Fine Homebuilding is currently selling a “best of” issue, focusing on “Small Homes.”
Wonderfull, I thought – just what we need, another puff piece plugging the glorified closets like the ones from “Tumbleweed.”Well, I was wrong.
The magazine instead showcases a number of ‘stylish’ homes and cottages. Now I was interested. I thought I’d compare these small wonders to, say, one of the tract homes typical in my mid-50’s developement.What I found surprised me.
First thing I noticed were the stairs.Nearly all of the ‘small’ houses had stairs; one model had multiple levels. Stairs might help with your overall footprint, but they gobble up useable space. Think about it: even a single flight takes a 4-ft x 12-ft piece out of TWO levels. I submit that’s nearly 100 sq.ft of space that would make ahuge difference to any room. Plenty of bedrooms are smaller than that.
Next, I noticed the ‘amenities.’ Most of the showcased homes lacked laundry facilities, and had less kitchen counter space than my house. Most combined the tub with the shower; several dispensed with the tub completely.
Well, what did I expect? After all, we’re talking about “small homes,” aren’t we? There’s the rub! Except for a single ‘accessory dwelling unit,” every house featured was larger than the ‘standard”-size tract home. While the tract home came in at just under 1000 sq. ft, the “practically planned” opening model was described as 1600 sq. ft.
Apart from raw square footage, the showcased homes all added substantial decks (not counted) and other outdoor spaces. One even had the ‘shower’ accessible only from the outside.
What sort of logic makes a house ‘small,’ when compared to a ‘normal’ house that’s a third smaller?
The tract home used for comparison is hardly a hovel. Originally designed with three bedrooms, these are the homes most ofus were raised in, and are still a mainstay of the real estate market.