I have a deep interest in very small living spaces, as I’ve written here and here.
When Hubby and I were in New York last weekend, we stayed in a 1900-era Chelsea SRO; most of the people in the building were long-term residents. I estimated the space was about 150 square feet with a kitchenette but no bathroom and at the end of the day imagined how generations of people before us made it a home. Returning to our 700-ish square foot apartment seemed like returning to a palace: one that we can afford to rent but not buy. Should we try and buy an apartment, we would probably have to find something smaller.
Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a story (“Living (small)” by Terri Sapienza) about a Dupont Circle resident who bought a 187 square foot condo and wanted to decorate it in grand style. Well, perhaps not that small for two grown men, but you get the idea. While not everyone would share this homeowner’s tolerance for small spaces, smaller living can improve your financial health, disabuse you of the need to acquire things, and put you in the heart of a city. Living with less means using less and that’s an environmentally-sustainable way of living.
Some del.icio.us links I’ve gathered along the way, too.
One Reply to “The tiny apartment”
That’s a good article in the Post. The LA Times ran an article a year ago about “small spaces” and the smallest space was 1200 square feet.
We live in a cottage we managed to buy eight years ago. It’s just under 600 square feet + a music studio. The only trouble spots have been acquiring initial financing (many lenders require a minimum number of square feet) and possibly adopting children (again there’s a minimum amount of square feet). Other than that, just as you say, it improves our financial health and lessens the need to acquire.