A Rant for the Week

Well, it’s been awhile since I went off the deep end and ranted about any one thing, but today I cannot help myself. And maybe I am totally off base and live in my own little suburban world, but I have a feeling that I am still the sane one.In the current issue of Dwell, there is a letter to the editor from John D. of Staten Island. It is short and in its entirety says:

“Why glorify the small home (March 2008)? A small home might serve its purpose for a progressive couple, but anyone with kids or a family will soon realize that 1,000 square feet is never going to be enough. Living small seems responsible at first, but living that small will never catch on. Living modest might: Modest homes of 2,500 square feet, and creative ways to fit and furnish them, are a burgeoning trend, and I’d like to see this aspect of responsible living explored more.”

So, living in suburbia as I do, I should be content with a modest 2500 square foot home? Hmmm. Sarcasm aside, of everyone I know in my area of $1mil+ homes, only two live in “modest” abodes, the rest of us schlumps live in cramped quarters under 2000 sf. My grandparents spent most of their retired life in a trailer of under 50 feet. Not a double wide, not some large modular thing, just a simple trailer, similar to an Airstream. They never seemed hindered by the lack of storage space or being without a kitchen island. The biggest house I have ever lived in or owned is under 1800 sf, including my current home where I raised 3 kids. No cramps here. Our relatives who live on the coast of England live in less than 1200 square feet and are quite content. I never considered these spaces small. I consider them adequate, comfy, and much easier and quicker to clean than a bigger home.

So, I want to know, when did 2500 square feet become “modest” and whose reality is that?