Alice ate an enlarging cookie in my blogpost last month and grew to be a giant, along with her house. This month I ask you to imagine that she gnaws on a diet cookie and, shrinking, craves a smaller, much smaller, abode. I am referring, of course, to the “tiny house” movement. The notion that a person, a pair of people, or even a couple with kid(s) can exist within the same 150-300 square feet of indoor space without committing homicide seems, at face value, laughable. But what sinks one person’s boat may float another’s. Even MIT’s Media Lab is one of multiple innovation centers studying the application of origami-like efficient furniture-folding that enables the smart repurposing of very small spaces from kitchens to bedrooms to studies, to lounges, to showers and toilets. The small houses showcased on HGTV extol the cheap price, the high environmental efficiency, and the portability of the structures. (Although studies on the mental health of the occupants have yet to be carried out.)
What do you think the possibilities could be for Newton?
If land is so expensive here, should we start thinking inside a very small box?