He was right of course.
Bedrooms, studies, bathrooms as small and cramped as feasible
Without kids, though, it would be plenty (tbf I have a big shed outside for projects and bikes which helps a lot)
That's actually large by many standards across the world but also for older urban dwellings in US cities. I suspect those 2600+ ft^2 numbers are average sizes for new construction?
For whatever reason, new construction of single family homes consists almost entirely of structural wood framing and plywood, then tyvek and non-structural brick facade. That kind of construction makes building larger volumes feasible. I don't know when the change-over in the USA from structural brick to wood occured, but I suspect it was in the 50-60's. In old urban neighborhoods in the North East, 2500+ ft^2 is definitely considered "big".
Unfortunately, I doubt that modern wood frame homes will last 100+ years without serious interventions. Brick also deteriorates, but more slowly and it's possible to work on it piecemeal.
Unless you have a specific need for more space (maybe a workshop, etc) I would avoid the bigger sized houses.
For apartments, the average size is 941 sqft, which is down about 5% over the last 10 years.
Also Amsterdam is the peak of tiny spaces here. Single bedroom 25 m2, with shared toilet/kitchen for sale can cost you €100.000,- easily.
That blackish blob in Europe is the Netherlands.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/land-cover-atlas-uk-1.74...
It's a political choice, a matter of spatial planning, to live this densly.
I actually just landed at Schiphol on a clear day and you can see the country just has so much sparsely populated areas peaking out the window on approach