As someone who's lot in life is to live in tiny spaces in fantastic places, I never understood the need for gargantuan space. Yes a family needs more room than a single person, but I find the gigantic houses in the suburbs to be quite ridiculous.

-It costs less money to furnish a smaller space
-It costs less money to heat and cool a smaller space
-It costs less money to maintain and repair a smaller space
-Smaller spaces allow for the ability to afford higher quality finishes and materials. (I can afford granite in a small kitchen, but not a giant kitchen)

I could go on and on.... I will admit to a bit of bias as I currently am happy living in about 300 square feet in an amazing neighborhood.

goodness, i love that little cabin.

I hope the change is permanent -- and I think it will be for practical reasons. If you ever been to someone's McMansion in the suburbs, you've probably seen that half the rooms are barely furnished, and rarely used. It's a ton of wasted space, and the cost to heat/cool must be crazy.

I'm the oldest of 7 and we grew up in an 1,000 sq ft home (after adding a big family room on the back) -- we all did just fine.

One of the benefits I love about small - less time to clean your little home!

I read the article, which can be interpreted several ways. I am of the opinion that the 300 sq. ft. shrinkage is on the overall footprint, not the number of rooms. The loser space is probably in the living/dining/formal dining areas. I now enjoy 1,200 sq.ft. of "it's a drag to take care of" home. Within the next 6 or 7 years, I'll be in a studio. I'd be in a studio now, but there is no mortgage, so moving would be silly.

I'm glad to see that we are coming to our senses re: house sizes.

Bigger is better. What are you, unAmerican? I've lived in both extremes, and I have to say, it's nice to be able to roller skate inside.

I grew up in a modest, but not tiny home, and my husband grew up in quite a small home, although also not truly tiny. I think I can say pretty confidently that about the only space in either of our homes that actually would have been much better if they were bigger were the kitchens. My mother-in-law still pines for a bigger kitchen.

Do you *need* more space? Well, when it gets right down to it, we actually need very little. But more space (especially in a kitchen--and gee, at a sewing table) doesn't always translate into outright luxury. But it can mean a little less frustration.

That last house, however, seems rather luxurious in terms of space, to me.

I agree with you, Jenny B. More space does not alway equal more luxury. Also, an architecturally rich space is worth 3X it's size.

This is beautiful. Simple. Classic. Back to basics. Thank you for sharing this homey space.

www.colorinspace.com

We moved four years ago to a large house by Dutch standards: the ground floor is 1000sf and the first floor slightly smaller. But we didn't move for the space, we moved to be detached, and being detached (after years of row-houses and poor noise insulation) is heaven-on-earth. I would gladly live smaller, but I like all four walls to be mine.
That middle room made me smile - I love MCM - and that cabin made me sigh. Decades ago, on Vancouver Island, I lived in a Rolls Royce crate for a while. It was wonderful. It was detached, too. :-)

My personal rule is at least 600 square feet per person--1,200 for a couple, 2,400 for a family of 4. But more important than the square footage is the layout and the ability to have privacy behind closed doors. And I totally agree with Lynn--having space around you makes all the difference!

Another benefit of small houses is have less to maintain and being able to maintain it yourself. I can clean my gutters myself because my house is a small ranch. There's no way I'd get on a ladder two stories up! Also I could paint my house myself and maintain my older windows, two more things I wouldn't do in a larger or two-story home.

When I watch HGTV and people are buying homes asking for certain square footage, I just think "WHAT?!" Why do you need "extra bedrooms" or "overflow closets?" Now, I might be a bit silly about space use and using only what you need/love instead of "may need" or "can get." I think that cemetaries should be done away with and bodies disposed in other ways to make room instead of complaining about over population. But the size of houses these days are ridiculous. My apartment (really one story of a house) is 1091, and we have TONS of room for what we LOVE. Two adults, a toddler, and a cat. We have nicely sized furniture, MANY closets, and everything is BIG ENOUGH. We'll have plenty of space for another kid. The NEED to take up so much space is disgusting and gluttonous to me.

I had lived in a 400 sq foot studio and pretty much bounced off the walls. My 800 sq foot one bedroom is the perfect size for me. Just enough room for me, my three cats, and a couple of people to stay over night at my place. I am lucky enough to have a corner apartment with no brick walls immediately outside my windows. When I visit friends of mine who built a McMansion in the country, I bounce off the walls again because I can't find a place to just rest and enjoy the space. I can't understand wanting so much space for two people.

My husband and I downsized this past year from a 1400 house (w/ 2-car garage) to a 375, lofted-bedroom cottage. We love the cottage much more. There was ample WASTED space in the house.

However, having lived in many small places, the level of enjoyment (for me) is directly related to how well laid-out the space is. I had a studio one time that I went a little nuts in. HORRIBLE layout.

Give me a small cottage and a big yard anyday.

I don't think it's just the recession that's pushing people into smaller homes. Most of my clients don't have to worry about mortgages, and are used to living grandly. We've seen a trend, though, in the past few years from our clients wanting 17,000 sf homes (I'm not exaggerating) to "down-sizing." Granted, their idea of down-sizing is to go from 17,000 sf to 7,000 sf, but it's still a step in the right direction.

It's not the money that made them change their minds, either, because the money isn't an issue: it's the fact that they never see each other in their monstrous houses. I know that 7,000 sf is still HUGE (I live in 700 sf), but they do put their house to good use: they throw tons of charity fundraisers each year.

What I find "disgusting" when I watch HGTV house hunters is people who insist on stainless, granite, kitchen islands, and double sinks. I don't care how big the place is, but why must they have the same condo/house as everyone else?? Their inability to muster even an iota of personality and individuality is what disgusts me.

A bit of preaching to the converted here on AT. We bought a small, mid-century townhouse (1500 sf) for our family of 3 in a walkable part of the city; for the same amount of money we could have purchased something much larger with a huge yard, but with a major commute. For us, quality of life is smaller, well-designed space, with minimal driving; for others of similar means, it's a huge house with lots of time in a fancy car. I do think, though, that many of the latter buy into the American dream without thinking of the trade-offs mentioned by the posters above.

NAHB data referenced is for newly built homes - not entire housing stock. 2007 Census data : median size of all single family /mobile homes is 1,769sf (1876 owner 1344 renter). About 88,000,00 units are single family detached/mobile homes. Another 43,000,000 are attached/multi-unit and very probably smaller.

New houses have always fluctuated in size -- compare the size (esp. CUBIC footage) of houses of WWI vintage to those 20 years later. In early 80s builders' trade mags said people wanted small houses--but gradually MacMansions blossomed.

I have read, but can't quickly track down, theory that over many years the average middle class North American home has been about 1000sf. Years of looking at floor plans and standards from various first world countries I'd guess that most such countries view 700-800 sq meters to be minimum for a family. (Current UK suggested codes 1 bed 2 person 45-50SM, 3 p 57-67, 4person 67-75, 5p 75-85)

I currently have a 1050 sq ft home. And while it is enough space for us now (a couple and a toddler) but we would like to have 2 or 3 more kids. I think 1500-1800 square feet would be ideal even with a family of 5 or 6. The biggest down fall in our house is lack of closet space....there is very little. Apparently people in the 70's didn't need to hang clothing anywhere.

I don't get the giant bedrooms I see in houses, why do you need to have enough space to do cartwheels across your bedroom?

Those big homes are nice -- in theory. Keeping it clean up to any kind of OK standard (I realize that my OK may not be someone else's OK) is a FULL TIME JOB and we never get to see how dirty/uncared for they get. We only see the sanitized brand- spanking- new- staged -original- before people -house in the glossy advertizing photos or show videos! Also you need a car to do any kind of shopping (how green is that?); and a large staff to keep the grounds in shape. OK you guessed, I'm not a fan! :)

I think this trend will stay around for the simple reason of population. There is no way that everyone can have 3,000 square foot homes when 1500 square feet is perfectly comfortable and roomy for a family of four or 5. Most of us need far less than that. I live with my boyfriend and dog in 750 square feet, and I wouldn't mind living someplace smaller. I think for two people my limit is 500 square feet, though I agree that layout makes all the difference. I love Thoreau, but it did help that he was never home, he was always hanging out in the woods around Walden, going fishing, growing food, etc. If I lived in a gorgeous forest I wouldn't mind that small space either. I have come to the conclusion that living in a smaller space in a better area is definitely better than a big space where you're more cut off. I've also come to the conclusion that I usually like small spaces better than really big ones. I'm actually kind of excited to look for a smaller space next time I move (which I'm sure I'll have to since I'm moving to a more expensive city).

We have 300 square feet per person, which is entirely comfortable. 400 would be nice -- more sound privacy. But I don't even know what I'd do with 900 square feet per person, unless half of it was in a second home!

My husband and I plus two large dogs live in a 1400sf house and it's pleanty! A few years ago all you would see in new builds were huge houses and I was bewildered and sad at what had become the norm or even expected. It does seem like a status thing and I think many lived outside their means.

Oh and @djs I agree with your statement about House Hunters!

@jacksonlalonde: I laughed when I read the roller skating bit. I agree wholeheartedly.

@livc: Thoreau also didn't have a bathroom in his teeny tiny space!

I recently moved into an 1150 sf house with my husband-to-be, toddler, two cats and chihuahua and I love it. It's in a walkable part of our small New England city, just blocks from the park, a beach, restaurants, two delis and a coffee shop. We did a major renovation upon move-in, moved some walls, insulated the entire house and bought energy-efficient appliances. Our electric bill last month was about $35 (and we have 3 computers and a major stereo system) and our gas bill (for hot water, stove, and heat) was about $80. In our last apartment, our electric bill alone was $250/month.

The house is small, but it's functional. I read almost all of Sarah Susanka's books before remodeling. My family, most of whom grew up and now live in bigger, suburban houses, doesn't understand how we "do it." We have another baby on the way but we have no thought of moving because we love our house. The one thing I do miss is having a dedicated guest room, as we did in our apartment, but we are working on fixing up a sleep loft in our old attic space. The other thing we don't have is a yard, but that's offset somewhat by living 2 blocks from a huge park that overlooks the water. But someday when the neighbors move (and word on the street is that they plan to in a few years), we hope to buy their house, turn it into rental property, and use the yard as our own. You can see what we've done at 2cats.wordpress.com.

For energy reasons as well as family-time reasons, I hope this is a trend that continues. I and my parents and grandparents grew up in smaller homes, and we did just fine.
I hate to see so many older homes with hideous bump-outs because people want more more more.
My husband and I were so fortunate to find a 900 sq ft home in an extremely expensive market--no one else felt they could live there I guess, but we were thrilled!

@lal- judgemental much?
Personally, I prefer to have my loved ones buried, rather than having their bodies "disposed of."... are you actually saying that burying people, in your opinion is "disgusting and gluttonous" because they take up too much space?
...just asking...

I grew up in a 3 bedroom/2 bath house of @1500 square feet - and there was plenty of space for storage and "privacy".

A family of 4 don't need twice the space as a family of two:
The kitchen and living room don't need to be much larger, and one bath only needs to become two when there are 4 people in the house.

If two can get along in 1000 square feet, then 3 can do in 1250 (one 12x12, 144 Sq/ft bedroom, a closet and a half bath) and 4 can do with 1500. (another 12x12 bedroom, closet, hall and make the half bath a full bathroom.

As others have said - larger houses cost more to build, more to furnish (often this is lacking or done poorly), more to heat/cool, more to maintain.

Folks interested in this subject should take the time to read Susan Susanka's "Not So Big" books & articles.
http://www.susanka.com/

It seems to me that many of the above comments are guilty of extremely oversimplifying things and engaging in a fair amount of prejudicial stereotyping. For example, there are far more choices than a small place in a walkable area and a huge, new construction in a car-dependent area which one drives around in a fancy car. There are loads of people (myself included) who live in moderate sized restored historic buildings (mine is from 1740) in semi-rural areas outside of cities. Some of these houses are in walking distance to town and stores. Others (like mine) are only in walking distance to woods and hiking trails. But although I do drive to the store, I am able to buy local cheese, dairy, meet, poultry, and (in season) fruits and veggies from the immediate area (my beef and dairy comes from the farm 2 miles away). Walking to the store isn't "green" if the food you buy was brought in by plane, train, and truck. And most of us drive 4wheel drive vehicles like subarus--hardly fancy cars bought for their status. We also use mass transit daily to get into the city for work.

There are many lifestyle choices and for some of us "quality of life" means being around natural beauty, having privacy and community, and bringing up our kids in a place where they have access to both culture and nature. It may not be your choice, but don't make the mistake of thinking that yours is the only acceptable choice.

Would most of you agree that it is not necessarily the amount of square footage as it is how it is configured, the light available, the ceiling height, the outdoor areas, shared walls, etc that make a place "big enough"?

My smallest place was shared by two of us (separate bedrooms)...housemates actually. It took a TON of work to plan the spaces for optimum usage, but it was well worth it in the end!

We used the largest bedroom as a mutual office/guest room and flipped a coin for the larger of the two remaining bedrooms...I lost and my bdrm measured 6'-8" x 9' (the other was 6'-8" x 12, so not too great a loss). We both managed to make beautiful and perfect "nests" for ourselves which each had personality and warmth!

The livingroom, kitchen and sunporch/diningroom took up the majority of the 900 ft2 and made entertaining easy...great because our location on a lake in Richmond Hill (35 min north of Toronto) meant that we had TONS of visitors!

What made this ideal was an efficient use of our office space and adequite personal space (which really isn't much!).

I simply cannot imagine living in a monster house...in fact, it scares me...too much room and the work that goes with it!

amen, djs.

my husband and i choose to live in a rural area about 15 minutes outside our city. we have an acre of land, surrounded by woods on 3 sides and LOADS of privacy. our house is 2000 sqft and it's just us and our dogs for now. but when we built it, we kept in mind that we were planning to have a family in this house and built it larger than we needed for the moment versus having to move into a bigger space in a few years time.

yes, we don't live in a walkable area. we have to commute to our jobs in our "fancy" cars...an 8 yr old Taurus. but like djs - we have the opportunity to buy our meat, dairy and produce within a few miles of where we live.

i could never live in a tiny house in the middle of the city!

Is there a magic formula? How much space does anybody really need? There are families of four that live happily in tiny apartments. On the other hand, there are many, many singles living in huge lofts. Should you subdivide your loft because someone says you don't need that many square feet? Should you tear down your 1910 Victorian mansion because it's too big for one family? Should you share your converted barn with your sisters, brothers, in-laws, and neighbors? It's not a crime to crave more space, just like it's not a crime crave less. It's all just a matter of personal preference. That's what makes the world (and housing market) go round.

Must be the influence of Apartment Therapy. ;0)

I think when fuel gets more expensive, huge houses will be less doable. Look at that first room - it's from a time when fuel cost a lot (in time! You had to split that wood.) Look how close everything is to the fireplace.

Heating and air conditioning that huge empty space in the third picture is expensive now, and I think it's going to get more so.

I'd like to think we're returning to reason. Jury's still out though.

We bought a 1927 craftsman bungalow a few years ago- great bones, really cozy- and it's about half the size of the new homes being built in the area. Even still, with a finished basement and attic, we barely use 2/3 of our house. I realized this when i walked into the downstairs guest room and realized I hadn't been in there in two months!!!

next week we're moving into a 4 room 700 sq.ft. condo, LOL.

Jury's still out in my opinion. It will take a long time to reverse this trend with so many new mcmansions built already. Sadly huge cars are still the norm too. I'm all for smaller homes and cars. Also I hope the reversal of urban sprawl will continue. That will curb both the huge house trend and huge car trend.

"Heating and air conditioning that huge empty space in the third picture is expensive now, and I think it's going to get more so."

Yes, but the next generation of houses will be smarter. Friends of ours just built a large (3,500 square foot, aprox) house near us and it is completely self-sufficient. Geothermal heating/cooling system, a large array of solar panels, and a lot of other features I don't fully understand. The house creates all of the energy it uses.

Our next door neighbors have over 50 solar panels, which produces a good chunk of their energy (not all). And we know a number people who use pellet stoves all winter and never turn on the heat.

As for cars, you see a huge number of smart cars and prius already, and in a few years we'll all be driving electric minis.

dcirene, your situation seems a lot like ours. We live in a close-in, walkable neighborhood like you describe, in a house that is under 1200 square feet for three people (plus two giant dogs). Even in our little house, we could do without the living room--it's the biggest room in the house and the one that is least used.

I understand people wanting to live out in the country near hiking trails, farms, small towns, and so on. What I can't understand is that middle ground of McMansionville--"communities" that are a pain to drive to and from but that offer no solitude or privacy, only vast amounts of personal space in cookie-cutter subdivisions.

livc : "[Thoreau] was never home, he was always hanging out in the woods around Walden, going fishing, growing food, etc."

I grew up a stone's throw away from Walden, near Concord, MA (my woods were pretty much Thoreau's woods). As much as he loved to write about his idealized version of living in a cabin in the forest, he actually spent most of his time hanging out in town and pestering the other transcendentalists. And he was a surveyor by trade, and no great shakes as gardener! But your point is correct, if you lived in a cabin that small you'd probably go stir crazy and want to go out all the time. Or become a crazy philosopher dude, LOL.

One factor that may contribute to a trend of downsizing of homes is the aging of the U.S. population. As people get older and their kids leave home, they often want a smaller, easier to maintain space without stairs and without much yard to maintain. My honey and I live in a 1400 square foot single-level semi-detached condo and most of our neighbors are retired older folks, with a few younger couples mixed in.

Yeah, they're downsizing all right. Can you say foreclosure? Most of the keepin up with the Jone's bit off more than they could chew and now it's catchin up to them. I saw young couples in their twenties buying the size of homes only the rich and wealthy lived in back in the 60's and 70's. Greedy, that's what it all boils down to. I live in a 950 sq ft house built in 1922 and guess what it's all paid for. It may be a little run down but I'll take it anyday over the Mcmansions. And I totally agree with the comments about the picky homebuyers on HGTV. Heck , they see a closet thats 5 times the size of mine and they go " the closets are on the small side, I was really wanting something I could fit a winnebago in.

The only time I covet additional space is when I have a project going and wish I could spread out more.

i live in just under 1300 sq ft and could easily cut it in half and it would be comfortable for 2 people and a large dog. i cannot wait to buy something smaller.

In my case, I discovered that approximately 130 square feet with the perfect layout is all I need. I never thought I could fit all my needs and wants into that area with space to spare. If I ever move back to a house it'll be no bigger than this except for perhaps an enclosed porch.

we live in about 1500sq and we need a bit more space. The place has three bedrooms but they are all very small and next to each other- when my son is a bit older he will want to move farther away from us into a bigger room and so we'll either have to move or redo the basement into a bedroom instead of the family room it is now...
I have lived in everything from 300 sq ft to 2700sq ft and I much prefer the larger spaces-

My home is 1520 sq. ft. and it's more than I really need. I use the largest bedroom as storage, and I basically use the smaller bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathrooms. I have a sunroom and dining room I really don't use. If I ever decide to move, I could definitely do with less space. I find smaller homes cozier, but I would have to downsize my possessions for sure.

That first picture so reminded me of Vincent Van Gogh's 'The Bedroom'

Let's put a reduction in 300 sq feet in perspective shall we? Here in UT, a 4,000 square foot home is about average, with large homes coming in at about 7,000 sq. ft. In my opinion, 7000 sq feet is a mansion ... we have neighborhoods full of what we call "starter castles." Mansions with yards that are about 1/2 the footprint of the house. Down the hill from our neighborhood, there's a 17,000 sq foot castle. Literally. It has the spires and gates and everything you'd imagine a storybook castle to have. And you could probably stretch a bedspread between it and it's neighboring house. 300 sq feet less in 4000 sq foot home amounts to reducing the home from a 3-car garage to a 2-car garage. Or making a 5 bedroom home into a 4 bedroom home. 300 sq feet makes a much bigger difference in a 2,000 sq foot home, but I find it hard to believe the national average is coming down because we're making small homes smaller. I would wager that we're making massive homes slightly less massive.

I love my solid little concrete block one-bedroom, one bathroom bungalow with a crawlspace. It's manageable and simple to solve problems that arise...and when any problems arise it's usually MUCH less expensive to fix/replace. It does have a detached studio apartment (270 sq feet) that I am renting out to a friend so I have the option of a second bedroom and bathroom without having to actively maintain it.
The main house is unintentionally green. It's so small with so many windows that the cross breezes sufficiently cools and ventilates it. I've only had to turn on the AC a few times since I bought it 8 months ago (I live in Florida). It's an open floor plan (which is a lifesaver for small spaces IMO). It's made of concrete (not like the particle board McMansions with the faux stone or brick face across the front, and vinyl siding on the sides and back (to save money, but create the illusion of grandeur to onlookers from the front--a metaphor for the occupants? I'm juss keeding!). It costs approx $700 a month to run (mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities) and I have PLENTY of space. Even if I had to share it with another person, we would have plenty of room. Shoot, if I had my first child in this house, we could and would make it work for as long as possible. The original owners raised a child in it in the 60's. That child now owns a similar home around the corner, so I wouldn't say they were traumatized. Like someone mentioned, I am able to use higher grade/quality items which definitely gels with my quality, not quantity mentality. With a small house you almost need to spend more than average attention to detail and you tend to only invite the necessary, the beautiful, the useful, and the loved things in your life. There isn't the space for mediocrity. Every "thing" has to earn it's space so to speak.
The best thing...I can clean my entire house before work in the morning, so I can come back to a nice clean house. Seriously, I can clean my entire bathroom during a 15 min shower. I can clean the entire kitchen and sunroom/dining room (including sweeping & mopping) while breakfast is cooking, I can tidy my bedroom (including sweeping wet-dusting) while watching the morning news, I can tidy the living room on the way out the door, and I can sweep the porch and driveway on the way to the mailbox. Then in my car and go. There aren't any utility rooms, or numerous guest rooms, or great rooms, or dining parlors, or "formal" sitting rooms, hallways, mudrooms, home theater room, game room, offices, gyms....etc.
I also like being able to take a tour of my house when I get home in less than 10 seconds. I have to make sure nobody snuck in while I was at work before I can relax :)

Nothing will cure you of needing extra space faster than living in NYC on a normal person's income.

I live in a 2BR 1090sf apartment and have made the 2nd bedroom into an office/TV den. I find that unless someone is visiting, I rarely use the enormous living room.
I do like the feeling of space, though. So I'm happy to have that living room with its huge windows and cathedral ceiling. It makes me feel less crowded, even though I crunch most of my activities into the 2nd bedroom.

I also have 15 windows, which is practically never found in an apt. The sunlight follows me around as the day goes on, and I never feel like I'm living in a cave, which is the way I felt in most apartments