The small house movement is a popular description for the architectural and social movement that advocates living in small homes. It is particularly vocal in the USA, where the book The Not So Big House is credited with starting the backlash against supersized homes.[1]
Contents |
While in developed countries family size has been generally shrinking, in some countries family homes have grown in size, notably in the United States where the average size of new single family homes grew from 1,780 square feet (165 m2) in 1978 to 2,479 square feet (230.3 m2) in 2007.[1] Reasons for this include increased material wealth and prestige.[1]
Sarah Susanka has been credited with starting the countermovement toward smaller houses when she published The Not So Big House in 1997.[1]
In the USA in 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, Marianne Cusato developed the Katrina Cottages that start at 308 square feet (28.6 m2) as an alternative to FEMA trailers. Though these were created to provide a pleasant solution to a disaster zone, Cusato received wider interest in her design from developers of resorts, for example.[2]
With the financial crisis of 2007–2010 the small house movement has attracted more attention as it offers housing that is more affordable in acquisition and maintenance and ecologically friendly.[3]
Concurrently with these events, the interest in very small homes has been revived in other countries: in Japan, where space is at a premium, Takaharu Tezuka has built the House to Catch the Sky in Tokyo, a 458-square-foot (42.5 m2) home for four; in Barcelona, Spain, Eva Prats and Ricardo Flores presented 300-square-foot (28 m2) House in a Suitcase; in England, Abito created intelligent living spaces apartments of 353 square feet (32.8 m2) in Manchester; and the Micro Compact Home (M-CH) is a high end small house developed by the British architect Richard Horton and the Technical University of Munich.[1] The M-CH is a 76-square-foot (7.1 m2) cube, designed for 1–2 persons, and has functional spaces for sleeping, working/dining, cooking, and hygiene.[4]
“Supersized” homes, however, are costly in terms of building, taxes, heating, maintenance and repair. But the advantages of a small home exceed basic economics; such houses change the way people live and are attractive for people who want to lead a less cluttered and complicated life and reduce their ecological impact.[1] The typical size of a small home seldom exceeds 500 square feet (46 m2).[5]
Small houses represent not just a reduction in size but emphasize design over size,[2] utilize dual purpose features and incorporate technological advances of space saving equipment and appliances.[1]
Ironically though, as small houses are very attractive to people looking for a second home, their increased utilization may lead to development of more land.[5] People interested in building a small home can encounter institutional “discrimination” when building codes require minimum size well above the size of a small home. Also, neighbors may be hostile because they are afraid of a threat to their property values.[6] However, this concern may be baseless as there is evidence that they actually increase property values through increases in density.[7] Ironically, there has also been opposition based on this fact, due to concerns about increased taxes.[8][9][10]