Smaller is Better
October 31st, 2005 
by Susan Harris
"McMansions" are a hot topic these days, whether the huge homes are part of new developments or the result of tear-downs amongst much smaller homes. And this letter to the Washington Post editor caught my eye the other day. The quote follows an account of visiting a new mansion in her modest neighborhood.
"The thing is, I really believe that as a community, we need to make do with less. We don’t need to heat massive living rooms with cathedral ceilings in the winter. We don’t need to dig granite from the earth to make our kitchens fancier. Most of us don’t need his-and-hers walk-in closets, home offices or designer appliances.
"The bigger the house, the bigger the waste. We waste our time maintaining the house and grounds. We waste our money on upkeep and updates. We waste precious natural resources on cooling and heating. We permanently alter the landscape around us, usually for the worse. And in most cases we keep filling our space with more stuff. Who needs that? Not me. But what I wouldn’t give for a mudroom…"
Which raises some interesting questions. Like is the writer a gardener? (Why else want a mudroom?) What about her assertion that maintaining the grounds is a waste of our time? Okay, on second thought she’s definitely not a gardener. But I have to say that her opinion that "we permanently alter the landscape around us, usually for the worse" is probably correct. Certainly that’s true of new developments - you know the ones that look like Monopoly boards with houses on otherwise empty lots? Even in older neighborhoods, tear-downs often require the destruction of large trees, though the new homeowner may end up installing more plants than were there before.
On a personal note, I faced a tiny, poorly made house for many years until it was torn down and replaced with a large but beautiful and well made home by its architect-owner, so I have mixed feelings on the subject. I mean that little house was butt-ugly. Maybe the moderate position is that it’s okay to replace bad housing with better housing, but let’s question how big the replacement really has to be because her thoughts about our excessive lifestyles are definitely on target. I await your thoughts.
Posted in Culture | 
| Permalink
October 31st, 2005 at 1:39 pm
“replaced with a large but beautiful and well made home by its architect-owner” - upgrading and making the neighborhood look better?
I’ve nothing against that. I do believe that we need to redefine what a modern house needs. The Susan Susanka books are worth a look:
http://www.notsobighouse.com/
I know what the author is objecting, tho. I work for an architect who makes big uglies, and he and I were driving on the way to one of his houses on a lovely winding road that passed long neighborhoods of 30’s and 40’s lake cottages. I was busy absorbing the tranquil scenery when he said, “Somebody should buy up all these eyesores and put some real houses down there. Look at all that wasted waterfront.”
Argh!
October 31st, 2005 at 4:13 pm
The writer certainly has some good points to make. In my city, the biggest money earner for the government is ’selling’ land. Actually, we live in a Territory, not a State, and the land will always be owned by the Government. We can’t buy the land outright - we buy a 99 year lease. The city was established less than 100 years ago but some blocks are nearing the end of that 99 years and no-one seems to know how they will be dealt with after that. But at the moment land is being ’sold’ in smaller and smaller blocks so that people are building big houses which take up almost the entire block. There’s no room to plant a decent tree, or for kids to play, and the micro-climate is heating up as a result and so are people’s tempers as they try to live independent lives so close to their neighbours. I know people used to live close together years ago but society has changed and we’ve lost that sense of community and become much more selfish and insular.
The costs of heating and cooling these homes is an ever-increasing drain on diminishing resources, even though the occupants are absent for most of the time as they try to earn enough money to pay for these large homes. (I guess there’s no time to work in a garden anyway and no time to have children!)
At a time when we’re all being urged to become more environmentally conscious, I (and many others) am appalled at the sight of practically every new house being built without eaves. Now, that may be all very well in Europe, but in Australia, where the majority of days are sunny (even in winter) and hot in the summer, we need protection from that direct heat. Of course, the current solution is to install air-conditioners (greenhouse gasses, etc. fossil fuels, etc. etc. etc. ….!)
I’m sure you realise that I could go on, and on and …
October 31st, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I totally agree with both of you. Susan Susanka’s books are excellent and I own two of them. I have never understood why anyone would want a huge house. I have always owned small houses because they just make sense to me. I am a comfort hound who likes a cosy home. The cost to heat and maintain a large home seems like such a waste to me. I think many homes are poorly designed. I would also rather have a well built smaller home with beautiful finishing,than a larger one done cheaply. Which seems to be the case in my area.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Hmm you raise an interesting point - well several of them acutally. For years we lived in a very small home on a typical Australian 1/4 acre block. Then we bought two acres and built a reasonably large home. I must admit the new house does give us more room to breath - with five of us there needs to be some space around us and the large garden allows us to be much more self sufficient in vegies, fruit and eggs. Do I need a large house - well no when it comes to cleaning, but yes when it comes to space. We tried to make it as energy efficient as we could and utalise every corner of both house and land. I have to admit though there is no way I coud go back to living on a 1/4 acre again. I like having room to move outside - where every conversation isn’t heard by the neighbours and if you open your bedroom window you don’t look into the neighbours. Lots of the new developments around Swan Hill are huge houses on very small blocks with no garden - although many of the conditions of purchase are that you plant a large tree in the front garden, and one in the back. Why I don’t know, there is no room for a large tree. The privacy issue they have resolved by putting a reflective material on the windows to prevent anyone looking in, but you can see out. Like Alice, new homes here don’t have eaves. Me - I’m all for verandahs - as large as possible.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Catherine - It’s interesting that when we built our house 30 years ago that reflective insulation film was very common, but seems to be a thing of the past here now.
I must say, I would love to have a bigger garden although I don’t think I could look after it properly now. There is a big difference between your garden and many of those that I think the writer of the original article was referring to. Your block of land is actively gardened, it doesn’t just have a few trees, shrubs and square of lawn just for the sake of having it. Your garden is fully productive with vegies, fruit, shrubs and flowers to encourage birds and bees, and you are also instilling a love of plants and gardening in your children; something that may be fairly uncommon in future years.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:28 pm
My family is very small. We only have one child so having a small house is very do able. I would still live here if we had two,but if we had three, I’m all for big! LOL
November 1st, 2005 at 7:56 am
I used to look at many of new houses, and not-so-new houses, in England and think how cute they were - just like dolls’ houses, but I couldn’t imagine bringing up four children in them.