Learn to Live the Not-So-Big Lifestyle
(Page 2 of 4)
Oct. 14, 2008
By Troy Griepentrog
When people hear “not so big,” they might think “small.” Are you suggesting that most people should downsize?
RELATED CONTENT
The Healthy Building Network’s Pharos Project aims to tap the collective knowledge of green buildin...
Put up a pole building (or pole barn) for a fast, solid and cost-effective workshop, storage space ...
Surprising answers to common questions about this popular alternative building method....
Lloyd Kahn’s home building books, including “Shelter,” “Home Work” and “Builders of the Pacific Coa...
Is your garage cluttered with leftover wood, drywall or paint? Are you not sure what to do with ext...
Well, to a degree, but not completely. Yes, downsize. No, it doesn’t mean small. This is really about what I call “right-sizing,” understanding that the absolute scale is not the point. The point is to take your personal needs and match them to a house that’s just the right size for you and your family. For me, that may be a very different scale than for someone who is extremely wealthy. They may be able to spend more and build more space. For them, that is the right answer. I don’t want to pass judgment on them. I just want to give them the tools to make their house the best it can possibly be.
You suggest that budgets reserved for larger spaces would be better spent on higher quality. Are “not-so-big” houses less expensive?
No, and one of the things that I have to let people know is that this book is not about saving money. Often people hear “not so big” and think “not so expensive,” and I tell people this is really about reapportioning dollars: square footage into quality and character. But the completed house will be just as expensive. I’m just helping you to rethink how you’re spending the money that you have available.
Are there any financial advantages to owning a not-so-big house?
The long-term maintenance costs of a not-so-big house should be substantially lower than an average house. There’s less square footage to heat and cool. The walls, ceilings and windows are better designed and more energy efficient. There is a hidden benefit to a not-so-big house: It will maintain itself much better over time. That’s a big part of the not-so-big mentality; it’s not all show. There’s real substance beneath the walls. These houses will be around 300 years from now.
You stress making homes beautiful. Why are the aesthetics of a home so important? Isn’t utilitarian design more “green”?
There’s something that’s become even clearer to me in the last 10 years: Beauty is, by its very nature, an extremely green action. Beautiful houses built 100 to 200 years ago are still around. The ugly ones are torn down rather quickly. So, you can build a green house that has all the energy-efficiency bells and whistles, but if it’s ugly, it’s not going to be around 60 years from now. My point is that “not so big” should really be the first step to sustainability. It needs to be right-sized and give you a sense of well-being, including a place to live in aesthetically.
