Is it possible to live a certain kind of life in any kind of house? Maybe, maybe not:
The simplify movement that’s been on a low simmer in the United States for years often shows up as a reason for downsizing one’s house. The simple life, after all, can’t take place in a McMansion. Or can it? It depends on what you mean by “simple” and what ultimately makes you happy. After all, homes don’t just have costs. You pay a price for utility, and you must not neglect that side of the equation.
The article provides a number of pros and cons for downsizing one’s residence. The argument here is that the answer is not to simply avoid McMansions and all the square footage they offer; the issue is right-sizing:
Ultimately, whether downsizing is a good idea for any of us is the wrong question. The issue isn’t necessarily moving down in size, but in moving toward the right fit for our values and preferences: right-sizing. It’s possible that a house of the same size, situated elsewhere, is what you need. Or even, conceivably, a larger home.
An emphasis on right-sizing allows individual homeowners to determine what is best for them and allows that some could find that a McMansion is a good choice.
This might not work for those who would argue that McMansions do not work or should not work for anyone with their problems of size, dwarfing neighboring homes, poor architecture or quality, or symbolism of other problems such as sprawl and consumerism. Is is possible that McMansions are the housing answer for some but not for others? Or should they be banned and/or renovated as a whole category of housing?