I mentioned 999 in the previous post (The ‘Small Economy’ has a big future) because I think 1,000 sq. ft. is a significant barrier we should try really hard to break.
Why?
["Small homes leave room for the view"]
For the same reason Roger Bannister worked so hard to break the 4 minute barrier for running the mile - to prove that it could be done.
There’s no doubt in my mind that my wife and I could live comfortably in a 999 sq. ft. house. Our current home is approx. 1050 and we don’t use the back room (162 sq. ft.) over my workshop. (Geez, we barely use the living room anymore.) And when we were a family of four we likely could have survived quite easily without the use of the back room as well.
Why build small homes - under 1,000 sq. ft.?
Because it can be done and should be done. A small economy is a sustainable one.
.
3 comments:
I think you're onto something, GAH. Thinking small *is* good. Going with smaller homes and decently sized lots can work for everybody. It certainly has to be a more human (and humane!) existance than the bland rows of larger homes on postage-stamp lots that seems to pass for progressive development these days. You know, maybe 'thinking small' is really just a means to an end, with the real goal to 'think human'.
Think human. I like it, crazylegs.
GAH
Thank you very much for the positive feedback, jennifer. I tend to keep active, so you should find something new about every day.
GAH
Post a Comment