With so much talk about down sizing these days, I thought it might be a bit thought provoking to explore the opposite end of this spectrum: up-sizing.
Small house. Much larger house. 1,000 square feet. 10,000 square feet. Ten times larger. One house is old. The other is new. One house is short. The other house tall. Sounds like lines from a Dr. Suess book !
Both houses serve the same purpose; to shelter humans from nature’s elements and to protect them from harm’s way. How many square feet does it take to do that? For some a Tiny House is just the thing…kind of like a camper on a permanent lot. And for others room to spread out including amenities that a small house cannot encompass. Things like eight bathrooms, ten bedrooms, a kitchen large enough for several families to cook in at the same time, a dining room that seats twenty-something, a family room with multiple TVs, a pool table, game tables, lots of couches, a wet bar and the list goes on.
Is a large house, the up-size one, built for practical purposes or for prestige? Maybe both. Not my place to judge. It appears the new house will be beautiful when completed. It appears the little house served its purpose for fifty-plus years. Times change and so has the economy. Values, needs, wants, locations and so much more are different than in the 1950s. So, which house would you choose to live in?
The one that’s easier to clean.
A practical man indeed!
A practical man to be sure !
As you know I photograph houses for a living and see all sorts tbh but I think think those really big houses are excessive and mostly unnecessary – I like most would like a little more space but I frequently see people rattling around in big houses that they don’t need.
My thoughts in most cases. Thanks for the response and keep on shooting those mansions!