Originally Posted by Xeraux
The other thing I suspect about the "Tiny House Movement" it's another, "TV? I wouldn't know. I don't even own a TV."
"2,500 square feet? Wow. What do you do with all that space? I mean, I'd get lost in there. You see, I live in 250 square feet and that's more than enough."
They'll then proceed to tell you about living in their "Tiny House" in minute detail.
That and that "Tiny House" becomes as much hobby or pastime more so than a simply a dwelling.
Well, I tend to think of our palace, at 800 SF as more of a 'small' than a tiny house. For us, it did start as a luxury item - a second house. Our intention was not to live here full time when we bought the place.
I was fortunate that the place grew on my wife and I we decided to try it - and decided we do like it. For me, it's more location - I don't think that had we swapped our old place for this place in the location of our other house, we would be nearly as happy, but we swapped 1/5th acre for 7 acres and that makes another huge difference.
And, yea, we don't have a TV yet - use netflix on DSL since its cheaper than 'real' TV satellite service here. No cable.
I'm a fan of doing with less, but I don't think we have to live like monks, either.
Something about balance, right? There is adequate space, then there is vastly oversized, IMHO. Robert Mondavi's house in Napa Valley was 10,000 square feet, and a one bedroom. Granted he used it for a lot of entertaining, but seriously....