Small might be the next big thing, at least home-wise. Not that I've become partial to small places, living in a bird perch in Manhattan, but the modular shotgun homes being built in Katrina-damaged areas and other housing trends tell me that the big Mac houses are the next old vacuous things.
Think Small, an article yesterday in the NY Times, wrote about the trend of very tiny homes for second homes, such as that pictured, below left, of a 120 square foot house in California on 160 acres.
The 16 X 24 Michigan little home, above right, was put together by the owners from a plan from a company that also does other tiny houses. These remind me of the barn-raising hands-on dwellings of the American pioneers.
Lowes will be selling the Katrina Cottages designed by architect Marianne Cusato, right, which look like the old Shotgun houses.
A small house is a more intimate space. I find this a trend hearking back to the old shotgun houses and cottages that peaked in the 1920s. Shotgun homes were prevalent in the south from after the Civil War through the 20s and were a symbol of poverty. You could shoot a shotgun through the front door and it would pass out the back door.
I'm all for this trend but it means a rethinking of stuff. The only problem is, where do the children play?
Photos: above left, Peter DaSilva, NYTimes; top right; below right, Andy Nelson, Christian Science Monitor.



Also, it's nice to have space. People who live in tiny places on top of each other tend to argue a lot..
Posted by: claude | February 17, 2007 at 09:53 AM
Although, Claude is correct in her statement, I have to tell you another side of it. We moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico, where housing is OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive. And the southwestern/native american influence is strong. So people there are quite content to live in small, cozy, quaint little homes...even people who are attorneys and physicians. And there is a conservationism and environmentalism spirit of thought there. And an antimaterialistic mindset. So, when we moved from a huge home in Dallas to a small casita in Santa Fe, I was complaining about all my stuff that we had to store in our garage. And a co-worker I admire made the comment of....well, just how much room does one need anyway? And that got me to thinking...she was right ! No need to impress and land is valued here, so people are outside, not inside alot. So, with an inference to simplify, I ask .....how much room does one really need? And you start to think , these small houses are sort of the answer.
Posted by: Eleanor Mainwaring | February 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Hallo from Australia,
Thankyou for the comment you left at Secret Hill about our dog.
I like your blog and this post on small houses made me smile...because? We moved from the Uk (where we lived in a three bedroom Victorian town house), to Oz. We now live in a one bedroom house on half an acre of bushland. I think having the tiny half acre makes all the difference. If we had no land, we'd have no dog!
Posted by: herhimnbryn | February 17, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Thanks for visiting my site.
I had to adjust to a new concept of 'space' when I moved to NYC from Louisiana almost a decade ago. Now I appreciate small and more intimate places than huge castle like homes.
But I do fantasize sometimes of a country house somewhere upstate.
Posted by: ming_the_merciless | February 17, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Hi Mompie,
Here is where hubby lived for 2 years and one month. I was there quite a bit and it amazing what we don't need and what we truly can live without....
http://lifesinwestcliffe.blogspot.com/search?q=reservations
Posted by: janet | February 17, 2007 at 01:43 PM
i actually saw an article about these tiny homes in a magazine a little while back. Interesting concept, but i am not sure whether i could do it or not. and like you said, where would the kids go?? ;)
Posted by: kristied | February 17, 2007 at 02:21 PM
i think it's funny that most families are smaller now(1-2 kids) but we live in HUGE homes. i like smaller and more intimate homes...but i think i might feel a little claustrophobic in these. but smaller is better in general...you conserve a lot less energy and resources that way. i enjoyed seeing these homes and reading about the trends.
Posted by: bluemountainmama | February 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I don't see this catching on in Texas where we like everything big. :)
Posted by: Antique Mommy | February 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM