15_the_circle (
15_the_circle) wrote2007-03-14 06:46 am
small is beautiful
[gacked from
judywatt]
the Grove's legacy of small cottages nestled under large trees is threatened by economics and fashion: these days folk prefer larger houses and many of our little homes are being bloated to suit. every time it happens the whole place loses a small part of its essence.
the drive to super size isn't the universal, though. one designer/builder is bucking the trend (and who knows, perhaps setting another) -- see the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company.

no subject
I do agree with you though that the quest for McMansions is insane.
My little house is only 947 sq feet, and I'm quite happy with that.
no subject
at 14 x 74 feet the cottage's basic footprint comes to 1,035 ft2. that's not counting the porch, the loft, and the hideous addition out back that isn't used but hasn't yet been demolished.
no subject
no subject
>
> you're going to demolish that little back room?
>
no, not at all.
that room in back is the kitchen (which during an act of cottage bloatage was extended onto the back porch many, many years ago) and it will stay though its modern trappings (el cheapo aluminum frame sliding windows, etc.) will be consigned to the dumpster of history.
the addition is a 1½ storey lean-to shed on the N side to the rear: bulky, angular, massive and slabbed all over with T-111 siding. honestly, I can't bring myself to even take a picture of it though it has appeared in the background of some of the images in this space.
>
> I have come to feel like I know your cottage as another
> person on my fl
>
that is, I think, how LJ is supposed to work.
do drop by for tea next time you're passing through Maryland; if nothing else it would be interesting to see how your mental image of the place corresponds to the real thing.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-03-17 12:55 am (UTC)(link)