As a follow-up to last issue’s article Big or Little I thought I’d talk about size and ask whether our homes need to reduce a bit. First, the facts. In 1950, the average home was about 983 square feet, growing to 1,400 square feet in 1970, and then zooming up to 2,700 square feet in 2009. At the same time, the size of the average American household went from approx. 3.37 people to 2.57 people, a considerable reduction, and the number is still coming down.
The United States is a big country and we tend to like our cars and houses to be big as well; perhaps we view size as a standard of success. When you compare our home sizes with other countries, our extravagance is clearly evident. Average square footage of homes in other countries is as follows: Australia: 2,200; New Zealand: 1,900; Canada: 1,800; Japan: 1,000; Ireland: 930 and the U.K.: a mere 815.
There’s a movement afoot to advance the cause of smaller homes. Instrumental in promoting the virtues of the smaller home, Sarah Susanka, author of The Not So Big House has championed the many advantages of going small. Cost is obviously a factor, as smaller spaces require less energy, less furniture and are usually less expensive to buy with lower upkeep and taxes.
But the virtues go over and above the obviously lower cost. Ms. Susanka argues that making the home smaller permits the owner to make the home their own with great “built-ins” and fine appointments they would otherwise not be able to afford. What you are doing is substituting style for size. She also finds the smaller home to be more comfortable and inviting than the gigantic mansions with their overly high ceilings. Great for a flock of birds but people, not so much. Smaller homes are less expensive to heat and cool, and take much less effort to keep clean. With fewer but better windows, a smaller home can be just as cozy as can be, yet still filled with light and air and color.
With household size shrinking, especially in urban areas, and more households consisting of single people, or couples without children, the smaller home is looking like an important new trend; one about simplification and economy. The smaller home encourages better organization, less collecting of objects, less clutter and emphasizes design. When your space is limited, it behooves you to select more wisely and having less “stuff” can lead you to concentrate on more important things in your life, like your friends, loved ones and your experiences and adventures. Less home, more life.
There are many resources on the Web to get you interested in the smaller home, its many virtues and how to go about choosing or building one. Have a gander at tumbleweedhouses.com and check out the adorable cottages, bungalows, houses on wheels and lots of other great ideas to get you started. They’ll be sponsoring a 2-day workshop in San Diego Saturday and Sunday, May 17-18; check their site for further details.
Just as we long to slim our bodies, we might entertain slimming our homes, getting rid of the extraneous rooms we reserve for “company” and making them just right for everyday. A good home contains everything we need and use and nothing extra. It is beautiful and comfortable and pleasing in every way, without being excessive. Less is definitely more. The bonus is that the more we have left over, the more we can offer to ourselves and others.
Del Phillips is a California Licensed Real Estate agent. He is a member of the National, California and San Diego Association of Realtors. You can reach Del at Ascent Real Estate at 619-298-6666 or at Del@DelPhillips.com DRE LIC #01267333.
