When talking about ‘sufficiency’ and building, the big buzz phrase is ‘self-sufficiency’— living without being dependent on the ‘grid’ or on oil/gas. Technology has advanced quite a bit in bringing us passive and active solar heating, solar generation of power via photovoltaic cells, and geothermal heating. Not only do we feel that we can become self-sufficient through these means, but we also feel good because we feel that in using them we are stepping a little more softly on the earth.
Another way – a little less popular perhaps – of minimizing our impact is to, as the bumper stickers say, ‘live simply so that others may simply live’: thinking and living with what will suffice – ‘enough’.
This is so personal an issue in the realm of developing programs for construction projects – one person’s desire is another person’s need – that it is a bit difficult to talk about. In the public or corporate realm, excesses often have to do with image – can I build a tower that is bigger than your tower? A church more lavish than your church? And doesn’t this make me seem more powerful?
In the realm of building private homes, developing a long list of needs has, I think, not so much to do with image as with personal comfort and wanting privacy. Examples are the popularity of the guest room so that visitors aren’t in a hide-a-bed in the living room, or the den where reading and work can be done away from the television.
The book The Not so Big House voices what many have felt – that small can be beautiful. It is hard to say how big a trend towards the small house is, though. Our thinking about needs in houses has changed so drastically over the last fifty years, it’s difficult to see whether or not people will ever find a reason to simplify. To see the change in what is considered a need, it’s interesting to look at plan books from the 1920s - 50s. Unlike in previous centuries, they had all the technology to do as we are doing. However, many of the needs were simpler. In the average middle class house there was one shared bathroom (the master bath was rare). A bathroom 5’ (the length of a standard bath) X 7’6’’ was the norm. Showers were not generally separate from the bath and baths were not in platforms. It was perfectly acceptable to have the laundry room in the basement, which is basically ‘free’ space. If there was a garage it was usually single. The kitchen was less a place of enjoyment and more a place to do a job as efficiently as possible.
Apart from the fact that the television and computer were not a part of life as they are now, were these simpler requirements a question of budget or was there a different mentality – a waste-not, want-not mentality of the generation that was affected by the Great Depression and World War II? Some people now have understandably become very attached to the idea of a great deal of space in their homes. Some would rather not build at all than have to make some compromises that might lead to using fewer natural resources or that might be easier on their pocket book.
As far as planning goes, the design of a smaller, ‘simpler’ house is actually more complex than that of a large one. Right from the beginning owners have to really think about their needs and decide what is ‘enough’ in terms of the number of rooms. A lot of time has to go into planning every detail because everything has to fit just so, and every inch has to be used efficiently.
Johanne Béland, Architect
Archfor@acbm.net
450-538-0605