Small is Beautiful
Living in less space can be good for the Planet
as well as for your bank account
by Wendy Priesnitz

Tumbleweed Tiny House Company designer (and tiny house dweller) Jay
Shafer estimates this building can be built for $20,000 (not including
price of lot and using some reclaimed materials.) |
I grew
up in the 1950s and ’60s living in a small, two-bedroom bungalow where multiple
uses of space were common and privacy was minimal. As a newly married couple, my
husband and I lived in a VW van, and later an RV with our two small children.
Much later, some of the happiest years of my life so far were when he and I lived and worked in
a 500-square-foot apartment with a wall of south-facing windows overlooking Toronto's harbor. Maybe that’s
why I’ve never been attracted to those multi-bedroom, multi-bathroom,
increasingly large mansions that so many North Americans aspire to – even as the
average North American family size is decreasing.
In most of the world, micro-homes are the norm because land is
expensive and scarce and extended families are used to sharing their lives,
living spaces and other resources. Even new homes in places like Tokyo are built
on lots the size of many Western front yards. And now, there is a rising
interest in compact dwellings here in the land of wide open spaces, where
building big has been possible, so we have done it...and become used to it, even
addicted to it. Like so many other lifestyle addictions, this one has caused us
to hit a wall and many people are looking for antidotes in the smaller living
spaces with tiny footprints that are popping up amongst the “McMansions.”
Big houses cost big money and many people of my generation are
choosing to downshift, taking early retirement, switching careers in mid-life
and generally acting on a desire for simpler, more effective living. As a
result, many of us are “right-sizing” our living spaces, redirecting our
financial resources away from big mortgages and toward our dreams. At the same
time, many young people are having a harder time than their parents did getting
established in careers, and are therefore finding that small houses and
minuscule condos fit their economic conditions just fine.
Big houses are also resource-hungry. With the current blossoming
of concern about the environment, reducing the energy consumption of our houses
is, for many people, a personal step towards reduction of the greenhouse gases
that contribute to global warming. And, according to many experts, one of the
best ways to reduce a house’s energy consumption is by decreasing its size.
Writing in the Journal of Industrial Ecology (Winter/Spring
2005), Environmental Building News editors Jessica Boehland and Alex Wilson note
that a small house built to only moderate energy performance standards uses
substantially less energy for heating and cooling than a large house built to
very high energy performance standards. They also point out that as house size
increases, more land is occupied, increased impermeable surfaces result in more
storm-water runoff and construction resource use increases.
Aside from saving resources, there are other ecological
advantages to living in a small space. An obvious one is the need to own fewer
possessions and therefore to consume less. Another advantage is that if you are
building, renovating or even decorating a small living space, the reduced size
might mean you can afford to use high quality, healthy, natural materials.

This 300 square-foot home from California-based Tumbleweed Tiny House
Company represents the confluence of luxury and simplicity. The kitchen,
bathroom, bedroom and storage are relegated to the ends of the
structure, leaving the central area wide open. Stainless steel
countertops, fireplace and other details contrast with the pine-ply
interior. The exterior is clad in hot-rolled steel. |
Other advantages? Since small spaces require good design and
efficient use of space (think boat galley or travel trailer,) many people find
that they have just as much livable space in a small house as they did in one
that comprised many more square feet and lots of wasted space. And I would be
remiss if I didn’t mention that a small living space takes much less time and
effort to clean! The time it takes to clean a big house would be time taken away
from the work I’m passionate about, and from being with friends and family.
Sarah Susanka, an architect based in Minneapolis and author of
The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live, advocates
small houses in order to create a sanctuary that simplifies our lives rather
than taxing our energies in maintaining it. And to accomplish that, she suggests
making rooms do double duty, in the same way those in my childhood house did.
She points out that many people live in houses with formal living rooms and
dining rooms, yet these rooms are rarely used. In addition, many homeowners have
added “specialty rooms” such as exercise rooms or media rooms, which are only
occasionally used. So, instead, she suggests that we organize our living space
relative to whether it is used for public or private purposes. Her Not So Big
strategies include lowering ceiling height in part of a larger room to create a
cozy reading spot or using controlled lighting to set the ambiance for different
occasions (for example, making an eat-in kitchen into a dramatic dining area one
night or a brightly lit place to do homework the next.)
Unfortunately, the idea of small living spaces may only be as
viable as the municipal zoning bylaws and mortgage lenders that govern people’s
access to the sort of housing they want. In many municipalities, homes under a
certain size – often 600 or 700 square feet – are prohibited. And lenders
thinking about resale value are often wary about financing what they consider to
be too-small spaces.
Fortunately, times are changing. Issues like the need for
affordable housing and the scourge of ugly “McMansions” have led some cities to
try and ban larger houses and encourage smaller homes. For instance, the cities
of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia have established zoning and
design guidelines to encourage well-designed smaller living spaces in the 1,000
square-foot range (admittedly not tiny, but a big change in the right direction
in terms of sustainability.)
For some tips about adapting to small space living, check out this
article. |
Portland has even held a design competition to create a “skinny
house” that was acceptable to neighbors where the small structures would be
built as infill. (The idea that “small” means “poor” dies hard, hence the NIMBY
factor at play.) The plans for the two houses that were chosen are available
free once a developer has a building permit for a “skinny lot.”
An alternative to building a new small house or living in a
highrise is to find an older house that was built in the era of smaller homes –
say, between 1945 and 1975. There are whole neighborhoods of these houses in
towns and cities across the continent. They are usually less expensive that
their larger suburban cousins, often accessible to stores by transit or walking,
and just waiting to be fixed up and loved by someone who understands that small
can be beautiful.
Wendy Priesnitz is the co-founder and editor of Natural Life Magazine and a writer with over 40 years of
experience. She has also authored 13 books. Visit her
website.
This article was published in Natural Life Magazine in 2007.
|