Media Platforms Design TeamAnthony Easton/FlickrSmall, medium, or super-sized? The New York Times and the Miami Herald offer two varying opinions about the size of the typical house of the future. As I mentioned in a recent post, a Times assessment of data from the American Institute of Architects concludes that big is coming back. However, the Herald published an article about a week later sharing the virtues of small-space living, and seemed of the opinion that smaller homes would be a lasting trend.The Herald article also goes on to share a few tips from British designer and author Terence Conran. In his recent book How to Live in Small Spaces, Conran explores some benefits of small-space living, such as:● Location: Smaller homes need less land, making prime locations that much more affordable.● Quality: If you need 1000 square feet instead of 3000, you can spend more on quality materials and furnishings.● Efficiency: The energy savings of a smaller home are obvious.Big houses, of course, aren’t without benefits themselves. I’ve seen many a three-car garage stuffed to the gills with kayaks, bicycles, and beer fridges. In the end, it’s about personal preferences, family size, and need for specialized spaces such as home-offices and Zen-infused yoga studios. Personally, I expect to stay on the smaller side of things. What about you?Tim Layton is a home and DIY blogger for Popular Mechanics. Follow him on Twitter: @RemodelingGuy
