Does it have to be tiny?

The American Dream has virtually always been:  more + bigger = better.

The fad and trend that's predominated the last many decades has been to stretch yourself to the limit in order to acquire the most impressive home possible.  This home would prove that you were successful, and obviously make you comfortable and happy.

Over many decades, that's turned into crazy-big homes which required large incomes to buy and maintain, along with massive consumption of resources to build and live in.

Is it a palace or a large, single family American home? Is this the American Dream?

​Now-a-days, it's not surprising that the new trend is all about the teeniest tiniest home possible.  The pendulum tends to swing, doesn't it?  Like most things in life, we tend to learn from experience and then often run the other way.  Now, the smaller, more minimal and more mobile a home, the better.
​

Tiny homes are now all the rage.

Does it have to be 'tiny' to be smaller, simpler and more eco-friendly?

​Tiny is fine if that's what you really need or want, but it's pretty extreme and unsustainable by most standards. 

​A more manageable and still meaningful downsize might mean reclaiming older, smaller homes and shifting to a less consumerism mentality, while still participating in a mainstream community and lifestyle.
​

~ blog post continued below ~

​First, what really is the tiny movement?

Before we can understand the difference between tiny and small, it feels like it's important to understand a bit about what's behind this movement...

​Tiny homes are the extreme opposite of the now typical American home.  It is generally agreed that the tiny house movement is something totally new and inspired.  It's a buzzy, trendy topic right now and the tinier the better according to media coverage.  It gets eyeballs and shares -- because it's pretty astonishing to imagine a whole family living in what most Americans would consider barely adequate for a walk-in closet.  

The Right Motivations
The motivation for the movement is generally focused on financial, ecological, as well as psychological benefits (as in: less stress about big bills and environmental impacts).  I think those truly are perfect reasons for wanting to downsize and simplify your lifestyle.  But I disagree that one has to go from what is now typical in the U.S. to the extreme opposite in order to be gentle on the planet and on your psyche.

Amazingly, this is a pretty typical suburban American home in many parts of the country.

​Bigger = Happier?
The average American home is now 2,700 square feet, which is a 50% increase over the still large 1,500 square foot average in 1973.  The overall trend is a forever increasing one.  Yet at the same time, the average size of a family has been decreasing.  So if the American dream includes living in the largest home you possibly can, does that mean that Americans are happier now?

According to a recent article in The Atlantic, this means that the average home provides each resident in an average American family almost 1,000 square feet of their own.  Each person!  Seriously?  By my math, I figure that your average, slightly overweight American can only occupy somewhere between 4 to 9 square feet at any given moment. 

And, not surprisingly, that study indicates that these people aren't any happier with their residential situation than they used to be.  Here's why - because bigger and better are always going to be relative terms.  If it all comes down to comparing how much home you have to the newest, biggest McMansion in the neighborhood, then you will always be disappointed.  

That feels unsustainable and misguided on many levels.  But so is the idea of going to the other extreme and cramming your life into a 100 square foot tiny home. ​

​What is the difference between tiny & small?

​​So what actually is a "tiny home" and how does that compare to a "small home"?

According to Wikipedia:

• A "tiny" home is anything less than 400 square feet, with some going as small as 100 square feet, and are often on wheels or a trailer, but not always.  

​

• A "small home" is anything from 400 to 1,000 square feet.  

Perhaps, it isn't really the exact square footage that matters so much as whether the house is "right sized" for your family size and lifestyle.  And that the focus of the home is now quality of materials and thoughtfully designed spaces rather than just masses of vastness.   

It forces you to really consider how much you really need and how much you can truly afford given the job or career that you really feel good about.  What are the things you own really worth to you in terms of a financial, practical, and ecological limitations or goals?


​

​By my math, I figure that your average, slightly overweight American can only occupy somewhere between 4 to 9 square feet at any given moment. 

Small is certainly a relative term.  So small today may still be larger than it was 40 years ago.  And small for you might be too tiny for your neighbor even though you might share similar goals of living a smaller and simpler lifestyle.
​

Tiny homes are certainly charming and cozy. And... idyllic.

​benefits & challenges of smaller

​​There are some obvious benefits of living in a smaller home:

• Less expensive to build and maintain
• Less work to clean and easier to furnish
• Less environmental impact from construction to energy consumption
• Mobility in the case of tiny homes on wheels

There are also many less obvious benefits: 

• More flexibility and freedom to pursue other interests in life
• The opportunity to work less, increase your free time, and spend more time with your loved ones
• Less stuff, less clutter, less chaos
• More connection to nature, your environment, the community and the seasons

There are challenges too, for sure.  It requires setting some clear priorities, making some choices, putting in the effort to off-load the material things in your life that no longer serve you.  The limits of less space force you to continue to live in a less materialistic way, and might make it tricky to put up guests or host large events.  Those can be emotionally charged changes for some people. 

Oh, and for some the fact that their home isn't the biggest and fanciest on the block might require eliminating their egos from the equation - big challenge for many Americans.

​the eco-benefits reality

​​With respect to the environmental benefits, it turns out that the benefits go beyond the obvious reduced footprint and resource consumption. 

In a recent article, Maria Saxton found that people who downsized their lifestyles ended up reducing their environment impact in surprising ways around food, transportation, consumption of goods and services and many other lifestyle choices.  This tends to make intuitive sense to me, since the people who are motivated enough to make the downsize choice are thinking about those issues in general.  But her point was that sometimes there were unintended reductions that naturally occurred.

Advantages of Smaller over Tiny
Something I haven't really seen talked about anywhere is:  what about the eco-benefits of recycling already existing older homes that by definition are smaller and in more human-sized communities? 

Here at The Whiskey Porch, I am advocating for smaller and simpler lifestyles, but maybe going extreme and buying/building new tiny homes isn't the most environmentally sound choice.  

​
​There are inventories of older, smaller homes that are architecturally stunning yet not always appreciated as a modern alternative. 

That is most definitely the case here in Prescott, Arizona where we are lucky enough to live. ​

An older cottage in Prescott, AZ. Small & sweet. #porchesofprescott

​Often, it requires a bit of effort, time and money to bring an older home back to life, but the impact of doing so is much easier on the lifestyle adjustments while still reducing your overall environmental impact.

Consider that it doesn't have to be tiny to be a meaningful change.  And if it's less daunting for the majority of Americans to go small rather than tiny, wouldn't that amount to a massive improvement in our overall well-being that's more likely to occur than the tiny-trend?

I hope we can get more people talking and thinking about this idea - even though it's not as extreme or buzz-worthy.