Is bigger really better?

Across the country, people are starting to reject the trend of ever larger houses, choosing instead to build smaller, more nurturing and sensible homes. These scaled down homes require fewer natural and human resources, money and time to build, maintain, heat, cool and clean, and take up less ground area.

The following excerpt from "The Not So Big House" by architect Sarah Susanka (www.notsobighouse.com) explains why so many people are choosing smaller homes:

"The current pattern of building big to allow for quantities of furniture with still more room to spare is more akin to wearing a sack than a tailored suit. It may offer capacity, but at the cost of comfort and charm. Spaciousness, although it can look appealing in a photograph, just isn't conducive to comfort. Many of the huge rooms we see in magazines today are really only comfortable to be in when they are filled with people. For one or two, or for a family, they can be overwhelming. And when they feel overwhelming, they don't get used."

Unfortunately, the development industry has been slow to recognize that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Most new subdivisions still have rules that require a certain minimum home size, often in excess of 2,000 square feet, no matter how many people will live there. Buyers can be forced to build their new house much larger than they want or need. This will not happen at Sunridge.

Sunridge does not require a minimum dwelling size, and the Architectural Review Committee cannot require that a proposed dwelling be made larger as a condition of approval. Instead, we encourage you to build the smallest residence that will suit your needs, and to spend the savings on improvements to quality.