LIVING SMALL in the New York Times
by NK
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
It’s a great start to simply use less. But how about living in less? Friday’s New York Times published a great article on a few pioneers of smaller living. Forget the McMansions; no need for a 2,500-square-foot “starter home.” These folks have turned their backs on the desire for extra bedrooms, opting instead for a more “distilled way of living.” The article profiles buyers of several tiny (and mostly prefab) dwellings we’ve profiled at Inhabitat, from the 65-square-foot Tiny Tumbleweed Homes to the palatial 700-square-foot weeHouse.
Click here to read the article.
Some of those who have found themselves comfortable in these tiny houses have purchased them as second homes, which we find a bit ironic. The romantic notion of a large vacation plot of land, barely flecked with a 10′x 8′ footprint is nice, but probably not exactly what Small House Society represents. Do you really get credit for adjusting your lifestyle for the sake of a small house – if you own two?
Nevertheless, we are encouraged that there are a few others out who have realized that they just don’t need all that extra space – and spreading the word. It’s noted in the accompanying audio slideshow that ‘being in a small space makes the land seem bigger,” and we couldn’t agree more.
Think Small (The New York Times)
+0
Get Inhabitat Email
Amen!
As was quoted in another article, “Small is the new black”
But aside from the cute quotes, smaller homes are more human-scaled, speak of a greater maturity, greater social & environmental responsiblity and, not the least of which, is the intentional disregard for the ego-fulfillment that the monster homes induce.
McMansions be damned. I’m looking forward toward the new era of design “sobriety.”