I love living in small spaces. Not only is it more environmentally friendly to reduce your bio-footprint but you also spend less on heating and housekeeping the fewer square feet per person you have.

Friends and real estate agents look at me like I’m crazy when I rule out a property for being too big. In Seattle finding a small house is not that hard since most homes near downtown were built before 1950 but it is difficult to find one that hasn’t been molested by an overzealous renovation.

Ever since the ’50s home buyers have been saying “supersize me” yet the average American family has been shrinking. The pendulum is now swinging back the other way for homes as more and more people are opting for fewer square feet that are more functional as opposed to the “bigger is better” mentality of recent decades.

…

Posted by marie.hagman, 05/23/2008 11:54am

Thanks Marie. Katrina, meet Marie. Have coffee. Chat.

It brings back to mind your blog post from just a few days ago containing the idea that the only real cost today of staying in the suburbs in a very large house was the extra 10 bucks a week gas has gone up in the last few weeks.

Some of the costs of a larger home you bring up here in this post, property tax, utilities, maintenance – now suddenly seem relevant.

I guess the Herbert family is feeling the full and true costs of owning a home far larger than they need. I guess one only experiences those higher costs if they somehow change recently. Or something. Otherwise, they don’t seem to exist.

Suburban magic!

Love the blog! Cheers.