I would imagine that anyone who was being waited on and served in their own house would be happy, no matter the size. This photograph is horrifying, can't the guy make/ get his own breakfast?

merm, I really, really hope you are kidding. By saying this you are making the assumption that:
a) hes a lazy womanizer
b) she will do whatever she is told

Can't someone make breakfast for someone else?! Or would you be happier if he was serving her breakfast? Sorry, but you comment is very sexist. Now I have to make the assumption that a:
a) you are single

- i kid, i kid

Hmm...I'm not sure of the exact square footage of my current 2 bedroom apartment, but I remember the year my husband and I spent in a junior 1 bedroom (which was closer to the size of the average studio). The size of that apartment really worked our nerves. It was horrible. I was so excited to move out and have some space. The reality is that people live in small spaces all the time without going through radically awesome transformations.

I have a theory about why these tiny houses make people's lives better:
1. They have convinced themselves that the small space will make them happy, and so it does. It's a classic example of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
2. They have made a commitment to change their lives for the better through living in a small space. The commitment is a public one, and so they feel pressure from their peers to make it stick.
3. The small house comes to represent a goal for them, whether it be simplicity of life or living green, and living in it becomes a constant reminder of those goals.

Sorry, that last sentence should read "a constant reminder of their achievement of the goal." It's obviously my bedtime!

Got to say I had the same reaction as Marm to the photo-I'm not single either ben, not that it matters. I'm sure it's just this particular photo as I know nothing about the guy but it does a servile look.

I'm very interested in this and am going to click on the link to his book in a second. I'm pretty sure I could not do it (certainly not with my two small children), but I think I could definitely live somewhere pretty small. What I'm most interested in is the life-simplifying aspect of this.

I do have to say that I also had a negative gut reaction to the photo. And I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman cooking for her significant other, and even nothing wrong with one of the two members of the family being the primary cook, homemaker, etc. Still...this particular photo is pretty unfortunate, I think. It conjures up multiple stereotypes I will not go into right now.

I don't mind the photo or the negative (perhaps even sexist) conotations as much as I care that there is no other photo showing the exterior or even if the table folds down, etc. It seems little more than a plug for Johnson's eco-esque self-improvement book. That being said, NO, I could not live in less than 150 ft. 500 ft. is completely doable but I think outdoor living has to be at a maximum. The interior becomes little more than a place to sleep at night out of the weather. I don't think Johnson nor anyone else in tiny houses actually "live" in the house, so to speak. They sleep there, eat there a little and perhaps do some reading there. But the living is on the exterior, methinks.

very well put msbetsy

I think I would enjoy living in a tiny space like this, but I am not sure my cat Charlotte could handle it.

oh, I KNOW Puella..haha I felt terrible..but you felt the same way...I am sure just an unfortunate picture choice..ha..that's all..

Oh the joys of small living. my husband and I live in our camper, which is about 150 sq. ft., and as another poster mentioned: much of our "living" goes on outside! At least in the nicer seasons. The winter can be pretty rough; we live in PA. This is a temp situation for us, as we try to build our home. I can not imagine doing this as a permanent situation; one of us would crack!

Living in a tiny space (my RV has about 200 square feet) gives me time to do other things simply because 200 square feet takes less time to maintain and upkeep than does 900 square feet.

I still have the home layout of my dreams--big bright study with lots of windows, loft bed, dressing room, crafting area--only on a much reduced scale that has forced me to focus on the few things that make me happy than the many things that just make me content.

While I do some of my living outside of my home, I spend the bulk of my time inside. I'm a homebody and my record is ten days without stepping foot outside other than to go for a walk every day.

I've been living in my RV over a year now and have never felt claustrophobic in it, probably because I have room in it to do the things I want to do.

Maybe the picture bugs people because she is his girlfriend, i.e. a guest, yet she is the one doing the serving.

When I was looking for my first apartment and inclined to cheap out, my dad's advice was to find a place I liked enough that I could imagine contentedly spending an entire weekend (or an entire bout with the flu) without leaving. Not totally about square footage, but somewhat.

The guy indicates that he was trying to replicate a room that he had been renting. Which implies that he didn't have to divest himself of a lot of stuff he already had. As someone trying to downsize, I believe it's much harder to let go than to not acquire in the first place.

I currently live in 165 sq ft. and my fiance comes over often and spends weekends here. Its not so bad at all especially if you put everything in its place, the ONLY down side is, when you want to storm out, theres no where to go!

i'm just gonna go for it: i think the reason the picture is offending people and looks *so* servile is the white man / dark woman image. esp since she is wearing what looks like a "traditional" looking blouse and her skirt looks like an apron. It ends up looking like "i bought myself a lil mexican cook / cleaner / pootang"

i'm not commenting on what their relationship is, but that picture definitely has some strong visual symbols that resonate with the ideas people some people have of why white men marry outside their race.

They seem so much in love.

I generally think the tiny-house movement is very sweet but very self indulgent at the same time.

It's very easy if you don't have kids, or a don't have job that requires lots of dress clothing, or if you live near a relative's/friend's house with access to laundry machines and storage, if you have enough money that you never have to keep any old stuff like old machinary parts of old parts of clothes just "in case" something breaks or tears or needs to be handed down.

If you're a writer? talk about perfect. Get a kindle to hold your library and a laptop to hold your creativity, and you're set.

A a blacksmith/flameworker who loves gardening and a million other home crafts and cooking huge meals for friends, I just look at this and shake my head. Couldn't be done.

Unless I had a barn was a normal sized barn, I suppose.

I have lived in a 120 square foot space with a boyfriend, a dog and a cat, for two years. It was too small for us, but it was fine for about six months. Both of us do a lot of projects that require hoarding salvaged materials and art supplies, musical instruments, etc. We were living there while trying to build a bigger space, which is not finished yet but will be 750 square feet with a separate 250 square foot workshop. That will be perfect. We are self employed and need that much space.

Like Kaete said, it really depends on what you do for a living or for your outside activities. If we had both been writers, we could get by with maybe 350 square feet total.

But, we did used to live in 1,500 square feet, and that was too big. Downsizing to what you really need just simplifies your life. No couple needs a dining table and another kitchen table to eat at, for example, or two living rooms/dens.

Also, I think that designing your own home, laying it out to be the most useful to your needs, automatically lets you live in a much smaller space than moving into a space designed before you got there, unless it's really well designed and happens to fit your needs.

I love the idea...just not for me. It is romantic to be able to live with a minimum footprint but as many as pointed out, it depends on your lifestyle if 140 sq feet would work for you.

Just an aside --

I have read his book and I've got to say I loved it. He made a big point that his really small home isn't for everyone and he would definitely consider a bigger one if he had a wife and/or kids. Not at all preachy with an incredibly useful "this is what I did -- do what works for you" vibe.

About the photo -- I think we should cut them a little slack because there probably isn't enough room for the typical loving-couple-surveys-their-chic-domain type photo.

Comment for msbetsy...

I think sometimes a smaller space can make you happier... Maybe it is not about square footage, but how well organized the space is...
Smaller space is easier to clean and maintain, if you don't have too much stuff...

And maybe it is not about the space really - but organization... My previous apartment was half the size of my current one, but super well organized. Every detail was well thought out. My new place is a vintage old building where everything is spacious, but poorly organized. Even though I have twice as much space now, it doesn't really feel like it...

They live on his father’s property. They’re free to use the bathroom and kitchen in his father’s house.

These tiny homes are difficult to zone, finance, insure and sell.

Most designs have lofts, which may be impractical with age or injury. They also waste a lot of space with cupboards, shelving, desks and tables.

Space-saving ideas:

http://tinyhouseblog.com/construction-articles/things-to-think-about/comment-page-1/#comment-178316