A frequently recurring conversation around these parts is how small a space we'd be willing to live in, in exchange for living in a great town. It's no secret that the more desirable the location, the more expensive the real estate. And, of course, the more expensive the real estate, the less square footage you get for your dollar.
Will's position is pretty balanced: he wants to live somewhere great, but also likes some space. My position is more extreme: for me, it boils down to location, location, location. In our hypotheticals, I'd nearly always trade square footage for the opportunity to live in a desirable locale.
Still, I am positive I could never go this small (the great hole in my argument):
For one thing, where would I keep my snow globe collection?
While there's no way I could do it, I think architect Matthew Hofmann's redesign of his 1978 Airstream, which he lives in, is admirable. He's living sustainably in a clean space, he's living minimally, and he pays nothing to live on a beautiful California view property on the Southern Coast.
I love this part:
I sold and no longer own: A dvd player, audio receiver, 7 speaker surround sound, plasma tv, desktop PC, laptop computer, countless remote controls, wireless home speaker system, and portable radio. I then purchased: an iMac.I could certainly vacation in a Hofmann-styled Airstream for a week at a time.
But then I'd need extra square footage on which to park it.