Philip Johnson Scholar
The main structure at the Glass House is smaller than 2,000 sq. ft. Of course, it looks out on 50 acres of landscape, but 2,000 is still a very small total square footage by the standards of contemporary American design. Since McMansions are still being built within a short drive of New Canaan's great modernist homes, it seems the lessons of "less is more" have still to be learned. Is it time for architects and designers to reconsider how to make houses that are luxurious, yet small, which will use less energy and far fewer resources for construction? What do you think the market would be for upscale structures that don't necessarily include huge baths and kitchens?
How can we scale down our homes and our image of luxurious living?
Mimi gave the final word
Perhaps it’s best not frame this discussion around polarities: less/more, upscale/downscale, big/small, urban/suburban. The things that make small spaces livable are the truisms of much architecture, be it vernacular or modern: quality of light and air, comfortable proportions, attention to detail and materials, and access to outdoor space.
While, there’s been a movement among both tiny house enthusiasts and mainstream builders to downsize new construction, less attention has paid to what these spaces actually feel like and how they function.
Friday, May 27 at 5:14pm
Selected list of words appearing in this and other conversations.