I think my home is about the right size for a small family, 2-3 people. It's actually over-the-top for just one person, even by contemporary standards, my 1470 sqft per person, when the current average in the USA is about 900 sqft per person, which is felt by many commentators to be excessive--but don't ask how they live. But if I lived in a small home suitable for just one person, how would I have parties, and, one fine day, attract a housemate? The bottom line seems to be that what I have is just about the right size, though it seriously needs de-junking to get the most out of it. That really is what it comes down to, it seems many people live in homes that are half or more "warehouse" storing junk. I've only barely gotten down to the 50% of non-junk space.
Here's one interesting post followed by interesting discussion. Many people seem quite happy with their sub 1200 sqft homes, and one person with 7000 sqft rants that there is a whole floor nobody ever uses and it leads to family breakdown. And if 7,000 sqft is too much for family cohesion, what about 64,000 sqft mansions of the robber baron era? Actually, come to think of it, many of those castles weren't scenes of extended family bliss. Searles Castle comes to mind, it was built with funds from the recently deceased railroad magnate Mark Hopkins, but his wife (for whom the castle Mark Hopkins himself had devoted the last years of his life to building in San Francisco wasn't good enough) only lived 3 years after it was commissioned, so it was barely finished, leaving the castle to the interior decorator who had married her, and endless stories of foul play (secret passageways, lovers, etc).
One comment about castles. Imagine the gardening and maintenance bills!!! The fortune required to keep a place like that going is at least as great as the one it took to build it.
Another virtue of staying reasonably small is that you can keep every room comfortable, at both modest expense and carbon footprint.
Here's one interesting post followed by interesting discussion. Many people seem quite happy with their sub 1200 sqft homes, and one person with 7000 sqft rants that there is a whole floor nobody ever uses and it leads to family breakdown. And if 7,000 sqft is too much for family cohesion, what about 64,000 sqft mansions of the robber baron era? Actually, come to think of it, many of those castles weren't scenes of extended family bliss. Searles Castle comes to mind, it was built with funds from the recently deceased railroad magnate Mark Hopkins, but his wife (for whom the castle Mark Hopkins himself had devoted the last years of his life to building in San Francisco wasn't good enough) only lived 3 years after it was commissioned, so it was barely finished, leaving the castle to the interior decorator who had married her, and endless stories of foul play (secret passageways, lovers, etc).
One comment about castles. Imagine the gardening and maintenance bills!!! The fortune required to keep a place like that going is at least as great as the one it took to build it.
Another virtue of staying reasonably small is that you can keep every room comfortable, at both modest expense and carbon footprint.
No comments:
Post a Comment