here's an intersting article from the ny times on building small. and why not? really, the more room it seems people have, the more people fill that space and then feel burdened by the stuff they have. and the more space there is, the more expensive to heat and cool and clean it. the bigger the home, the more materials go into it and the bigger footprint it has on the ground. i definitely think that there is a limit to how small a home can get. during high school my family lived in a two bedroom-1 bath house. it was a little cramped. my two sisters and i were in one room and my parents, and baby brother, when he came along my junior year, were in the other room. needless to say, we felt the smallness. but it doesn't mean we weren't happy. we lived on 500 acres, and some of my best memories from that time are cross-country skiing in the moonlight with my sisters, having bonfires with my friends, walking over the adobe hills with my boyfriend, swimming in the canals, and watching the lambs (not ours) run around the property in the spring. the
re is something about living in a small space that really forces you to interact with the outdoors and life around you. which is a good thing. this article makes that clear, but unfortunatley it speaks mainly of super-small houses which people are actually using as second homes...not a permanent residences. i look forward to hearing more about this movement and people who are making the move to live in small homes..full-time. (houses pictured: top left: a 750 squarefoot, 2 bed, full bath, nice kitchen, and bottom right: very small, 1, not quite seperate bedroom, exterior bath..both from wee houses)Think Small - New York Times
