[Porsche-O-Phile]

I've been following this movement for several years and I find it encouraging that it's finally getting some traction and notice. What I'm calling "suburban micro housing" is an area that I'm working on independently as a focal part of my own architectural practice (two in schematic design, one in mid-CDs - maybe I'll post some graphics here later...) The so-called "micro housing" movement up until now has been centralized around dense urban spaces however I think there's a real opportunity to apply the same sorts of practices, efficiencies and sensibilities to less urbanized sites thereby maximizing green space, outdoor recreational areas, square footage for gardening or other agricultural / quasi-agricultural uses, etc. I am a huge proponent of "de-cluttering" and have been a staunch opponent of the "McMansionization of America" going back to even prior to when it became the "flavor of the month" in the heyday of the housing bubble - the mid-2000s.

It's really starting to get noticed and take hold - I hope permanently. The underlying mindsets (i.e. "bigger is not necessarily better", "reduce our footprint", "learn to co-exist better with nature", "more stuff does not equate to happiness", etc.) are sustainable, wise and frankly, just common sense. I'm fascinated with how to structure space in such a way that one's needs are met without feeling cramped in relatively low square-footage structures. There's a lot of precedent out there and many common themes can be identified.

The residential housing market in the United States in particular has been frankly idiotic for way too long - huge, oversized houses on postage stamp lots, built shoddily with low quality materials, then these "perfumed pigs" foisted onto others as part of an endless pattern of flipping (translation: "trying to dump the problems onto the next unsuspecting sucker"). The whole thing is horribly inefficient, unsustainable and ultimately serves only very greedy, very short-term-thinking developers and obnoxiously wealthy bankers (neither of whom I'm particularly in love with). There's a real opportunity here to build a new kind of community where people can enjoy all the positive aspects of homeownership (equity, sense of pride in community, no more "rental rut", personal pride and fulfillment, self-sufficiency, etc.) without feeling cramped or like they're living in a dollhouse.

Over the last few years I've worked hard to increase the efficiency of use of my present home - a 1940 craftsman style residence that (when I bought it) was in serious need of TLC and attention. It's 1,600 square feet (basically a 40'x40x plan) and reasonably compact / efficient. It quite comfortably houses me and three cats, often one other adult and occasionally up to two kids. I've got space left over and as time goes on and I'm able to pare down / donate / sell / get rid of stuff there's more and more "extra" space. I have no doubt that a family of two or three could quite comfortably live in <1,000 sq. ft. if they are thoughtful, reasonably clean and organized, don't get caught up in the consumerist hype and wanton "Walmartish" consumption habits - continually buying lots of junk they don't need.

To echo the above sentiment - there's nothing wrong with smallish residences with largish garages. The problem is that (1) too many garages get turned into junk collections / storage units rather than places to actually park motor vehicles and (2) they are usually sited poorly (from the street all one sees are big, bland boxes with enormous garage doors on them). If garages are used properly they can augment a thoughtful micro house and the associated lifestyle very, very well. If not, they become like too many recent suburban (I see this particularly in the midwest) residential subdivisions - moderate sized houses with insanely huge 4, 5 and 6-car garages glommed onto the front of them that *might* have a car in there occasionally. This is silly and poor use. The kinds of layouts I've been focusing on typically take the garage away from the street and integrate it into the site as an architectural element including a drive path and one or more walking paths. They can be attached or detached (or semi-attached) to the main residence. They absolutely do NOT stick a huge, 20' high box right up against the street-facing lot setback line (as is the typical developer approach). Semi-subterranean helps too (sometimes) - I've developed a scheme for a four-car garage on my own house that employs this to retain good visibility from the residence and "step up" the massing in a more thoughtful way than just slamming a giant garage onto the lot would.

The point is, I'm really, really excited as an architect about this movement and the potential it represents - buildings are starting to become thoughtful again and driven by client NEEDS, not what sales schlubs and greedy developers tell people they WANT. There is a huge opportunity here and I'm getting in on the ground floor. This really can lead to a better, more sustainable, more thoughtful sort of society if it's approached thoughtfully.

I'm VERY happy to see this topic on here. I'm a huge advocate of having only a few - typically nice - things and believe this is the most sensible way to go, balancing a need for enjoying life and the good things it has to offer, rewarding success against living sensibly, minimally and sustainably. This seems to be more of a prevailing mindset as time goes on and I hope it holds. I truly believe it will pay dividends for individuals (They will gain psychological and financial freedom by not being shackled to stupidly-expensive houses they don't need or by being stuck paying rent their whole life) and our society as a whole (by using our resources more thoughtfully than slamming up gigantic boxes made of plastic and Chinese-made toxic junk materials).