In thinking about current housing trends in these United States I can’t help but wonder which end of the very broad spectrum is the more ludicrous: the under 400-square-foot tiny house or the 26,000-square-foot mega-mansion.
While I don’t believe either of those extremes represent any real or significant trend—they are just bookends—I don’t think that I would want to live in either one of them.
The interest in the tiny-home phenomena seems driven by gimmickry at best, especially considering that some of the tiniest homes are in what seems to be the barely livable 80- to 100-square-foot range. In trying to envision an 80- to 100-square-foot living space the only thing I can come up with is a single stall in a horse barn.
And yet I’m intrigued by both the buildings and those who might want to call one of them home.
Many of these tiny dwellings are on wheels, which speaks to the nomadic nature of much of our society. Many of them look like homemade camping trailers, which may be a reaction to not wanting to buy into the boring homogeneity represented by an Airstream. And many of them cost far more than a conventional house or, for that matter, an Airstream, which speaks to perhaps an unparalleled level of idiocy. And yet, some travel trailers cost more than conventional houses—yet another level of idiocy. Go figure.
The good news is that it seems that perhaps the interest in these mini-homes is dwindling…the fad might be over, or at least on its last legs. The number of commercial solicitations about these tiny houses I’ve been receiving in recent weeks (few, compared to just a few months ago), seems to support that.
I’m neither an architect nor designer, but I can’t begin to imagine how one could make a livable home out of such a space.
My office is housed in what we believe was a carriage or coach house built as an adjunct to the main house, which was constructed in 1900 by Park High School’s first principal, Lewis Terwilliger, who just happened to be the Grand Dragon of Montana’s Ku Klux Klan as well as the state’s Masonic Grand Master.
But that’s another couple of stories.
Our out building has an interior that measures 11′ x 17′, smaller by about 120 square feet than a modern one-car garage. A couple of friends helped me convert the building many years ago and we created a comfortable, heated/cooled space where I can comfortably work year-round. I have a large desk and shelving that houses most of my library. It has an 11′ x 5′ storage loft over what is an 11′ x 5′ space where I have a small workbench, refrigerator and freezer. It has no running water or, obviously, toilet facilities.
The total footage, including the loft, is 242 square feet. Although I spend long days and evenings in my office, I wouldn’t want to live in it.
To reconfigure the space to add the necessary plumbing (a cheap proposition coming in; an expensive one going out), a compact kitchen, sleeping quarters and perhaps a closet, I would lose both a place to work and considerable storage space. To increase the space to the tiny-house maximum of 400-square-feet that would provide space for the basic comforts listed, it would cost, at $165 per square foot (the average cost in my part of Montana for conventional construction), just a little over $10,000.
But it would still be only 400 square feet, 95 square feet less than the average one-bedroom flat in the United Kingdom. And a survey by Point 2 Homes, shows that the average American currently lives in 656 square feet. That number indicates that the newest home being constructed in the super-exclusive Yellowstone Club in Big Sky, Montana, should comfortably house 39.6 people.
It won’t.
The house, part of a community of mostly part-time residents whose wallet biopsies must prove a bank balance hovering in the neighborhood of the European Union’s total asset value just to pass through the front gate, is a 26,000-square-foot timber-frame structure that is being built for a Silicon Valley tech billionaire who will share the space with his wife and their three children whenever they happen to be there.
Beyond the obvious notion that some believe that bigger is better and that the concept is directly associated with wealth and power, what, other than greed and avarice, could possibly motivate such selfish extravagance? His Silicon Valley employees live in or around a community in which 23% of the children live in poverty (CNN); it is a place where two full-time jobs don’t necessarily guarantee a family’s protection from homelessness.
There must be a certain smugness that accompanies the attitudes of the nouveau riche.
Apparently, they don’t want to mingle with the rest of us. (In a 26,000-square-foot house they maybe don’t want to mingle with each other.) They value most those things that most of us can’t afford, which may be the motivation in itself. They want to protect their privacy and their “viewscape,” a concept I first heard some twenty years ago when people I knew were upset about a house being built on a land bench beneath what they thought of as their private horizon. The new structure wasn’t going to block their view, but it would become an unwanted part of their view. I made the suggestion to them that they were selfish idiots.
Living large is an obvious ambition of the tech billionaire, but his ambitious log structure pales by comparison to hundreds of other homes measured by the square foot. It might upset him to learn that his Yellowstone Club house would barely qualify as a guest house for the 135,280-square-foot Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina. There are scores more of these palaces scattered about the country, a mere handful of them having been built during this century.
Even the six-story White House, or, as Trump calls it, “this incredible house, or building, or whatever you want to call it — because there really is no name for it,” has 55,000 square feet. Of course, most it is designated as office and meeting space.
Housing for the middle class is slowly growing in size. While the average single-family home in 2015 was 2,687 square feet, 31% of new homes built in that year were more than 3,000 square feet. Italian families live in single-family homes that average 978 square feet, with new construction starts actually decreasing in size to an average of 891 square feet. In France the average house provided 957 square feet; new housing starts are up to 1,228 square feet.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with large houses is that one needs a lot of stuff to fill them up. If one has an eight-car garage, for instance, one probably has (or soon will have) eight cars. The flip side is that a tiny home provides room for no possessions.
The good news is that a tiny house on wheels will only take up two spaces should you ever have an eight-car garage.
Chicken Paprikash
Apropos of perhaps nothing, 1928 Herbert Hoover’s presidential campaign advertising promised that if he were elected there would “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.”
- ¼ cup lard or vegetable shortening
- 1 (3-4 lb.) chicken, cut into 8 pieces
- 3 Tbs. Hungarian sweet paprika, plus more for garnish
- 1 large yellow onion, finely chopped
- 1 clove garlic, minced
- 3 Tbs. tomato paste
- 2 cups chicken stock
- 1 frying pepper, stemmed, seeded, and cut into 1″ pieces
- 1⁄2 cup sour cream, for serving
- Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper, to taste
Melt fat in a 6-qt. saucepan over medium-high heat.
Season chicken with salt, pepper and one tablespoon of paprika. Working in batches, cook the chicken, turning once, until browned, 8–10 minutes. Transfer chicken to a plate and set aside.
Add onion to pan; cook, stirring occasionally, until soft, 6-8 minutes. Add garlic and remaining paprika; cook, stirring, for 2 minutes. Return chicken and its juices to the pan. Add stock, tomato paste, and frying pepper; bring to a boil. Reduce heat to medium-low and simmer, partially covered, until chicken is fully cooked, about 30 minutes.
Transfer chicken and sauce to a serving platter; spoon sour cream over top and garnish with more paprika. Serve with boiled rice or egg noodles.
Photography by Courtney A. Liska