apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Well said, I fully agree with it. When I moved into my first small space I knew I trading for being right in the downtown Toronto, walking distance to everything I need and much more. Plus I realized how much I like living my small space, with less but really with more.

Very nicely said. And nothing against Oprah, she seens very magnanimuous with her money and causes, but I have to wonder if we'll be seeing her move into a "small" space anytime soon? ;)

Alhtough I agree with your thoughts, I too am dubious of Oprah's motives. She has had many shows regarding how to have a deeper, more spiritual life, live "lighter," live more finanically responsible, etc. Yet, in direct contrast to this "message," she constantly brags about her great wealth, her love of shopping, her magazine is filled with expensive, consumptive items. I feel like she tries to get her audience to become consumptive, while at the same time making them feel bad that they have. Anyone else have the same observation?

So true. It's not just the size, it's the attitude. I'm a bit conflicted about it right now, having recently moved from a tiny studio to a larger-but-still-small 2 bedroom apartment, so it feels like I'm spending tons of money on having this larger space, but I am not just trying to fill it up. I'm enjoying being able to "leave room for emptiness and possibility."

That was nicely written. Thank you.

I moved from Atlanta, GA to Los Angeles, CA last June and because I didn't own anything that was really worth the $2000 it would cost to move, I decided to sell/donate almost everything I owned.

I packed what was left in my Ford Escape and pulled a 4 x 8 Uhaul trailer across the country. I can't really explain it better than you have, but I felt such a sense of freedom when I realized that I was capable of fitting all of my possessions in such a spall space. I had gotten rid of everything that I already knew I didn't need but finally had an excuse to remove it from my life!

I now live in a 250 sq. foot studio after living with a stranger from craigslist for 5 months. Although its much smaller, I live more richly. I am within a short walk or bike ride to the beach and a 2 mile drive to work. I actually spend less than I did when I had the roommate but I have less space. I make up for that by getting out more and enjoying the city that I live in.

First, I love Oprah. Oprah, Nate and Maxwell on one show is almost enough to make my head explode with joy!!

I know in a recent show she showed her guest house which was re-decorated and re-furnished almost entirely with items that she had in storage from selling other homes.

Also, this year for her "Favorite Things" show - instead of giving away all those gifts to the audience she gave everyone $1,000 and they had to spend it on other people.

So maybe on her own Oprah-scale way, she is practicing what she preaches!

Oprah owns a house near my home; not sure what the square footage is, but it is massive. When she first saw it it wasn't even for sale but she just had to have it. Real estate in this area (even for small condos) is in the $2,000 per square foot range (Santa Barbara is not for anyone who is on a budget), and a place the size of and with the acreage of Oprah's house would obviously be a lot more. She overpaid (I think it was in the range of $125 million), but as stated previously, she just "had" to have it.

Billionaires abound here and locals are not impressed with the celebrity crowd, especially not with Oprah.

My friends and co-worker are all amazed at my "tiny" 645 sq condo, while they live in their 2000 sq houses. I live by myself and I don't like empty rooms (it creeps me out). The less room I have, the less I buy to fill it, and I am more selective about what I buy. It becomes a matter of quality over quantity (not all of us have Oprah's income). The smaller the space, the less I have to clean! And oh, most importantly, the less room I have, the shorter the amount of time my parents would stay with me when they visit.

I plan on watching today's Oprah, but only because I am looking forward to seeing Maxwell's segment on the show. It is not a show that I would usually watch, mostly for reasons "trd" highlights above.
I don't personally know Oprah, and I don't want to judge her as a person, but do believe her actions and behaviors send mixed messages. She speaks so highly of living simply, living spiritually, living to make other people's lives better. I'm well aware of her charity record (as she publicizes it), but I don't believe she is personally into simple living. Her homes (both her Chicago apartment on Lake Michigan and Indiana farm home) are giant and decadently and expensively furnished.
The pinnacle of consumption is her annual "Favorite Things" show where she lavishes her audience with "must have" items (Philips-Stein diamond watches, video iPods, Burberry coats, etc.) Women screaming and squealing to get all of these expensive gifts, it's awful. This year she toned it down with her $1000-per-audience-member-pay-it-forward-experiment-cum- publicity-stunt.
This excess shows up in so many parts of her life. For example, when she wanted a golden retriever puppy and couldn't make up her mind, she just got three of them.
I love living small, but I do find it a bit ironic that this queen of consumerism is having a show on living this way.

Living in a 296 sf one-bedroom in NYC makes me think a lot about William Morris's dictum: "Have nothing in your house which you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful." While I am by no means a minimalist (no one with 1000 books and an equal number of CDs can be), I try to live only with those items I truly love, that have meaning for me, and to do so in an organized, functional way. My home is my haven, and though small, it allows me to live exactly where I want to in New York, within walking distance of everything that's important to me (friends, theatre, music). The fact that the apartment is small is incidental (though of course I have the "if only I had 50 more square feet..." dreams), and hey, it's a heckuva lot easier to clean than a 5000 sf behometh.

I think higher energy costs (and the rising price of real estate) give people a practical reason to scale down.

My mantra is "you can only be in one room at once" and it's true.

Maybe there is so much accessibility to excess in our society - anybody with an income can have a house full of "stuff" - that we're swinging back naturally to smaller spaces with fewer items in them.

It is wonderful to find out that there are so many people out there who don't like extra space and prefer smaller living spaces to larger ones. You see, I am willing to relieve all of you of your unwanted real estate for a very low fee. Please contact me for instructions on how to transfer ownership!

Oprah's Paradox: How to live "authentically" while being filthy rich.

Although we might scoff at Oprah's tradeoffs, I'm sure she does have tradeoffs that she makes everyday.

Oprah may have 3 cute golden retrievers, but does she really get to bond with them by feeding them, brushing them, and going on long walks with them?

Oprah may have a bunch of expensive sofas in a bunch of homes - but how often does she get to curl up on just one sofa and spend a rainy Sunday afternoon reading a book?

In her busy life, Oprah has a personal chef to help her eat right. But cooking a simple (or complex!) meal is one of my favorite things to do. I envision that Oprah's tradeoff is that she doesn't get to meditatively chop onions and slowly watch them caramelize in a pan over low heat.

Hopefully she loves what she does and appreciates what she has. Hopefully I can say the same thing, too.

I also think maxwell's point is beautifully stated, and qualifies what may end up being taken too simply as "small is good, big is bad": for many of the oprah viewers who may be introduced to this philosophy for the first time today, I think its about the making of our homes (whatever size) into a thoughtful process, creating a place that nourishes our lives and does not drain it, and to stop and really consider what that means for each person. As for Oprah herself, can we really expect her to practice and enact every idea/issue/theme that she explores on her show in her own life, which is on every day every week? Its that type of expectation of moral rigor which can paralyse public figures who are trying to promote even slightly different ideas. From my view, Oprah is so steeped in capitalism and the American dream, we really can't expect her to launch an entire consumerist critique. Maybe in a decade she will get there. But right now, she has a media empire to run.

Well this is kind of ironically appropriate. While my shared apartment is an ok size for Manhattan, my personal bedroom is particularly small. And while I would love to subscribe to the "useful or beautiful" dictum, I can't seem to part with all the cool free stuff I obtained when I used to work for...you guessed it, Oprah :)

I think Oprah has been an incredibly positive role model for millions of people. We don't have to agree with everything she says or does however, she has earned what she has through wise choices and doesn't back down from her spirituality or intent. I think we get off the point of the conversation by dwelling on her and not the issue itself which Maxwell has so eloquently expressed above. Although, thinking of Oprah, the good she has done for so many would certainly far outweighs any excess in her own personal shopping. It's no one's business. She's a messender I suppose, so let's not shoot the messenger. If anything, I think her purpose is to get us all to look inward, decide what our best possible life is, and go for it. Everything she does for her "audience" is about rising up and not settling.

As Maxwell said: "...you want to go further and leave room for emptiness and possibility." That is, to me, the point of living a leaner life; get rid of meaningless things. If you want to live in a big house, then the point would be to be aware of your own personal environment, relish every object, waste no time or energy on irrelevant junk, and instead of spending time maintaining all those things, strive for a healthy and happier "life". It doesn't mean you should sell the house and squeeze into a 250 sq. ft. place if that's not your thing. There is something very zen about having an open space, even if its a corner, where such possibility might exist. We really don't need all that stuff we buy. I think what we need is to set priorities based on what is in our hearts, not our bank accounts, or what is in the neighbor's house.

Me: I've spent 2 years shedding material and emotional baggage and much grief. What was once a traumatic experience has turned out to be a gift, or at least has left me with a gift, the gift of being introspective. I've given things away, sent some off to a mission, and I'm still in the process of discovery. I discover every day that I "didn't really need this but someone else does" and that now I have room for what I really want. And what I really want is peace of mind and a place to do my art, and a place where I can look at the water through the changing seasons. That's for me.

For you it might be something else. But we can't go on this journey of discovery without shedding some layers of junk and making wise choices.

One note: People is small spaces tend to get out more, see the the world, make friends, walk down a street in the rain, notice the smells of the neighborhood.

Done.

Another perspective: For the price of one giant, vulgar barn of a home, you can have two or three smaller homes. We live in a 750 sq ft home in the small town where our business is located, and have a small condo in downtown Seattle. The best of both worlds, and our total housing cost is still lower than that of our friends living in their 4000 sq ft houses. Plus, we can actually afford to completely furnish both homes.

It is funny my husband and I were discussing how much square footage we need this week-end. We currently live in a 1350 sq ft urban apartment in Montreal with our two cats.

My husband dreams about a home theatre / video game room, for which we need additional space. Although I think a home theatre room is not necessary, I complain all the time that we did not have enough storage.

My problem is still having around all these clothes that I did not wear for the last 5-10 years, my previous cookware set, etc... By donating, selling or throwing away unused stuff and changing a little bit our space planning, I realised that we have plenty of room. One thing we both agree is that we do not want to live in a big mansion. Too much cleaning!

Oprah's philosophy, which she explores every day on her show, is more about living your "best life." Meaning, you do the best with what you have. It's not about everybody living the same way, or imposing rigid standards. The lifestyle of someone who has a billion dollars is obviously going to be different than someone making $50k per year. And I think she DOES frequently address the issue of people living beyond their means to their detriment. People trying to be something they're not, people lying to themselves, people feeling overwhelmed by their lives -- these are all frequent topics and I think they fit in with the "live small, be light" philosophy. Think about who you are, where you are in your life, and make decisions based on that, not on some arbitrary ideal. "Live your best life."

I have seen her "favorite things" shows and I don't think the message is "You need to buy all this stuff!!!!" It's more like, if you're in the market for a new pair of pajamas, these are the BEST ones. Look how soft! That's what I get from them anyway. I love looking at all the stuff, but I've never bought any of it.

AV: Perfectly said.

Oprah's a hack who's been fortunate to find a lucrative niche. More power to her.
No matter what you think of Oprah (it appears she has many fans here) I think the real lesson of this post is having an unencumbered life. Live in your space. Dictate how to make the most of your space - big or small. Make your space one that allows you to get the most out of your life. Don't buy things just to buy them or fill up room - buy and live with things that bring you happiness and serve a function. If your things are both beautiful (to you) and useful, you've done well.

I agree with all the "Oprah is a contradiction" comments above. However one could argue the same thing about this website. Everyday we are enticed with new and cool items to buy, many of them well beyond my price range. The fact is that as Americans we do have too much stuff and if, as Maxwell says, living small is living light then I am all for it. My mother always said "a cluttered room is a cluttered mind" and that is pretty much how I have tried to arrange my home. If this site inpsires me to make beautiful design choices (at lower end retailers or thru sales) then even better. I will watch Oprah today, but strictly for Maxwell and Sara and hopefully a glance of that little angel of yours.

dnd - "A cluttered room is a cluttered mind". I try to live by that too. I get so much more work done when my desk is clean and organized. I sleep better when my bedroom is straightened and laundry is put away. I cook better when my pantry is clean and I can get to pots and pans easily. Too much stuff causes distraction and takes away from a space's functionality, comfort and beauty.

I agree that living "small" is more about the mind than the square footage. It's funny, but I have seen people who live "smaller" in 4000 square foot homes than some people who live in 600 square foot apartments. For instance, I have a lovely friend who just can't let go of anything. And then she married a wonderful woman who had the same issue. Their home is small in square footage but overwhelming in "stuff". One year our holiday present to them was to come do a thorough cleaning and reorganizing of every room in their home because we couldn't bear the thought of giving them more stuff.

I think the term "small" carries different meanings for different people. It seems to be a mix of raw space, possessions, environmental footprint, and general efficiency. The weighting on those components seems to be a significant marker of personality.

Oh, and Kim, I live in a 1200 square foot space with my wife and rambunctious dog. We still have a home theater (click name for link). You can do it if you want to!

"Try this: take one thing from your home that you no longer love, need or use and place it on the curb tonight."

In little over a month my fiance and I will be moving to a new condo. I'm doing my best to free myself from as much "stuff" as possible in the process. For me, moving is a great chance to start with a clean slate.

What I struggle with is parting ways with things that I think I need to hold on to. When you finally reach the point where you're willing to sever ties with another "thing" - it's a really freeing feeling.

Great post!

My boyfriend and I are looking at downsizing from a 1,000+ sq ft townhouse to a 620 sq ft condo in a better location. I'm strangely excited to sell all of our extra stuff and pare down to only what we NEED. This means less housework, lower utility bills, and best of all - I can sell my car, since it's close to work and all kinds of services and entertainment are right down the street. Smaller is a huge improvement in my eyes!

I think it is much easier to live small or live simple when you are living solo or as a couple. It becomes exponentially more difficult when you add a child to the mix. My husband, son and I have lived in very small spaces (a 40-foot boat) and somewhat larger spaces (1000-square-foot home) and now are squeezed into 780 sq.ft. with a nice large yard for the three dogs. Thank God my son is now old enough that his toys of choice are mostly electronic. But his Dad has a lot of musical toys so to save my sanity we built him a 12 by 12 studio in the side yard. Still, I struggle daily with the need to find room for my stuff. I am a packrat by nature and now I don't even have a garage. I have to edit, edit, edit constantly. I almost think you need more money to live really small!

I finished redoing my closet last week. I ended up giving half my clothes. I still have many pairs of shoes. It depresses me to look at them now. What was I thinking? Oh, I get it it: I wasn't. Small spaces help us to be mindful.

"Try this: take one thing from your home that you no longer love, need or use and place it on the curb tonight."

OR you could try posting an ad on Freecycle or Craigslist, dropping it off at a charity store (some will even pick stuff up for you), or donating it to a friend. Dumping stuff that you don't need anymore on the street and hoping that someone else will take care of your mess is very irresponsible.
Other than that, love the site!

Hey Cathy - one of my favorite pleasures is finding a treasure on the curb!

Obviously you shouldn't leave something out for more than a day without taking care of it properly but leaving it out one night on the curb for someone to find isn't that bad.

Living small is a step to en-light-enment.
Aren't we all empty-handed in the end...?

maxwell: this was one of the most inspiring posts. i live in a small 400 sq ft 1BR apt in new york and all i do is complain about lack of space...which clutters not only apartment but my head. i'm going to be donating/decluttering all week long. thanks.

small is living.
product of the environment is symbiotic.
misdirection is entertainment.

if the above is true, 'you' cant get smaller or larger than this.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dead-luck-ewas-flight-of-fury/2007/02/16/1171405421626.html

guess..I'm not enlightened (pun intended :) enough to get this fascination with small spaces. I've lived in a studio, a 1 bdrm and a 2000sq ft duplex apt.that was perhaps too large..there were rooms i did not enter for months..seriously. I spent most of my time "living in my bedroom". I now own a 1100 sq ft apt...and its perfect..I can't imagine going back to anything smaller. I'm not into "stuff" but I derive a simple pleasure from been able to move from room to room...everything is easible accessible..no up and down the stairs. I'm somewhat solitary so space would be even more of a priority if I were living with someone..for those hours when I just don't want to see anyone..lol.

but kudos to all you small spacers

This conversation is a good one but lacking nuance. People live where and how they live for reasons beyond "enlightened" living or giving up "stuff" to truly appreciate what is left. Often times, though we are loathe to admit it, this is probably the last reason anyone lives in a tiny space. Most people, not all, make the decision to live in smaller spaces as a trade-off, i.e better location = smaller space because bigger space in said location is too expensive. Let's be realistic. Yes small can be good, depending on your lifestyle, but small is not so good when you are living with a family one on top of the other. So I wonder why we try to convince ourselves otherwise. While I have seen many people live beautifully in small spaces, I have yet to meet anyone that if given the opportunity would not choose the larger space over the smaller all things being equal. Larger does not necessarily mean cluttered just more space for more of what you love. After all if a cluttered space is indicative of a cluttered mind, then an empty space is indicative of what... Just my random musings on the topic. BTW, I live in a fairly small space myself about 950sf "two bedroom" in Brooklyn.

What a great discussion! I too have recently discovered the mental freedom that comes from donating/recycling things which I don't need cluttering up my apartment. A great tip for those who live in Toronto: the store BMV will buy your old DVD's and books on the spot, quick and easy. They'll buy your old comics and even Mad Magazines too! What a great way to make extra space. And here's a great blog about a new holiday called Discardia. Some awesome tips on what to do with even things that have good memories associated with them. http://www.metagrrrl.com/discardia/

Down with clutter!

I could get rid of all my clutter (which I'm working on) and my life would still be made a lot easier with another room or just some defined closet space, even. It actually takes more resources to make a very small space functional, accessible, and beautiful than say a slightly larger one (say, comparing a studio to a one-bedroom), so I'm not sure if this is such an ecological issue if we're talking about urban apartment space, not McMansions. I'm not a master carpenter so I know it would take less money for me to decorate the one-bedroom apartment of my dreams than to find a system for my shoes in my 300 sq-ft studio. I'm kind of kidding--and I don't have that many shoes--but it is a conundrum to always make everything accessible yet hidden. And the resources spent on that or thinking about that may be better spent elsewhere.

My Shrine To Imelda, which once gave me pleasure, now just seems absurd. Emptying the closet was one of the best things I've done. I've also broken the curse of the commemorative t-shirt. Now if they're sad, I can just say buhbye.

Consumption contros is harder when you have more space: nature abhors a vacuum. But each type of living space has its own problems. McMansions, for example, have all those "extra" spaces that are really not usable, and those high ceilings which usually feel cavernous because the people who own them are really decorating a ranch. They do have huge closets, although the closet in the bathroom thing doesn't work for me.

As an organizing expert, I deal with helping people scale down their possessions, live lighter and simplify their lives. And one of the things that offends me most is when someone tries to project their concept or expectation of simplicity onto someone else's life. Just look at the comments here to see evidence of that.

Who are we to judge whether Oprah's life is simple and fulfilling for her? Who are we to say that because her homes are large that she isn't living light by her own definition? Who are we to say how she should or shouldn't spend the money she's earned?

Do we want someone else judging *our* lives, our homes, and our choices? For those of you being judgmental, how come *you* aren't living in 100 square feet less than you do? Are you *really* living as simply as you could be? How about that latte you drink every morning? Couldn't you spend that money more wisely?

SEE? It's pretty offensive isn't it? :)
~Monica

Robin, you say that you have yet to meet anyone that if given the opportunity would not choose a larger space over a smaller one, all things being equal. Let me introduce myself: I'm Julia. There, we've met. About three years ago, I moved into a 1,200-square-foot 2-bedroom-plus-den apartment with my partner. Twelve hundred square feet feels big to me, although maybe it wouldn't to you since you've described your 950-square-foot apartment as "fairly small."

Before moving in together, my partner and I had each lived alone, and although we had small (under 500 square feet) apartments, we both managed to accumulate a surprisingly large amount of "stuff" (clothes, bedding, outdoor gear, books, miscellaneous housewares, etc.) Our new apartment had very little closet space, so we deposited most of our possessions in the extra bedroom and the den. Our stuff has stayed in those rooms, more or less untouched, for nearly three years, which means that a significant portion of our rent pays for space we can't use because it is filled with stuff we don't use. Initially, I thought this was because the idea of sorting through all of our possessions was completely overwhelming (which is partially true.) Then I thought it was because we were lazy (also somewhat true, I'm afraid.) Then I thought that maybe we had been so thoroughly indoctrinated by our consumption-driven culture that the idea of parting with our possessions was impossible (this might be a stretch.) However, I eventually realized that the primary reason we don't use our extra rooms is that we don't need them. It's as simple as that. The apartment is perfectly satisfactory to us as it is, with essentially only one bedroom and no den, so there has never been any urgency to make the extra space useable. Now that I know that we don't actually need a two-bedroom, I am anxious to downsize to a one-bedroom and put the savings toward something useful, like a down payment, but I haven't managed to convince my partner yet.

I must respectfully disagree with the statement that "living light" is more about financial limitations than a conscious decision to consume less. Every decision about where and how to live is a "trade-off" to some degree; choices between smaller but cheaper (or its twin, smaller but closer) and bigger but more expensive (or bigger but further away) will need to be made no matter what your budget. Of course every household's needs are different, and of course a big family will require more space than an individual or a couple, but I think the idea "living light" has hit a chord because many people are realizing not only that more isn't always worth the extra money, but also that less has benefits beyond simply being cheaper. These days, I look back wistfully on the years I lived overseas and could pack all of my possessions in two suitcases. As Maxwell and many of the commenters here have mentioned, there is a wonderful sense of freedom and contentment that comes with not having more (possessions, space, etc.) than you really need. Maybe fewer folks would take the plunge if living light didn't also have financial benefits, but saving money is definitely not the only factor behind this phenomenon.

I think the trend toward smaller living is also the by-product of greedy developers trying to squeeze more and more "luxury" units out of one footprint of building.

I also think it less a "zen choice" to live small than a symptom of the inability for many to live where they want, and afford it.

Am I living in 485 square feet because it is a spiritual experience? Hell no. I live here because I can't afford to live in anything bigger and still stay in Manhattan.

Do I want to live in 4,850 square feet? Hell no. But a bedroom with an actual door would be delightful, instead of living in something akin to (a fairly swanky) dorm room... after having been out of college for, ahem, a *few* years...

Julia--
I don't exactly follow your logic... um, you *did* move into a larger space, no? By choice, no?

And trust me, 1200 square feet is NOT truly "small" for an apartment, here in NYC or elsewhere. So the argument further unravels there...

There also seem to be two separate topics here (not just in your post): the conversation about living light relative to "stuff" and the necessities of life, and the issue of living in more or less space... two separate issues...

And trust me, offloading the stuff of life when you are so moved is waaaaaaaay more time consuming than "put an item on the curb" unless you have no qualms about how offloading the stuff contributes to landfills. I'm seriously offloading now, and it is practically a full-time job of shooting down Craigslist scammers and perpetually answering eBay shipping estimate questions. And yes, I have already gone the route of Housing Works, with great pride and no regret.

But, um, Laura--
If EVERYONE in Manhattan left just *one* thing on the curb, there would be a SERIOUS problem... not to mention the fact that I really don't want to walk down a street even temporarily lined with dented Billy bookcases and discarded Dollar Store torcheres...

Good distinction on the two separate topics here, Patrick (too). I guess my ideal would be to live small/light in a largish space (900-1100 sq ft).

--Depending on foot traffic and your neighborhood, you'd be surprised by what people pick up on the sidewalk. I once left an office chair I was tired of duct taping together, and it was gone in 20 mins. My neighborhood has become more transient in the last few years, however.

Does anyone else feel that Maxwell's 10% rule is couched in fairly harsh terms? He says "If your home is crowded and there's no room, life will pass you by and bring its energy to someone else's door." Can this be proven to be a fact? I feel vaguely threatened in the same way as when I'm confronted with one of those chain emails that say nothing good will ever happen to you unless you pass it on to 10 unsuspecting friends.

For over ten years, I've lived in a 450-square foot one bedroom apartment in San Francisco. In that time, I've pared back my posessions: selling off CDs, and two of four bookcases worth of books; pruning my wardrobe only to what I have actually worn in the past twelve months; eBay-ing all electronic and mechanical things that I don't actively use; consolidating memorabilia, photographing some of it for the memory and giving it away on Craigslist...

In the time I've lived here, I've actually gained space. My home is now an efficient machine for living, yet warm and inviting to all guests. Getting rid of the accumulations of modern life has been a joy (it helps that I'm already an anti-consumerist, and generally avoid all mass-media marketing by not having a TV or listening to commercial radio).

I think the tendency to "small" will gain traction, as people realize that the bill of goods they're being sold will not make them happier/sexier/slimmer/richer. The current iPod mania is somewhat representative: I know many people who are obsessed with their iPods and their enormous (15,000+) song collections, yet it almost seems as though the size of their music collection is a hindrance to their enjoyment of it. At some point, the amount of stuff you own forces you to become a "manager" of your possessions. And that's just not a good way to live life.

I lived in a 1400 square foot home and looking back I spent most of my time in only two of the rooms. Now I'm in a 600 square foot cape cod and "living small" and I don't feel cramped at all. We just don't need that much space and STUFF!

Patrick (the other one), my point is that 1200 square feet is too big for two people. Or at least it's too big for these two people (me and my partner.) We don't need all of the room we have, so the extra space gets filled with junk. Hence my desire to downsize.

Ah. That was totally not clear to me.

i too assist people in living without clutter, with an estethic in mind whatever the space. there is a freedom in lightening our load and a clarity that comes when we are not bogged down by things. our minds are cluttered enough.
it's been a few years since i've spoken to you, Maxwell, and this posting was very interesting to me. THANKS!

Andrea

"A cluttered room is the sign of a cluttered mind"
and therefore:

An empty room is the sign of an empty mind...

Seriously though I am concerned about people who seem to declutter just before moving to "start afresh" - surely if you give away stuff that you need and then buy a new version of it in the new home thats a huge waste of both money and planet resources, including the disposal of the old item

I think we need to concentrate more on furnishings that will stand the test of time and don't need replacing frequently - quality over quantity - we don't all need less things - we just need good things

It is very rare to see an Oprah show where the conversation becomes something completely unplanned, so this one was fascinating. While the show was ostensibly about living small, it became a discussion of living fulfilled. It was a great discussion, because virtually every interviewee confirmed the same sentiments. My question is: was it your decision or Oprah's not to mention Apartment Therapy? and why?