of the inspection and we go over the whole report with them on site and we include a special sheet in the report strictly about older character homes and what to expect regarding maintenance and what usually happens when they go to make regular repairs and re-no’s etc. I have not run into negative feedback by working this system…so far:)